Letters and Letter Writing 350679048X, 9783506790484

Citation preview

Letters and Letter Writing

Papyri and the New Testament Editors Peter Arzt-Grabner (Salzburg) John S. Kloppenborg (Toronto) Christina M. Kreinecker (Leuven) Advisory Board Lincoln H. Blumell (Provo) Sabine Huebner (Basel) Angela Standhartinger (Marburg) Michael Theophilos (Melbourne)

Vol. 2

Peter Arzt-Grabner

Letters and Letter Writing

Cover illustration: BGU 2.417 [2.83] (P.Berol. inv. 7929), courtesy of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. © 2023 by Brill Schöningh, Wollmarktstraße 115, 33098 Paderborn, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Brill Wageningen Academic, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. www.brill.com Cover design: Evelyn Ziegler, Munich Production: Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn ISSN 2751-9473 ISBN 978-3-506-79048-4 (hardback) ISBN 978-3-657-79048-7 (e-book)

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Papyrological and Epigraphical Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Other Ancient Texts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Frequently Cited Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Dear Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii 1. Papyrology and Letter Writing: A Short History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Length and Clarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Educational Level and Language Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Private, Literary, and Official Letters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A Closer Look #1: Paul of Tarsus and Other Emotional Letter Writers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. Letter Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Ancient Epistolary Theorists and Model Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Modern Attempts of Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Letters of Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4. Letter Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Authors, Scribes, and Secretaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Multiple Senders  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Drafts and Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Letters as Representations of Their Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 A Closer Look #2: Tertius, the Scribe of Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5. Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Layouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 The Letter Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Opening Greeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Forms of Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Multiple Addressees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Health Wish and Prayer Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Motif of Remembrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

vi

Contents

Transitions from Letter Opening to Letter Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 The Letter Body and Its Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Formulas and Clichés of the Introductory Part of the Letter Body . . . 118 Report of Joy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Thanksgiving Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Explanation for a Postponed Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Complaint about Astonishing Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 A Closer Look #3: Paul’s Complaint in Gal 1:6–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Formulas and Clichés of the Middle Part of the Letter Body  . . . . . . . . 134 Disclosure Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Requests and Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 References to Previous Messages and Current Letters . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Responses to Letters and Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Moral Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 A Closer Look #4: Denial of Permission in 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 14:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Formulas and Clichés of the Concluding Part of the Letter Body . . . . 158 Announcement of Visit or Invitation to Visit the Letter Sender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Final Requests or Reminder of Main Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Offer to Meet the Addressee’s Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 The Letter Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Secondary Greetings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Final Health Wish and Final Prayer Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Final Greeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 A Closer Look #5: Paul’s Handwriting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Optional Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Postscript  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Sealings and Stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 6. Transport and Reception of Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Appended Letters and Multiple Letters on a Single Papyrus  . . . . . . . . 189 Bearers of Letters and Their Roles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Signs of Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 7. Some General Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Contents

vii

8. The Letters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 A Note on the Provided Data and Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Explanation of Diacritical Sigla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Pre-forms of Letters and Early Letters (VI–IV BCE): [2.52]–[2.55]  . . 209 Letter from the Ptolemaic Period (323–30 BCE): [2.56] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Letters from the Early Roman Empire (30 BCE–late II CE): [2.57]–[2.167] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Letters from the Third and Fourth Centuries CE: [2.168]–[2.188]  . . . . 386 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429 Additions to and Corrections of Edited Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 Greek and Latin Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

Preface It was in 1987 when I read papyrus letters for the very first time. Since then, the enthusiasm to dive into these many little treasures of Hellenistic antiquity has never ceased. As a boy, I often dreamed of living in that time, of being Alexander the Great (without minding his untimely death, of course) or Julius Caesar (though without remembering his assassination). In the meantime, I have come to realize that if I had lived in that time, I would probably have been the son of an artisan, a peasant, a slave, or at best a wealthy upper class landowner. These were the people whose language, thoughts, problems, emotions, challenges, and tasks I began to read in the letters that are preserved in the original on papyrus, potsherds, and wooden or wax tablets. I was immediately fascinated when I saw the many similarities between these letters and the letters of Paul of Tarsus, also known as the Apostle Paul. One of the first personal and business letters I read was BGU 1.37, and I was thrilled to see that a certain Mystarion told his letter partner Stotoetis that he must not keep Mystarion’s slave Blastos with him, thus using exactly the same words and phrasing as Paul used in his letter to Philemon, telling Philemon that he would have liked to keep his slave Onesimus with him, but did not want to do so without the slaveholder’s consent. Soon realizing that the huge corpus of these letters had grown immensely in recent decades and was just waiting to be analyzed, I took Phlm as a test case to see if it was possible to write an entire commentary on a Pauline letter based on documentary papyri, ostraca, and tablets. The result fills the pages of one of the most comprehensive commentaries on Phlm (*Arzt-Grabner 2003). That was twenty years ago, and in the meantime many more private, business, and official letters from the Greco-Roman period have been published and have always aroused my enthusiasm anew. I have read many of these letters again and again, discovering new details that were formerly hidden from me. Sometimes a previously incomprehensible detail became more understandable through a newly edited letter, but often enough the context of half or even a whole letter remained concealed, as is the case when only one side of a correspondence is available. After comparing thousands of papyrus, ostracon, and tablet letters with the New Testament letters, I want to share my observations with scholars, teachers, and students and make a selection of more than one hundred letters easily accessible by presenting the English translations and key data, as well as brief commentaries.

x

Preface

Papyrology has always been and still is a great field of research pursued by amazing colleagues and friends for whom the often-emphasized “friendship among papyrologists” (amicitia papyrologorum) is not an empty phrase but a lived reality. In a world of relationships increasingly infused with IT and AI, it is more important than ever to maintain and pass on papyrology as a scholarly field and craft, as well as the values associated with this amicitia. By analogy, the same is true of New Testament scholarship. I am deeply indebted to the many friends and colleagues in both disciplines who encouraged, supported, and advised me in the writing of this book. Without them it could never have been written. The Department of Biblical Studies and Ecclesiastical History at the University of Salzburg continues to be a great place to work, to which the members of this institution contribute so much through their commitment. In particular, Claudia Aigner, Kathrin Innerberger, Aubrey Martin, Christine Hofer-Ranftl, Doris Walser, Emily Kay Williamson, Astrid Wimmer, Waltraud Winkler, and Dietmar Winkler have always had a sympathetic ear and enormous patience in lending me their time when a frustration along the way threatened to outweigh my available resources. Their help with the technicalities and formats was an enormous support. My co-editors Christina M. Kreinecker and John S. Kloppenborg were invaluable in providing numerous comments and suggestions for improvement, both in terms of language and content. Junia Grabner and Chris Eiden, as members of the younger generation of current students, have given me the guidance I needed to make some decisions more adequately in terms of graphic design and word choice. Alden Smith continues to be my reliable friend and brother. Martina Ingeborg Putz is my Muse. Εὐχαριστῶ οὖν πᾶσιν ὑμῖν ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν. Peter Arzt-Grabner

Salzburg, 31 March 2023

Abbreviations

Papyrological and Epigraphical Abbreviations

Abbreviations of papyrological editions follow J.  F. Oates et al., eds. 2001, Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, 5th ed., BASPSup 9 (Oakville: Oxbow), online version: Joshua D. Sosin et al., eds., Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets: papyri.info/docs/checklist. Epigraphical abbreviations follow those of GrEpiAbbr (List of Abbreviations of Editions and Works of Reference for Alphabetic Greek Epigraphy (available online at https://aiegl.org/ grepiabbr.html). Abbreviations used in this volume but not yet entered into the lists mentioned are: BOEP

Bulletin of Online Emendations to Papyri: issues 1.1–9.1 (2012–2021) are available at http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/view /collections/c-19.type.html, the issues from 10 (2022) onwards are published in Pylon: Editions and Studies of Ancient Texts (https://journals.ub .uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/pylon/). Pleiades https://pleiades.stoa.org/ P46 Papyrus 46 (or 10046) in Liste of the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Münster; in the Editio Critica Maior abbreviated as “P46” (in Nestle-Aland editions as 𝔓46) Papyri and the New Testament (this series) PNT TM Trismegistos Texts, https://www.trismegistos.org/tm/ TM Arch Trismegistos Archives, https://www.trismegistos.org/arch/ TM Geo Trismegistos Places, https://www.trismegistos.org/geo/



Other Ancient Texts

Biblical texts and Pseudepigrapha as well as works of Greek and Latin authors are abbreviated conform to The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines 2014, 2nd ed. (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press), 4.1.8 and 8.3.1–4 and 8.3.14.

xii

Abbreviations

Frequently Cited Literature

*Adams 2010

*Armoni 2018

*Arzt 1994

*Arzt-Grabner 2003

*Arzt-Grabner 2009

*Arzt-Grabner 2010a

*Arzt-Grabner 2010b *Arzt-Grabner 2014

*Arzt-Grabner 2020

Adams, S. A. 2010. “Paul’s Letter Opening and Greek Epistolography: A Matter of Relationship.” Pages 33–55 in *Porter and Adams 2010. Armoni, C. 2018. “Aus dem Archiv des Διοικητής Athenodoros: Neuedition von BGU XVI 2601, 2605 und 2618.” ZPE 207:123–34. Arzt, P. 1994. “The ‘Epistolary Introductory Thanksgiving’ in the Papyri and in Paul.” NovT 36:29–46. Arzt-Grabner, P. 2003. Philemon. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Arzt-Grabner, P. 2009. “‘I Was Intending to Visit You, but …’: Clauses Explaining Delayed Visits and Their Importance in Papyrus Letters and in Paul.” Pages 220–31 in *Evans and Zacharias 2009. Arzt-Grabner, P. 2010a. “Papyrologie und Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Einige Beispiele aus neueren Papyruseditionen.” Pages 11–26 in Light from the East. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament: Akten des internationalen Symposions vom 3.–4. Dezember 2009 am Fachbereich Bibelwissenschaft und Kirchengeschichte der Universität Salzburg. Edited by P. Arzt-Grabner and C. M. Kreinecker. Philippika 39. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Arzt-Grabner, P. 2010b. “Paul’s Letter Thanksgiving.” Pages 129–58 in *Porter and Adams 2010. Arzt-Grabner, P. 2014. 2. Korinther. Unter Mitarbeit von Ruth E. Kritzer. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Arzt-Grabner, P. 2020. “Der Kompilationsprozess des 2. Korinther: Überlegungen aus Sicht der Dokumentarischen Papyrologie.” Pages 53–102 in Die Exegese des 2 Kor und Phil im Lichte der Literarkritik. Edited by E.-M. Becker and H. Löhr. Biblisch-theologische Studien 185. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Abbreviations *Arzt-Grabner 2022

*Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006

*Asquith 2023

*Bagnall 2009 *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006

*Banfi and Foraboschi 1995

*Bauer 2011

*Bell 1950

*Blumell 2012

xiii Arzt-Grabner, P. 2022. “The Literal Meaning of the Most Common Epistolary Greeting—and How Seriously We Should Take It.” Pages 561–75 in God’s Grace Inscribed on the Human Heart: Essays in Honour of James R. Harrison. Edited by P. G. Bolt and S. Kim. Early Christian Studies 23. Sydney: SCD Press. Arzt-Grabner, P., R. E. Kritzer, A. Papathomas, and F. Winter 2006. 1. Korinther. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Asquith, G. 2023. “Paul’s Unexpected Words: A Register and Semantic Study of Selected Epistolary Formulae in Paul’s Letter Openings in Light of Documentary Papyri.” PhD Diss., Australian Catholic University. Bagnall, R. S., ed. 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bagnall, R. S., and R. Cribiore 2006. Women’s Letters from Ancient Egypt, 300 BC–AD 800. With contributions by Evie Ahtaridis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Extended eBook version 2008: https://www.fulcrum.org/concern/monographs /79407z10h. Banfi, E., and D. Foraboschi. 1995. “Giovanissimi e giovani scrivani nell’Egitto greco-romano.” Pages 43–60 in Scritture bambine: Testi infantili tra passato e presente. Edited by Q. Antonelli and E. Becchi. Quadrante 80. Bari: Laterza. Bauer, T. J. 2011. Paulus und die kaiserzeitliche Epistolographie: Kontextualisierung und Analyse der Briefe an Philemon und an die Galater. WUNT 276. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Bell, H. 1950. “A Happy Family.” Pages 38–47 in Aus Antike und Orient: Festschrift Wilhelm Schubart zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by S. Morenz. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Blumell, L. H. 2012. Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus. NTTSD 39. Leiden: Brill.

xiv *Blumell and Wayment 2015

Abbreviations

Blumell, L. H., and T. A. Wayment 2015. Christian Oxyrhynchus: Texts, Documents, and Sources. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. *Breytenbach 2015 Breytenbach, C., ed. 2015. Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context. BETL 277. Leuven: Peeters. *Breytenbach and Markschies 2019 Breytenbach, C., and C. Markschies, eds. 2019. Adolf Deissmann: Ein (zu Unrecht) fast vergessener Theologe und Philologe. NovTSup 174. Leiden: Brill. *Burnet 2003a Burnet, R. 2003a. L’Égypte ancienne à travers les papyrus: Vie quotidienne. Paris: Flammarion, départment Pygmalion. Burnet, R. 2003b. Épîtres et lettres Ier–IIer siècle: De *Burnet 2003b Paul de Tarse à Polycarpe de Smyrne. LD. Paris: Cerf. *Buzón 1984 Buzón, R. 1984. “Die Briefe der Ptolemäerzeit: Ihre Struktur und ihre Formeln.” Diss., Universität Heidelberg. Cadwallader, A. H. 2018. “Tertius in the Margins: A *Cadwallader 2018 Critical Appraisal of the Secretary Hypothesis.” NTS 64:378–96. Cavallo, G., E. Crisci, G. Messeri, and R. Pintaudi, *Cavallo et al. 1998 eds. 1998. Scrivere Libri e Documenti nel Mondo Antico: Mostra di papiri della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Firenze 25 agosto–25 settembre 1998. in collaborazione con Roger S. Bagnall, Antonio Carlini, Herwig Maehler, Ewa Wipszycka. Papyrologica Florentina 30. Florence: Gonnelli. Ceccarelli, P. 2013. Ancient Greek Letter Writing: A *Ceccarelli 2013 Cultural History (600 BC–150 BC). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapa, J. 1998. Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri. *Chapa 1998 Papyrologica Florentina 29. Florence: Gonnelli. Choat, M. 2006. Belief and Cult in Fourth-Century *Choat 2006 Papyri. Studia Antiqua Australiensia 1. Turnhout: Brepols. Clarysse, W. 2017. “Emotions in Greek Private *Clarysse 2017 Papyrus Letters.” Ancient Society 47:63–86. *Crönert 1925 Crönert, W. 1925. “De critici arte in papyris exercenda.” Pages 439–534 in Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (1844–1925). Pubblicazioni di “Aegyptus” Serie Scientifica 3. Milan.

Abbreviations

xv

*Cromwell and Grossman 2018 Cromwell, J., and E. Grossman, eds. 2018. Scribal Repertoires in Egypt from the New Kingdom to the Early Islamic Period. Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents. Oxford: Oxford University Press. *Cuvigny 2003 Cuvigny, H., ed. 2003. La route de Myos Hormos: L’armée romaine dans le désert Orientale d’Égypte –  Praesidia du désert de Bérénice I. 2 vols. Fouilles de l’IFAO 48/1–2. Caire: Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale du Caire. *David and van Groningen 1965 David, M., and B. A. van Groningen 1965. Papyrological Primer. 4th ed. Leyden: Brill. Deines, R., J. Herzer, and K.-W. Niebuhr, eds. *Deines et al. 2011 2011. Neues Testament und hellenistisch-jüdische Alltagskultur. Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: III. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti, 21.–24. Mai 2009, Leipzig. WUNT 274. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Deissmann, G. A. 1903. Bible Studies: Contributions *Deissmann 1903 Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Deissmann, G. A. 1912. St. Paul: A Study in Social and *Deissmann 1912 Religious History. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Deissmann, G. A. 1927. Light from the Ancient East: *Deissmann 1927 The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. New and completely revised edition with eighty-five illustrations from the latest German edition, translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Di Bartolo, G. 2021. Studien zur griechischen *Di Bartolo 2021 Syntax dokumentarischer Papyri der römischen Zeit. Papyrologica Coloniensia 44. Paderborn: Brill Schöningh. *Döllstädt 1934 Döllstädt, W. 1934. “Griechische Papyrusprivatbriefe in gebildeter Sprache aus den ersten vier Jahrhunderten nach Christus.” Diss., Universität Jena. Doty, W. G. 1973. Letters in Primitive Christianity. *Doty 1973 Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress.

xvi *Drecoll 2006

*Eckardt 2018

*Eidinow and Taylor 2010

*Elmer 2008 *Erman and Krebs 1899

*Evans 1985

*Evans and Obbink 2010

*Evans and Zacharias 2009

*Exler 1923

*Finegan 1946

*Fournet 2012

Abbreviations Drecoll, C. 2006. Nachrichten in der Römischen Kaiserzeit: Untersuchungen zu den Nachrichteninhalten in Briefen. Freiburg i. Br.: C. Drecoll. Eckardt, H. 2018. Writing and Power in the Roman World: Literacies and Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eidinow, E., and C. Taylor. 2010. “Lead-Letter Days: Writing, Communication and Crisis in the Ancient Greek World.” ClQ 60:30–62. Elmer, I. J. 2008. “I, Tertius: Secretary or Co-Author of Romans.” ABR 56:45–60. Erman, A., and F. Krebs 1899. Aus den Papyrus der Königlichen Museen. Handbücher der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Berlin: Spemann. Evans, K. G. 1985. “Women’s Greek Papyrus Letters: A Description of the Letters and a Study of the Opening Formula.” Diss., Claremont Graduate School. Evans, T. V., and D. D. Obbink, eds. 2010. The Language of the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Evans, C. A., and H. D. Zacharias, eds. 2009. Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. SSEJC 13; LSTS 70. London: T&T Clark. Exler, F. X. J. 1923. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri (3rd c. B.C.–3rd c. A.D.): A Study in Greek Epistolography. Washington: Catholic University of America. Repr., Chicago: Ares 1976. Finegan, J. 1946. Light from the Ancient Past: The Archeological Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion. Princeton/NJ: Princeton University Press. Fournet, J.-L. 2012. “Homère et les papyrus non littéraires: Le poète dans le contexte de ses lecteurs.” Pages 125–57 in I papiri omerici: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Firenze, 9–10 Giugno 2011. Edited by G. Bastianini and A. Casanova. Studi e Testi di Papirologia N.S. 14. Florence: Istituto Papirologico “G. Vitelli”.

Abbreviations *Gamble 1995

*Ghedini 1923

*Gignac 1976

*Gignac 1981

*Harrauer 2010

*Harris 2013

*Head 2009a

*Head 2009b *Head 2019 *Heinz et al. 2020

xvii Gamble, H. Y. 1995. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press. Ghedini, G. 1923. Lettere cristiane dai papiri greci del III e IV secolo. Supplementi ad “Aegyptus” serie divulgazione, Sez. Greco-Romana 3; Pubblicazioni della Università catt. S. Cuore, Sez. Filologica 1. Milan: Vita e pensiero. Gignac, F. T. 1976. Phonology. Vol. 1 of A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichità 55. Milan: Cisalpino – La Goliardica. Gignac, F. T. 1981. Morphology. Vol. 2 of A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichità 55/2. Milan: Cisalpino – La Goliardica. Harrauer, H. 2010. Handbuch der griechischen Paläographie: Textband; Tafelband. Bibliothek des Buchwesens 20. Stuttgart: Hiersemann. Harris, E. M. 2013. “Were There Business Agents in Classical Greece? The Evidence of Some Lead Letters.” Pages 105–24 in The Letter: Law, State, Society and the Epistolary Format in the Ancient World. Proceedings of a Colloquium held at the American Academy in Rome 28–30.9.2008. Vol. 1 of Legal Documents in Ancient Societies. Edited by U. Yiftach-Firanko. Philippika 55,1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Head, P. M. 2009a. “Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material.” Pages 203–19 in *Evans and Zacharias 2009. Head, P. M. 2009b. “Named Letter-Carriers among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.” JSNT 31:279–99. Head, P. M. 2019. “Epistolary Greetings in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri.” TynBul 70:269–90. Heinz, J., P. Johann, J. Kaltwasser, S. Kröner, and P. Reinard. 2020. “Quellenanhang.” Pages 149–204 in Geschichte auf Scherben: Das Leben in der östlichen Wüste Ägyptens in römischer Zeit. Edited by P. Reinard. Gutenberg: Computus.

xviii *Hubing 2015

Abbreviations

Hubing, J. S. 2015. Crucifixion and New Creation: The Strategic Purpose of Galatians 6:11–17. LNTS 508. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. *Jördens 2006 Jördens, A. 2006. “Griechische Briefe aus Ägypten.” Pages 399–427 in A. Berlejung et al. Briefe. TUAT Neue Folge 3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. *Jördens 2010 Jördens, A. 2010. “Griechische Texte aus Ägypten.” Pages 317–50 in B. Böck et al. Texte zur Heilkunde. TUAT Neue Folge 5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Johnson, A. C. 1936. Roman Egypt to the Reign of *Johnson 1936 Diocletian. Vol. 2 of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Repr., Paterson, NJ: Pageant Books, 1959. Kim, C.-H. 1972. Form and Structure of the Familiar *Kim 1972 Greek Letter of Recommendation. SBLDS 4. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature. Klauck, H.-J. 2006. Ancient Letters and the New *Klauck 2006 Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Kloppenborg, J. S. 2006. The Tenants in the Vineyard: *Kloppenborg 2006 Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine. WUNT 195. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Koskenniemi, H. 1956. Studien zur Idee und *Koskenniemi 1956 Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n.Chr. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia B/102,2. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Kotsifou, C. 2012. “Emotions and Papyri: Insights *Kotsifou 2012 into the Theatre of Human Experience in Antiquity.” Pages 39–90 in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World. Edited by A. Chaniotis. Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 52. Stuttgart: Steiner. Kreinecker, C. M. 2010. 2. Thessaloniker. *Kreinecker 2010 Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. *Kreinecker 2013 Kreinecker, C. M. 2013. “The Imitation Hypothesis: Pseudepigraphic Remarks on 2 Thessalonians with Help from Documentary Papyri.” Pages 197–219 in

Abbreviations

*Kremendahl 2000

*Kreuzsaler 2010a

*Kreuzsaler et al. 2010

*Kruse 2002

*Laudien 1912

*Liebert 1996

*Lietzmann 1934 *Lieu 2006

*Llewelyn 1994a

xix Paul and Pseudepigraphy. Edited by S. E. Porter and G. P. Fewster. Pauline Studies 8. Leiden: Brill. Kremendahl, D. 2000. Die Botschaft der Form: Zum Verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief. NTOA 46. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandhoeck & Ruprecht. Kreuzsaler, C. 2010a. “‘… denn durch unsere Briefe wird es sein, als würden wir einander sehen’: Briefe als Kommunikationsmittel im römischen Ägypten.” Pages 17–25 in Stimmen aus dem Wüstensand: Briefkultur im griechisch-römischen Ägypten. Edited by C. Kreuzsaler, B. Palme, and A. Zdiarsky. Nilus 17. Vienna: Phoibos. Kreuzsaler, C., B. Palme, and A. Zdiarsky, eds. 2010. Stimmen aus dem Wüstensand: Briefkultur im griechisch-römischen Ägypten. Nilus 17. Vienna: Phoibos. Kruse, T. 2002. Der Königliche Schreiber und die Gauverwaltung: Untersuchungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte Ägyptens in der Zeit von Augustus bis Philippus Arabs (30 v.Chr.–245 n.Chr.). 2 vols. APF Beiheft 11/1–2. Munich: Saur. Laudien, A. 1912. Griechische Papyri aus Oxyrhynchos für den Schulgebrauch ausgewählt. Berlin: Weidmann. Liebert, D. H. 1996. “The ‘Apostolic Form of Writing’: Group Letters before and after 1 Corinthians.” Pages 433–40 in The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by R. Bieringer. BETL 125. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Lietzmann, H. 1934. Griechische Papyri. 4th ed. KlT 14. Berlin: De Gruyter. Lieu, J. M. 2006. “Letters.” Pages 445–56 in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Edited by J. W. Rogerson and J. M. Lieu. New York: Oxford University Press. Llewelyn, S. R. 1994a. “The εἰς (τὴν) οἰκίαν Formula and the Delivery of Letters to Τhird Persons or to Τheir Property.” ZPE 101:71–78.

xx *Llewelyn 1994c

Abbreviations

Llewelyn, S. R. 1994c. “The Conveyance of Letters.” New Docs. 7:1–57. *Llewelyn 1998a Llewelyn, S. R. 1998a. “Prescripts and Addresses in Ancient Letters.” New Docs. 8:122–28. *Luijendijk 2008 Luijendijk, A. 2008. Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. HTS 60. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Luiselli, R. 2008. “Greek Letters on Papyrus *Luiselli 2008 First to Eighth Centuries: A Survey.” Asiatische Studien 62:677–737. Luttenberger, J. 2012. Prophetenmantel oder *Luttenberger 2012 Bücherfutteral? Die persönlichen Notizen in den Pastoralbriefen im Licht antiker Epistolographie und literarischer Pseudepigraphie. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 40. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Malherbe, A. J. 1988. Ancient Epistolary Theorists. *Malherbe 1988 SBLSBS 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. *Matthews-Schlinzig and Socha 2018 Matthews-Schlinzig, M. I., and C. Socha, eds. 2018. Was ist ein Brief? / What Is a Letter? Aufsätze zu epistolarer Theorie und Kultur / Essays on Epistolary Theory and Culture. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. Meecham, H. G. 1923. Light from Ancient Letters: *Meecham 1923 Private Correspondence in the Non-Literary Papyri of Oxyrhynchus of the First Four Centuries, and Its Bearing on New Testament Language and Thought. London: George Allen & Unwin; New York: Macmillan. Mees, A. W. 2002. Organisationsformen römischer *Mees 2002 Töpfer-Manufakturen am Beispiel von Arezzo und Rheinzabern unter Berücksichtigung von Papyri, Inschriften und Rechtsquellen. 2 vols. Monographien Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 52. Mainz: Verlag des römischgermanischen Zentralmuseums. Messeri, G. 2006. “Donne dell’Egitto greco-romano *Messeri 2006 attraverso i papiri.” Atene e Roma 51:75–96.

Abbreviations *Metzger 1974

xxi

Metzger, H. 1974. Nachrichten aus dem Wüstensand: Eine Sammlung von Papyruszeugnissen. Zürich: Artemis. *Milligan 1910 Milligan, G. 1910. Selections from the Greek Papyri. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Repr., 1912. *Milligan 1922 Milligan, G. 1922. Here & There among the Papyri. London: Hodder and Stoughton. *Montevecchi 1988 Montevecchi, O. 1988. La papirologia. ristampa riveduta e corretta con addenda. Trattati e manuali. Milan: Vita e Pensiero. *Morello and Morrison 2007 Morello, R., and A. D. Morrison, eds. 2007. Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan 1929. The Vocabulary *Moulton and Milligan 1929 of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Moulton, J. H., and N. Turner 1976. Style. Vol. 4 of A *Moulton and Turner 1976 Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. *Müller 1997 Müller, M. 1997. Vom Schluß zum Ganzen: Zur Bedeutung des paulinischen Briefkorpusabschlusses. FRLANT 172. Göttingen: Vanhoeck & Ruprecht. Mullins, T. Y. 1972. “Formulas in New Testament *Mullins 1972 Epistles.” JBL 91:380–390. Nachtergael, G. 2005. “Trois lettres d’une *Nachtergael 2005 famille de Philadelphie.” Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia 2:83–88. Nachtergaele, D. 2023. The Formulaic Language of the *Nachtergaele 2023 Greek Private Papyrus Letters. Trismegistos Online Publications Special Series 6. Leuven: Trismegistos Online Publications. Naldini, M. 1998. Il cristianesimo in Egitto: Lettere *Naldini 1998 private nei papiri dei secoli II–IV. Rev. and enl. ed. Biblioteca Patristica 32. Fiesole: Nardini (1st ed.: Studi e testi di papirologia 3, Florence: Le Monnier, 1968). Olsson, B. 1925. Papyrusbriefe aus der frühesten *Olsson 1925 Römerzeit. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells. Palme, B. 2006. “Die classis praetoria Misenensis in *Palme 2006 den Papyri.” Pages 281–99 in Italo – Tusco – 

xxii

*Palme 2007

*Pestman 1994 *Peterman 1997

*Porter and Adams 2010 *Porter and Pitts 2013

*Poster and Mitchell 2007

*Pucci Ben Zeev 2005

*Reece 2017

Abbreviations Romana: Festschrift für Luciana Aigner-Foresti zum 70. Geburtstag am 30. Juli 2006. Edited by P. Amann, M. Pedrazzi, and H. Taeuber. Vienna: Holzhausen. Palme, B. 2007. “Papyrologie und Mentalitätsgeschichte der Antike.” Pages 193–220 in Von Noricum nach Ägypten: Eine Reise durch die Welt der Antike. Aktuelle Forschungen zu Kultur, Alltag und Recht in der römischen Welt. Beiträge der Tagung “Noricum in vorrömischer und römischer Zeit: Forschungsstand und Neuansätze (Klagenfurt, 3.–4.10.2003)” und des “Klagenfurter Papyrologentages (29.–30.10.2004)”. Edited by K. Strobel. Altertumswissenschaftliche Studien Klagenfurt 3. Klagenfurt: Mohorjeva Hermagoras. Pestman, P. W. 1994. The New Papyrological Primer. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Peterman, G. W. 1997. Paul’s Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian Giving. SNTSMS 92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Porter, S. E., and S. A. Adams, eds. 2010. Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Pauline Studies 6. Leiden: Brill. Porter, S. E., and A. W. Pitts, eds. 2013. Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Vol. 1 of Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context. TENTS 9. Leiden: Brill. Poster, C., and L. C. Mitchell, eds. 2007. Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present: Historical and Bibliographic Studies. Studies in Rhetoric/Communication. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Pucci Ben Zeev, M. 2005. Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6. Leuven: Peeters. Reece, S. 2017. Paul’s Large Letters: Paul’s Autographic Subcriptions in the Light of Ancient Epistolary Conventions. LNTS 561. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

Abbreviations *Reinard 2016

*Reinard 2018

*Reinard 2020

*Richards 2004

*Roberts 1956 *Roller 1933

*Rowlandson 1998

*Salonius 1927

*Sarri 2018

*Schellenberg 2021

*Schnider and Stenger 1987 *Scholl and Homann 2012

xxiii Reinard, P. 2016. Kommunikation und Ökonomie: Untersuchungen zu den privaten Papyrusbriefen aus dem kaiserzeitlichen Ägypten. 2 vols. Pharos 32. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Reinard, P. 2018. “Briefe auf Papyri und Ostraka: Bemerkungen zur quellen­kritischen Auswertung in der althistorischen Forschung.” Pages 179–96 in *Matthews-Schlinzig and Socha 2018. Reinard, P., ed. 2020. Geschichte auf Scherben: Das Leben in der östlichen Wüste Ägyptens in römischer Zeit. Gutenberg: Computus. Richards, E. R. 2004. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. Roberts, C. H. 1956. Greek Literary Hands 350 B.C.–A.D. 400. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roller, O. 1933. Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe. BWA(N)T 58. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Rowlandson, J. 1998. Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salonius, A. H. 1927. Zur Sprache der griechischen Papyrusbriefe: Die Quellen. Vol. 1. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 2/3. Helsingfors: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Sarri, A. 2018. Material Aspects of Letter Writing in the Graeco-Roman World 500 BC–AD 300. Materiale Textkulturen 12. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schellenberg, R. S. 2021. Abject Joy: Paul, Prison, and the Art of Making Do. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schnider, F., and W. Stenger 1987. Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular. NTTS 11. Leiden: Brill. Scholl, R., and M. Homann. 2012. “Antike Briefkultur unter Familienmitgliedern.” Pages 47–126 in Papyrologie und Exegese: Die Auslegung des Neuen Testaments im Licht der Papyri. Edited by J. Herzer. WUNT 2/341. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

xxiv *Schubart 1911 *Schubart 1912

*Schubart 1923

*Schubert 2000 *Schubert 2021

*Sherk 1988

*Smallwood 1966

*Steen 1938

*Stowers 1986 *Stowers 1988

*Thraede 1970 *Tibiletti 1979

*Trapp 2003

Abbreviations Schubart, W. 1911. Papyri Graecae Berolinenses. Tabulae in usum scholarum 2. Bonn: Marcus et Weber. Schubart, W. 1912. Ein Jahrtausend am Nil: Briefe aus dem Altertum. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Schubart, W. 1923. Ein Jahrtausend am Nil: Briefe aus dem Altertum. 2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Schubert, P. 2000. Vivre en Égypte gréco-romaine: Une sélection de papyrus. Vevey: Édicion de l’Aire. Schubert, P. 2021. The Bearers of Business Letters in Roman Egypt. Papyrologica Bruxellensia 41. Leuven: Peeters. Sherk, R. K. 1988. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smallwood, E. M. 1966. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steen, H. A. 1938. “Les clichés épistolaires dans les lettres sur papyrus grecques.” Classica et Mediaevalia 1:119–76. Stowers, S. K. 1986. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC 5. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Stowers, S. K. 1988. “Social Typification and the Classification of Ancient Letters.” Pages 78–90 in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee. Edited by J. Neusner, P. Borgen, E. S. Frerichs, and R. A. Horsley. Philadelphia: Fortress. Thraede, K. 1970. Grundzüge griechisch-römischer Brieftopik. Zetemata 48. Munich: Beck. Tibiletti, G. 1979. Le lettere private nei papiri greci del III e IV secolo d.C.: Tra paganesimo e cristianesimo. Scienze filologiche e letteratura 15. Milan: Vita e Pensiero. Trapp, M. 2003. Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology, with Translation. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Abbreviations *Trobisch 1989

*Weima 1994

*White 1971 *White 1972

*White 1978

*White 1981

*White 1984

*White 1986 *White 1988

*Williams et al. 2004

*Winter 1933

xxv Trobisch, D. 1989. Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfängen christlicher Publizistik. NTOA 10. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weima, J. A. D. 1994. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings. JSNTSup 101. Sheffield: JSOT Press. White, J. L. 1971. “Introductory Formulae in the Body of the Pauline Letter.” JBL 90:91–97. White, J. L. 1972. The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle. SBLDS 2. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature. White, J. L. 1978. “Epistolary Formulas and Cliches in Greek Papyrus Letters.” Pages 289–319 in Society of Biblical Literature 1978 Seminar Papers. Vol. 2. SBLSP 14. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. White, J. L. 1981. “The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century B.C.E. to Third Century C.E.” Semeia 22:89–106. White, J. L. 1984. “New Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient Epistolography.” ANRW 25.2:1730–56. Part 2, Principat, 25.2. Edited by W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter. White, J. L. 1986. Light from Ancient Letters. FF. Philadelphia: Fortress. White, J. L. 1988. “Ancient Greek Letters.” Pages 85–105 in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres. Edited by D. E. Aune. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Williams, P. J., A. D. Clarke, P. M. Head, and D. Instone-Brewer, eds. 2004. The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B.W. Winter on His 65th Birthday. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Winter, J. G. 1933. Life and Letters in the Papyri. University of Michigan Studies; The Jerome Lectures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

xxvi *Witkowski 1911

*Wolter 2015

*Yiftach-Firanko 2013

*Zeiner-Carmichael 2014 *Zerbini 2014

*Ziemann 1910

Abbreviations Witkowski, S. 1911. Epistulae privatae graecae quae in papyris aetatis Lagidarum servantur. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Teubner. Wolter, M. 2015. “Das Proömium des Römerbriefes und das hellenistische Freundschaftsethos.” Pages 253–71 in *Breytenbach 2015. Yiftach-Firanko, U., ed. 2013. The Letter: Law, State, Society and the Epistolary Format in the Ancient World. Proceedings of a Colloquium held at the American Academy in Rome 28–30.9.2008. Vol. 1 of Legal Documents in Ancient Societies. Philippika 55,1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Zeiner-Carmichael, N. K. 2014. Roman Letters: An Anthology. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Zerbini, A. 2014. “Greetings from the Camp: Memories and Preoccupations in the Papyrus Correspondence of Roman Soldiers with Their Families.” Pages 287–342 in Guerra e memoria nel mondo antico. Edited by E. Franchi and G. Proietti. Quaderni 6. Trento: Università degli Studi di Trento: Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia. Ziemann, F. 1910. “De epistularum graecarum formulis sollemnibus quaestiones selectae.” Diss., Universität Halle.

Dear Reader, you have just noticed that this kind of introduction to a book about letters and letter writing begins in the form of a letter. If I already knew your name, I would have addressed you more personally. You may already be expecting this text to end with “Kind regards,” or “Best wishes,” followed by my name in my own handwriting. If you do, you may be right, because that’s how a letter ends today. You expect it because this is certainly not the first letter you have read. I’m sure you’ve read many other letters, perhaps more than I have, and therefore you’re already familiar with epistolary formulas, at least the basic ones that allow you to recognize a letter as such, even without thinking. There is no letter without formulas. Usually there are at least two in every letter: one at the beginning and one at the end. It has been like this for thousands of years, actually since people started to write letters. Even so, the formulas did not change that much. Only the speed at which a letter is written and delivered has changed tremendously in recent years. On my computer or cell phone, I could write a short letter and send it to you within seconds, were I to have your email or phone number. What we call “snail mail” today would have been fast in Greco-Roman antiquity. But letter writing itself and the formulas used were not that different in those days. In Greco-Roman letters, only the order of mentioning the names of the letter partners was reversed. Had we both lived in that time, I would have mentioned my name first, then your name, and added some kind of greeting. It would have read something like, “Peter to his esteemed reader, best regards.” And I would have ended the letter with a simple “Farewell,” without mentioning my name again, because you would have already known it from the beginning of the letter. You see, the difference is not that vast. Other formulas that were used in the letters are similar to ours today. We find more or less exact equivalents for “I hope you are well, I am well too”; “I was worried because I haven’t heard from you in a long time”; “How is the family?”; “I was planning to visit you, but …”; “I wonder how you could do this to me”; “Please do me a favor and …”; “I hope to visit you soon”; “I can’t wait to see you again”; “Please greet so-and-so”; “So-and-so greets you”; “I am sending you the things you asked me for”; “Please take care of it as soon as possible”; “P.S.: I love you.” For thousands of years, letters have served as a substitute for the personal presence of the letter sender, who could not be with the recipient at that moment. If I were with you now and saw you with this book in your hands, I could tell you in person what I am writing. It would be more personal; a proxy is a proxy. Paul of Tarsus was one of the earliest letter writers to explicitly express

xxviii

Dear Reader

this idea. He was a true master of letter writing, and his addressees obviously understood and appreciated his letters. Otherwise, they would not have been collected, copied, published, and eventually become part of what we call the New Testament. I personally believe that Paul did not intend to publish his letters, or at least some of them, while he wrote them. How could he? Many people had to become famous or well-known before not only their literary works, political speeches, or sermons were considered important enough to be published, but also their private correspondence, which was then usually edited before publication. In reading hundreds and hundreds of private, business, and official letters preserved on papyrus, potsherds, or wax and wooden tablets, it became more and more clear to me that the publication or non-publication of ancient letters is the most important difference between the letters of someone like Paul of Tarsus and, for example, the letter of a certain Aurelius Ammon, a scholar and lawyer in Panopolis in the Thebaid in Roman Egypt. Unlike Paul’s letters, Ammon’s letter, which is as long and written in as high a style as Paul’s letter to the Galatians, was not published, but has been preserved only in a single copy, yet still in the original. If you are curious about this letter, you will find it at the end of this book (no. [2.188]). Of course, Ammon’s letter and other papyrus letters comparable to it in length and style are few and may be considered exceptional. But so are the letters of Paul, the letters of Cicero, Seneca, or Pliny the Younger. Nevertheless, it is worth studying the many contemporary papyrus and ostracon letters that have been preserved in their original form. They help us to better understand the formulas that the New Testament letter authors also used, and to find out what both groups of letters have in common and what was different, new, exciting, or strange to their first readers. Reading these letters today allows me and you to leave speculation behind and discover—based on what we see, in front of us, written in black ink—what and how Paul’s contemporary letter writers thought and wrote about this and that. We can empathize as directly as possible with the everyday world of the writers of New Testament letters and their addressees. Why do we read other people’s letters? Because it has always been and still is exciting, amusing, moving, or distracting to read about the daily drama of human beings, which we all—in one form or another—experience, long for, or try to avoid. A certain Sarapion, for example, urgently requests his brother Dorion in a letter written on 11 December 22 CE to write to him “about Phalakres, how his hair is growing again on the top; be sure you do!” (P.Oxy. 2.294.24–26 with BL 3:130). That “Phalakres” could even be a nickname (“Baldy”) adds an additional drama to the text. Even after 2,000 years, Sarapion’s curiosity is immediately understandable, at least to those men who may suffer from a

Dear Reader

xxix

similar problem as Phalakres, and they may regret that Dorion’s possible information about Phalakres’s hair-growing remedy has not been preserved. But at this point we are dealing with a problem that has been apparent ever since letters have existed: If we know only one side of a correspondence, many things remain obscured from us. The letter partners did not have to mention every detail, as it was known to both of them anyway. For us, who are not among the original addressees, many things remain incomprehensible. This is true of the Greco-Roman private letters in the same way it is for the letters of Paul of Tarsus. However, regarding P.Oxy. 2.294.24–26, it must be noted that the meaning of the form λαλαχεύεται, so far attested only in this papyrus letter and translated above as “he is growing hair,” is by no means as clear as the translation might suggest. In fact, Sarapion’s request has been interpreted controversially: Besides curiosity about a hair restorer, Sarapion may have expressed here that Phalakres “was a source of trouble to [him] in the past and continues to be embarrassing in the present because of his propensity to idle talk,” which is why Sarapion now wants to know, “why he is prattling again.”1 Yet another interpretation, toward which, though it is clever, I am less inclined, suggests that we are not dealing here with a person at all, but with a field that had been given the name “baldy” because of its bare appearance; in that case, that Sarapion now wants to know “how it has been planted with vegetables again at the top.”2 Whatever our understanding of Sarapion’s concern, however, we encounter here a good example of “living papyrology.” Who knows, maybe future finds and editions of papyrus letters will deepen our understanding and help us to navigate similar ambiguities. There will be, in the years to come, no shortage of exciting excavations producing further editions of letters on papyrus, potsherds, and tablets in the endless quest not simply to understand letter writing and ancient documents but to understand what it means to be human in any age. Before closing this letter, I would like to give you a few technical instructions on how to use this book. Of course, you can flip back and forth between my chapters in the first part of the book and the 100+ letters that I reproduce on pp. 209–426 in English translation, with the most important information on dating, provenance, corrections and reprints, and a commentary (see also the remarks on p. 207). To make this easier for you, on the one hand, those letters which are reproduced in their entirety are marked with bold reference

1 *Winter 1933, 98 (taking λαλαχεύομαι as λαλαγεύομαι and in consequence as a by-form of λαλαγέω meaning “to prattle,” cf. pp. 97–98). 2 *Olssen 1925, 65, 67–68.

xxx

Dear Reader

numbers in the chapters; on the other hand, the formulas contained in the letters are listed below the translations and indicated with page references. The chapters in the first part offer, beyond various bits of introductory information, the evaluation of the papyrus and ostracon letters with regard to New Testament letters. At the beginning of these chapters, you will find bibliographical references, which aim less at completeness than offering foundational information and further bibliography pertaining to the respective topic. In any case, the scholarship that is reviewed in the following chapter is also listed there. Below the scholarly references you will find a list of those New Testament passages that are interpreted in the following text. If you are interested in a particular New Testament passage, you can of course also look in the general index at the end of the book; you will also find there an index of materials that presents papyri, ostraca, and tablets. The book focuses on the analysis and evaluation of epistolary formulas, clichés, and conventions. Yet, caveat lector: not all topics are included here, for some are not unique to letter writing, and thus they are not covered in detail in this PNT volume but rather are left for such treatment to one of the following volumes. These include issues of ancient slavery, economics, family, administration, military, taxation, medicine, and magic. What is important for the interpretation of any given letter, you will find of course already in this volume in the commentary section or in the notes. And now I hope that you will discover in this book many exciting, amusing, and moving things from the way the New Testament letter authors and the people of their time communicated about their fears and hopes, their joys and sorrows. With all best wishes,

Chapter 1

Papyrology and Letter Writing: A Short History Literature J. N. Adams 1977, The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus (P.Mich. VIII, 467–472), Publications of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Manchester 23 (Manchester: Manchester University Press); *Arzt-Grabner 2003; *Arzt-Grabner 2014; *Arzt-Grabner 2020, 59–65; *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006; J. Austin 2015, “Letter Writing at Vindolanda (Northumberland/GB),” in Lesen und Schreiben in den römischen Provinzen: Schriftliche Kommunikation im Alltagsleben. Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums von DUCTUS – Association internationale pour l’étude des inscriptions mineures, RGZM Mainz, 15.–17. Juni 2011, ed. M. Scholz and M. Horster, RGZM-Tagungen 26 (Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums), 15–25; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006 (extended eBook 2008); *Bauer 2011, 15–17, 23–26, 64–65; A. Biedenkopf-Ziehner 1983, Untersuchungen zum koptischen Briefformular unter Berücksichtigung ägyptischer und griechischer Parallelen, Koptische Studien 1 (Würzburg: Gisela Zauzich); *Blumell 2012; L. H. Blumell 2020, “Epistolary Christianity: A Survey of the Earliest Christian Letters from Egypt,” in Thought, Culture, and Historiography in Christian Egypt, 284–641 AD, ed. T. M. Muhammad and C. Römer (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 143–64; *Blumell and Wayment 2015; *Buzón 1984; M.-P. Chaufray and Bérangère Redon 2020, “Ostraca and Tituli Picti of Samut North and Bi’r Samut (Eastern Desert of Egypt): Some Reflections on Find Location,” in Using Ostraca in the Ancient World: New Discoveries and Methodologies, ed. C. Caputo and J. Lougovaya, Materiale Textkulturen 32 (Berlin: De Gruyter), 165–82, here 174–76; *Choat 2006; M. Choat 2010, “Early Coptic Epistolography,” in The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the Abbasids, ed. A. Papaconstantinou (Farnham: Ashgate), 153– 78; *Deissmann 1927; M. Depauw 2006, The Demotic Letter: A Study of Epistolographic Scribal Traditions Against their Intra- and Intercultural Background, Demotische Studien 14 (Sommerhausen: Zauzich); W. Diem 2008, “Arabic Letters in Pre-Modern Times: A Survey with Commented Selected Bibliographies,” Asiatische Studien 62:843– 83; P. E. Dion 1979, “Les types épistolaires hébréo-aramées jusqu’ au temps de Bar Kokhbah,” RB 86:544–79; P. E. Dion 1981, “The Aramaic ‘Family Letter’ and Related Epistolary Forms in Other Oriental Languages and in Hellenistic Greek,” Semeia 22:59– 76; *Döllstädt 1934; *Drecoll 2006; *Evans 1985; *Exler 1923; J. A. Fitzmyer 1974, “Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography,” JBL 93:201–25; J. A. Fitzmyer 1981, “Aramaic Epistolography,” Semeia 22:25–57; M. Folmer 2020, “Hi Aḥuṭab: Aramaic Letter Ostraca from Elephantine,” in Using Ostraca in the Ancient World: New Discoveries and Methodologies, ed. C. Caputo and J. Lougovaya, Materiale Textkulturen 32 (Berlin: De Gruyter), 145–64; *Ghedini 1923; R. K. Gibson and A. D. Morrison 2007, “Introduction: What Is a Letter?,” in *Morello and Morrison 2007, 1–16; E. M. Grob 2010, Documentary Arabic Private and Business Letters on Papyrus: Form and Function, Content and Context, APF Beiheft 29 (Berlin: De Gruyter); H. Halla-aho 2009, The Non-literary Latin Letters: A Study of Their Syntax and Pragmatics, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 124 (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica); H. Halla-aho 2010, “Linguistic Varieties and Language Level in Latin Non-Literary Letters,” in *Evans and Obbink 2010, 171–83; H.

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790487_002

2

Chapter 1

Halla-aho 2011, “Epistolary Latin,” in A Companion to the Latin Language, ed. J. Clackson (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell), 426–44; G. H. R. Horsley and J. A. L. Lee 1997, “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels: Some Interim Entries, 1,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 10:55–84; S. R. Huebner 2019, Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); G. O. Hutchinson 2007, “Down among the Documents: Criticism and Papyrus Letters,” in *Morello and Morrison 2007, 17–36; A. Jördens 2013, “Hybride Cheirographa,” in *Yiftach-Firanko 2013, 187–200; G. Khan 2008, “Remarks on the Historical Background and Development of Early Arabic Documentary Formulae,” Asiatische Studien 62:885–906; *Koskenniemi 1956; I. Kottsieper 2013, “Briefe als Rechtsurkunden: Zu einigen aramäischen Briefen des Aršames,” in *Yiftach-Firanko 2013, 141–54; J. Kramer 2007, Vulgärlateinische Alltagsdokumente auf Papyri, Ostraka, Täfelchen und Inschriften, APF Beiheft 23 (Berlin: De Gruyter); *Kreinecker 2010; J. A. L. Lee and G. H. R. Horsley 1998, “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels: Some Interim Entries, 2,” Filología Neotestamentaria 11:57–84; *Luijendijk 2008; M. Mondini 1917, “Lettere femminili nei papiri greco-egizi,” Studi della Scuola Papirologica 2:29–50; J. D. Moore 2022, New Aramaic Papyri from Elephantine in Berlin, Studies in Elephantine 1 (Brill: Leiden); *Moulton and Milligan 1929; *Naldini 1998; B. Nongbri 2022, “The Construction and Contents of the Beatty-Michigan Pauline Epistles Codex (𝔓46),” NovT 64:388–407; *Olsson 1925; A. Papathomas 2007, “Höflichkeit und Servilität in den griechischen Papyrusbriefen der ausgehenden Antike,” in Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses. Wien, 22.–28. Juli 2001, ed. B. Palme, Papyrologica Vindobonensia 1 (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften), 497–512; A. Papathomas 2010, “Die griechischen Privat- und Geschäftsbriefe auf Papyrus aus der Spätantike und dem frühen Mittelalter (4.–8. Jh. n.Chr.),” in *Kreuzsaler et al. 2010, 27–34; B. Porten and A. Yardeni 1986, Letters, vol. 1 of Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt: Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns); B. Porten and A. Yardeni 1999, Ostraca & Assorted Inscriptions, vol. 4 of Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt: Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns); B. Porten and A. Yardeni 2020, Dossiers B–G: 375 Ostraca, Including 54 Payment Orders (B), 77 Accounts (C), 74 Workers Texts (D), 62 Names Lists (E), 85 Jar Inscriptions (F), 23 Letters (G), vol. 4 of Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns);*Reinard 2016; L. Reinfandt 2010, “Arabisches Briefwesen,” in *Kreuzsaler, Palme, and Zdiarsky 2010, 115– 24; L. Reinfandt 2015, “Empireness in Arabic Letter Formulae,” in Official Epistolography and the Language(s) of Power: Proceedings of the First International Conference of the Research Network Imperium & Officium. Comparative Studies in Ancient Bureaucracy and Officialdom, University of Vienna, 10–12 November 2010, ed. S. Procházka, L. Reinfandt, and S. Tost (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften), 281–92; T. S. Richter 2008, “Coptic Letters,” Asiatische Studien 62:739–70; *Sarri 2018; D. Schwiderski 2004, Texte und Bibliographie, vol. 2 of Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften – The Old and Imperial Aramaic Inscriptions, FSBP 2 (Berlin: De Gruyter); *Steen 1938; *Stowers 1988; *Trapp 2003; *White 1971; *White 1986; J. D. Whitehead 1974, “Early Aramaic Epistolography: The Arsames Correspondence” (PhD diss., University of Chicago); *Witkowski 1911; A. Yardeni 2016, The Jeselsohn Collection of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, The Jeselsohn Collection: Archaeology – Writing (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press); H. Zilliacus 1956, “Zum Stil und Wortschatz der byzantinischen Urkunden und Briefe,” in Akten des VIII. Internationalen Kongresses für

Papyrology and Letter Writing: A Short History

3

Papyrologie Wien 1955, Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer) Neue Serie 5 (Vienna: Rohrer), 157–65.

To date, more than 20,000 letters of different kinds and languages, preserved on papyri and related material, have been edited,1 and many more in papyrus collections around the world remain unpublished. Papyrology has paid attention not only to private, business, and administrational letters, but also to so-called literary letters,2 and letters of Roman emperors.3 Naturally, the earliest textual witnesses of New Testament letters are also part of papyrological research (the most important example is P.Beatty inv. 2 (P.Beatty 3 suppl., P46), a papyrus codex from the first half of the third century CE with the text of the Corpus Paulinum).4 Private, business, and administrational letters originate from all three periods of Egypt during which Greek and/or Latin was used: the Ptolemaic period (323–30 BCE), the Roman period (30 BCE–284 CE), and the Byzantine period (284–641 CE). Since the early days of papyrology, scholars of the field have devoted themselves to the study of these letters; primarily of letters written in Greek because the majority of papyri, ostraca, and tablets are in Greek (more than half, approximately 11,000 so far),5 followed by Egyptian (especially Demotic and Coptic). After general research on Greek epistolary formulas and conventions (e.g., *Exler 1923; *Steen 1938; *Koskenniemi 1956) as well as the publication of Greek letters from the Ptolemaic up to the early Arab period (e.g., Sel. Pap. 1.88–169; 2.409–434; *White 1986; *Trapp 2003),6 scholars have focused 1 According to data retrieved from papyri.info and TM Texts on 19 December 2022. 2 Cf., e.g., P.Worp 1, a papyrus inscribed in the third century BCE with Plato’s Ep. 8 (356a.6–8); P.Oxy. 52.3668, a papyrus inscribed in the second century CE with Ep. 2 (310e5–311a2); P.Oxy. 76.5077, a papyrus inscribed 75–125 CE with Epicurus’s Epistulae ad familiares. 3 From I CE are, e.g., P.Lond. 6.1912 [1.39], an edict of the Roman governor in Alexandria from 10 November 41 CE with the attached letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians; P.Genova 1.10.v (with BL 7:274; 9:361) with a letter by Nero to the Alexandrians from year 55 CE; SB 12.11012 (with BL 7:224; 9:271–72) with Nero’s letter to a polis and the 6475 from 55 CE. At least one letter of a Roman emperor was also used for a school exercise: P.Fay. 19 (II CE) is the copy of a letter of Hadrian to Antoninus. 4 Preserved are Rom 5–16; Heb 1 and 9; 1 Cor 2:2–5; 2 Cor 9:7–13; Eph (complete); Gal 1:1–10; Phil (complete); Col (complete); 1 Thess 1 and 5. On the construction and contents of 𝔓46 see Nongbri 2022. 5 According to data retrieved from papyri.info and TM Texts on 19 December 2022. 6 Of particular importance for the early Arab period of Egypt is the correspondence of the Arab governor Kurrah ben Sharik, from which more than 80 Greek letters have been edited so far, written between 708 and 714 (e.g., CPR 22.52; P.Bal. 2.181 and 182; P.Laur. 4.192; several letters in P.Lond. 4). One of the latest Greek papyrus letters is CPR 22.7.r (751–752), the official letter of the finance director ’Abd al-Malik ibn Yazîd.

4

Chapter 1

on the single epochs of Egypt: An early collection of Ptolemaic letters was provided by *Witkowski (1911), while *Buzón (1984) studied their epistolographical forms and formulas. *Olsson (1925) collected and studied letters from the early Roman period (30 BCE–100 CE) whereas *Döllstädt (1934) and *Drecoll (2006) focused on those written throughout the Roman period. Besides several studies on ancient letters in general, H. Zilliacus (1956) investigated the style and vocabulary of Byzantine letters, as was also done by A. Papathomas (2007; 2010; CPR 25). Christian letters were mostly identified and studied by such Italian scholars as *Ghedini (1923) and *Naldini (1998, 1st ed. 1968). This research has been continued by *Choat (2006, focusing on Coptic letters), *Luijendijk (2008), *Blumell (2012; 2020), and *Blumell and Wayment (2015). The discussion of which characteristics could denote the Christian origin of a letter (e.g., nomina sacra, certain forms of address, etc.) is still continuing. *Blumell (2012) examined the letters of Oxyrhynchos and concluded that, of the approximately 800 letters written between the mid-first and early seventh century CE, only 191 most probably originate from a Christian milieu. The earliest private letter that can be clearly identified as Christian is P.Bas. 2.43 (with P. van Minnen 2022, BASP 59:361–63; Theadelphia, before Nov 239 CE; cf. Huebner 2019, 19–23, 28). Besides Greek, the other languages represented in the Egyptian material have also been extensively studied by experts of ancient letter writing. Though not very numerous, the Latin letters from Egypt gained a lot of attention (cf. C.Epist.Lat.) and cold be compared with Latin letters from Great Britain (Vindolanda, Londinium, etc.), Switzerland (Vindonissa), Syria (Dura), Israel (Masada), and Libya (Golas). From these areas, approximately 700 Latin letters have been edited so far.7 In the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, with few exceptions, Latin was the language of the Roman army. It is, therefore, not a coincidence that Latin papyrus letters from Egypt are mostly situated in a military setting, written by soldiers or veterans (Adams 1977; *Kreinecker 2010, 19–31). The Latin letter form can, to a great extent, be compared to the Greek one; special investigations have focused particularly on syntax and pragmatics (Halla-aho 2009), or language level (Adams 1977; Kramer 2007; Halla-aho 2010; 2011). Aramaic, Hebrew, Egyptian, and Arabic letters written on papyrus, potsherds, or parchment (some Arabic letters are already on paper) all share the fact that they were—as opposed to Greek and Latin letters—drafted in a fairly 7 As of December 2022, the HGV lists more than 250 Latin letters, mainly from Egypt, Syria, and Libya; to these must be added those from Roman sites in Britain, Switzerland, and Germany (see *Arzt-Grabner 2020, 61–62 n. 20).

Papyrology and Letter Writing: A Short History

5

demarcated area in a region where writing materials could survive centuries or even millennia. The Aramaic and Hebrew papyrus and ostracon letters were collected especially by B. Porten and A. Yardeni.8 The oldest Aramaic letter is probably P.Murabba‘ât 17 (Murabba‘ât/Israel, VIII BCE), which reads: “-yahu tells you: ‘I am sending my greetings to your family. And now, don’t listen to every word you are told!’”9 Studies in Aramaic epistolography were conducted by J. D. Whitehead (1974), P. E. Dion (1979; 1981), J. A. Fitzmyer (1974; 1981), and I. Kottsieper (2013). Demotic letters were especially studied by M. Depauw (2006). A. Biedenkopf-Ziehner (1983) studied the formulary of Coptic letters, whereas M. Choat (2010) presented a systematic investigation of Coptic epistolography (see also Richter 2008). Arabic papyrus letters have been edited and studied by W. Diem (CPR 16 with papyrus letters, CPR 32 with letters on paper; Diem 2008) and others (Khan 2008; Grob 2010; Reinfandt 2010; 2015). Bilingual letters (e.g., in Demotic-Greek or Aramaic-Greek) are usually edited by a collaboration of the specific experts. Extensive studies on the letters of the New Testament in comparison with papyrus letters were already conducted in the early years of papyrology, mainly by *Deissmann (esp. 1927) as well as *Moulton and Milligan (1929), and were taken up again only in the 1970s (*White 1971; etc.). The series New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (New Docs.), established by G. H. R. Horsley in 1981, resulted in the New Moulton Milligan Project, which aims at a completely revised edition of the Moulton-Milligan lexicon (cf. Horsley and Lee 1997; Lee and Horsley 1998). The second international and long-term project in this regard are the Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament, edited by P. Arzt-Grabner, J. S. Kloppenborg, and M. Pesce (volumes on New Testament letters are thus far: *Arzt-Grabner 2003; 2014; *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006; *Kreinecker 2010). Studies on papyrus letters authored by women can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century (Mondini 1917) and were revived by *Evans (1985). The relevant compilation is the one by *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006; extended 8 Cf. Porten and Yardeni 1986, A:1.1–6.16; 1999, D:1.1–32, 6.3–14, 7.1–57 (reprinted with another letter by Schwiderski 2004, 1–17, 43, 119–23, 147–60). Among the more than 2,000 Aramaic ostraca from Idumea, 23 fragmentary items have been identified as letters (edited by Porten and Yardeni 2020, 479–513 G1.1–6; G2.1–6; G3.1; G4.1–9; G5.1; cf. Yardeni 2016, XXII, XXIX). 9 Additional editions present the Hebrew or Aramaic letters by Shim’on ben Kosibah from the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt: P.Murabba‘ât 43 and 44; P.Yadin 2.49–51; 53–58; 60; 62–63; P.Hever 30, a Hebrew letter to Shim’on ben Kosibah; moreover P.Murabba‘ât 42; 45–52. Over 800 papyrus fragments from the Judean/Aramean community on Elephantine Island in Egypt, dating to V BCE, have been found in the “Aramaic Box” in the Berlin Museum; some of them are parts of letters and have been edited by J. D. Moore (2022, nos. 1.1.1–27).

6

Chapter 1

eBook 2008). Further content-related aspects that have attracted attention are, for example, the social and economic contexts of scribes (*Stowers 1988; *Reinard 2016). At the same time, studies on ancient papyrus letters increasingly address more detailed questions and specific formats (e.g., “hybrid cheirographa” using the otherwise unusual salutation “A and B greetings to each other”; Jördens 2013), Aramaic letters as legal documents (Kottsieper 2013), or material aspects of Greco-Roman letter writing (*Sarri 2018).

Chapter 2

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament Literature The following is only a selection of important monographs and some articles that may serve as an introduction to the topic: *Arzt-Grabner 2003; P. Arzt-Grabner 2010, “Neues zu Paulus aus den Papyri des römischen Alltags,” Early Christianity 1:131–57; *Arzt-Grabner 2014; P. Arzt-Grabner 2016, “Dokumentarische Papyri und 2. Korintherbrief,” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 19/38:3–12; *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006; *Bauer 2011; C. Breytenbach 2015, “Die Briefe des Paulus: Kreuzpunkt griechisch-römischer Traditionen,” in *Breytenbach 2015, 3–28; *Burnet 2003b; *Deissmann 1903; *Deissmann 1912; *Deissmann 1927; L. Doering 2012, Ancient Jewish Letters and the Beginnings of Christian Epistolography, WUNT 298 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck); *Doty 1973; C. Hoegen-Rohls 2013, Zwischen Augenblickskorrespondenz und Ewigkeitstexten: Eine Einführung in die paulinische Epistolographie, Biblisch-theologische Studien 135 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie); *Klauck 2006; *Kreinecker 2010; *Lieu 2006; *Milligan 1922; *Porter and Adams 2010; *Richards 2004; *Roller 1933; C. Salles 1996, “L’épistolographie hellénistique,” in Paul de Tarse: Congrès de l’ACFEB (Strasbourg, 1995), ed. J. Schlosser, LD 165 (Paris: Cerf), 79–97; *Schnider and Stenger 1987; M. Schwarz-Friesel 2013, Sprache und Emotion, 2nd ed., Uni-Taschenbücher (Tübingen: Francke), esp. 89–133; *Stowers 1988; G. Strecker 1992, Literaturgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, Uni-Taschenbücher 1682 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 56–121; *White 1972; *White 1978; *White 1984; *White 1986.

For centuries, the letters of the New Testament have been treated as something special and distinct. A. *Deissmann (1903; 1912; 1927), in the early decades of the 20th century, was one of the earliest scholars to compare these letters, especially those of Paul, with letters that had been written during Greco-Roman antiquity, by more or less average people, and were now resurfacing at archaeological sites or on the antiquities market. Another pioneer who compared these two corpora of letters was G. Milligan who wrote (*Milligan 1922, 31): There are wide differences between the Pauline Letters themselves, as notably between the great Epistle to the Romans, which amounts almost to a theological treatise, and the unstudied art of the little note to Philemon, while even this last, in virtue of its writer and his subject, is on a wholly different plane from an ordinary papyrus letter. At the same time nothing helps us more to grasp the reality of the message in the Pauline writings than to remember that these writings are popular rather than literary in their origin, and were intended, in the first instance, not for publication, or for after-ages, but to meet the immediate practical needs of the Churches and individuals to whom they were in the first instance addressed.

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790487_003

8

Chapter 2

Many biblical scholars who were contemporaries of Deissmann and Milligan, however, remained reluctant to accept that the letters of Paul of Tarsus and other prominent figures of Greco-Roman literature should in any way be treated on the same level as papyrus letters. Some biblical scholars still critically note that, with few exceptions, papyrus letters are known only from Egypt, while the New Testament letters were written elsewhere. In connection to this, they like to refer to the so-called “Sonderfall Ägypten” (special case or situation of Egypt), although papyrology, based on finds from other provinces, has long demonstrated increasingly clearly that such a special case does not exist and never did. As far as letters are concerned, we can refer here on the one hand to papyrus letters that were written, for example, in Asia Minor or Rome and sent to Egypt, where they were found in modern times, and, on the other hand, to Latin letters on ostraca from North Africa (Libya, Tunisia) or on wooden or wax tablets from London, Vindolanda, or Vindonissa. They all confirm that the formulas and conventions used in letters were generally the same throughout the Roman Empire (see PNT 1, pp. 191–97). It is also remarkable that the earliest Greek letters, which are preserved on lead tablets, come from Greece, Spain, and the Black Sea region (see pp. 74–76), and already contain formulas that later appear in the letters from Egypt. Finally, the analogies between Egyptian papyrus letters and the letters of the New Testament—most of all the letters of Paul of Tarsus—which were not written in Egypt, testify that these are common conventions of Greco-Roman epistolography. Nevertheless, efforts to prove the unique and incomparable nature of New Testament letters in contrast to private, business, and administrational letters—preserved on papyrus, potsherds, and tablets—are still not unusual. It is often argued that the latter are generally far too short, too ordinary, and even too clumsy to meet such a comparison. In this chapter I will prove that such views can be clearly refuted, especially in light of more recent papyrus editions and their impact on the research of ancient epistolography. The results of this research allow us to even go beyond Milligan’s limitations quoted above.

Length and Clarity

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2010a, 17–20; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 54–61; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 29–30; *Roller 1933, 34–41, 353–81; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 5–6.

A major aim of private letters is to maintain the personal relationship between letter senders on the one hand and their addressees on the other. Some letters even serve this purpose exclusively by providing no special contents but

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament

9

instead only philophronetic expressions, which are sometimes widely embellished. Of course, letters of this kind (e.g., O.Trim. 1.317 [2.187], one of the shortest private letters from Greco-Roman times) are, in comparison with New Testament letters, almost insignificant, although some scribes demonstrate a very learned style, even when they do not express anything other than that they think of the addressees and wish them well. The style of CPR 5.19 [2.96] (I–II CE), for example, would well match that of an author of ancient literature. Such letters are of course not very numerous, unlike the many short letters containing only a simple request or information, whose numbers run into the thousands and thus make up the bulk of private letters preserved from Greco-Roman antiquity. The variability in how one can express particular concerns by letter is huge, and ranges from the simplest wording to educated language and intricate expressions. This also applies to the way requests or pleas are voiced, facts presented, or announcements phrased. A short example is O.Claud. 1.151 [2.124] (ca. 100–120 CE), an ostracon written by a certain Sabinus who asks his dearest Zosimos to keep an eye on his slaves. At the other end of the scale, concerning the length of letters, is P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] (324–330 CE?), the longest private letter from Greco-Roman times so far, which originally comprised at least six columns and still, in its fragmentary form, measures 24.5 cm in height and 75 cm in width. With regard to the reconstructable number of characters, Paul’s Letter to the Galatians can be well compared with this one (*Arzt-Grabner 2010a, 17).1 The sender of the letter is a certain Aurelius Ammon, son of the priest Petearbeschinis. Ammon was a scholar and advocate in Panopolis in the Thebaid. Several hundred fragmentary papyri from his family archive have survived (cf. TM Arch 31), from which we learn that he and his brothers received higher education. P.Ammon 1.3 is addressed to Ammon’s mother Senpetechensis alias Nike, his father’s second wife, and deals with 1 The calculation is as follows: The NA28 version of Gal consists of 11,080 letters. Of P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] the following line numbers are preserved: col. 1 has 31 lines, col. 2 has 33, col. 3 has 34, col. 4 has 34, col. 5 has 35, and col. 6 has 33 lines. If we calculate for each column the average of the number of letters of the lines preserved as a whole, or at least reconstructable, and multiply it by the lines, we obtain the following data: Since no complete line of col. 1 is preserved, we take the average of 52 letters per line as in col. 2, which for col. 1 yields 1,612 letters for col. 1; for col. 2 we can calculate an average of 52 letters per line, resulting in 1,716 letters; for col. 3 (average of 55 letters per line) 1,870 letters; for col. 4 (average of 56 letters per line) 1,904 letters; for col. 5 (average of 59 letters per line) 2,065 letters; lines 1–15 of col. 6 are slightly longer (average of 39 letters) than lines 16 and 18–24 (average of 33 letters; lines 25–33 are not preserved completely), and line 17 contains the final greeting with only 27 letters, resulting in a total of 1,173 letters for col. 6. Altogether, a length of 10,340 letters can thus be calculated for P.Ammon 1.3, i.e., 740 less than Gal, which is equivalent to roughly half a column only.

10

Chapter 2

rather unpleasant family affairs. In contrast to so many short letters addressing such issues, Ammon comments on the situation of his family and its relationships at length with philosophical and religious thoughts (see p. 13). Without any doubt, the length of Ammon’s letter is exceptional, but it is not unique. Some other examples of rather long papyrus letters are: P.Oxy. 4.743 (4 Oct 2 BCE); BGU 3.884 (ca. 76–84 CE); SB 22.15708 with BL 11:240 [1.30] (ca. 100 CE); P.Giss.Univ. 3.20 (113–117 CE); SB 18.13867 (mid II CE); P.Harrauer 35 (ca. 250 CE); P.Oxy. 6.936 [2.175] (III CE).2 If we look at the letter collection of ancient authors, Paul’s Letters to the Galatians or Romans (to leave aside 1 and 2 Cor as possible products of secondary compilation) are also exceptions. The length of a letter is by no means associated with the clarity and comprehensiveness of its contents. Letters, by their nature, contain many ambiguities, often related to the fact that today we usually have access to only one side of a communication process between two letter partners—the side of the letter sender. So far, there are only two exceptions in this respect: One is preserved in the two ostraca O.Did. 342 and 343 [2.86] (before ca. 77–92 CE), the latter representing the direct answer to 342. The other one is P.Leid.Inst. 42 [2.136] (II CE), a papyrus with the letter of a certain Heras to the woman Taphes on top, by which Heras gives details about the clothes sent along with the letter. Below, on the same papyrus, is Taphes’s grateful reply and announcement of a forthcoming visit. In all other cases, it is often difficult or even impossible for us today to comprehend the context of a letter, even though the original correspondents probably had no problem recognizing what was meant by the phrases used. This is true for all kinds of letters, then and now, both for occasional letters from less educated people as well as for extended letters written by professional scribes in a learned style. A selected example is P.Oxy. 6.936 [2.175] (III CE), a letter accompanying the delivery of goods from a certain Pausanias to his father Iulius Alexandros. After having listed the different goods, the scribe abruptly mentions: “The tailor says: ‘I give neither the money nor the hooded coat without Iustus,’ for he says: ‘The hooded coat has not been ransomed and I haven’t found Philoxenos at all.’” Not a single detail of this paragraph can immediately be understood. Moreover, nothing about the persons mentioned, the money, or the hooded coat is revealed by the context. Similar insoluble cases from the letters of Paul of Tarsus and other well-known ancient letter writers are numerous, and papyrus letters may explain why this is and will be the case. Apart from individual letter passages, complete and quite extensive letters can also be largely beyond comprehension. A good example is BGU 4.1141 2 For short descriptions of their state of preservation see PNT 1, pp. 62–63.

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament

11

[2.58] (after 9 Apr 13 BCE), a draft letter of which 60 lines are legible. It was addressed to the unknown sender’s patron. We learn that the author had been slandered in front of his addressee and is now defending himself against this, but further details remain obscure. The author refers to a prior letter, which would probably reveal the necessary clues. But it is not preserved. Analogously, regarding Paul’s Letter to Philemon, we do not, and never will, know Philemon’s actual view of Onesimus’s situation, whether it was in any way similar to that of Paul or not, what Onesimus actually told Paul when he met him in prison, whether he had indeed run away or was only a truant, what kind of damage he had caused, or what he had done wrong to his master. All that we have is Paul’s letter to Philemon presenting only Paul’s view and his sophisticated appeal to Onesimus’s master. Besides the fact that we are often missing one part of the original communication process (i.e., the query or reply of the preserved letter’s addressee), another cause for our lack of understanding has to be mentioned: It is typical of private letters that many details are not mentioned because they were obvious. Both correspondents were already familiar with those details; there was no need to mention or explain them again. Evidently, this also applies to both papyrus letters and the letters of Paul or other well-known writers. It was, for example, completely clear to Paul and to the Corinthian Christ group which of them had originally uttered the notion, “It is well for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor 7:1), whether it reflected the opinion of several members of the assembly in Corinth or Paul’s own idea. Paul obviously saw no need to explicitly mention this again. When we read private letters from Greco-Roman antiquity, we are confronted with countless comparable cases which lead us to realize that our modern lack of clarity is caused by the basic character of letters themselves.

Educational Level and Language Skills

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 67–71; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 374–81 (extended eBook 2008, B9.1–3 nos. 266–268); W. Clarysse 1983, “Literary Papyri in Documentary ‘Archives’,” in Egypt and the Hellenistic World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 24–26 May 1982, ed. E. Van ’t Dack, P. van Dessel, and W. van Gucht, Studia Hellenistica 27 (Leuven: Peeters), 43–61; *Döllstädt 1934, 1–5; *Fournet 2012; D. Hagedorn 1997, “Die ‘Kleine Genesis’ in P.Oxy. LXIII 4365,” ZPE 116:147–48; K. Haines-Eitzen 2000, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press); H. Halla-aho 2010, “Linguistic Varieties and Language Level in Latin Non-Literary Letters,” in *Evans and Obbink 2010, 171–83; A. Luijendijk 2018, “Books and Private Readers in Early Christian Oxyrhynchus: ‘A Spiritual Meadow and

12

Chapter 2

a Garden of Delight’,” in Books and Readers in the Premodern World: Essays in Honor of Harry Gamble, ed. K. Shuve, WGRWSup 12 (Atlanta: SBL Press), 101–36; *Meecham 1923, 40–41; R. Pintaudi and L. Vidman 1983, “Homer. Ilias VIII 30–54 in einem Prager Papyrus (P. Wess. Prag. Gr. I 52 i),” Listy filologické 106:160–64, I–II; D. W. Rathbone 1991, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate, Cambridge Classical Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); *Stowers 1986, 32–35; B. van Beek 2009, “‘We Too Are in Good Health’: The Private Correspondence from the Kleon Archive,” in Faces of Hellenism: Studies in the History of the Eastern Mediterranean (4th Century B.C.–5th Century A.D.), ed. P. van Nuffelen, Studia Hellenistica 48 (Leuven: Peeters), 147–59; *Winter 1933, 63–68, 89–92. – See also PNT 1, pp. 69, 76, 82–83.

A striking example of a boy’s fairly simple language is P.Oxy. 1.119 [1.1] (II–III CE) which *Deissmann (1927, 229) called “the impudent boyish scrawl of Theon,” and (on p. 201) “a portrait of a naughty boy drawn by himself, and a specimen of the most uncultivated form of popular speech.” The boy’s level of expression and orthography, however, is far from unusual in papyrus letters and is a good example of one extreme on the scale of language skills, as can be seen in his use of simple language, and misspellings. Other examples are even worse. Theon’s letter is, after all, easily understood and even today we are still able to feel empathy with the poor boy, while other examples certainly pose insoluble problems or different options of interpretation due to a poor choice of words, lack of expression, or clumsy syntax. This is the case, for example, with SB 14.11580 [2.150] (mid or second half II CE): Besides many orthographic errors the simple sentences and, moreover, the lack of punctuation and quotation marks, which is common for Greek texts of the respective time, make it hard to come to a reliable interpretation. We have good reason to assume that the recipient of the letter was dependent on oral explanations by the letter carrier in order to be able to understand the message, and she was certainly glad that he was actually able to do so, because—as the contents of the letter make clear—he was directly involved in the described events. Sometimes, language skills are so poor that people have trouble spelling their addressees’ names correctly. For example, although a certain Ischyras always writes his name correctly in his letters to Parabolos, the latter regularly fails to reproduce Ischyras’s name in the same way and writes “Eischyras” instead, which is attested by O.Krok. 2.232 (98–117 CE) and 330–334 (98–138 CE). Errors in spelling, however, do not necessarily mean low education or result in clumsy expression, since there are indeed letters that contain an astounding number of spelling mistakes, but nevertheless reveal that their scribes are familiar

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament

13

with the usual epistolary formulas and even able to express themselves uniquely. The letters of Ischyras just mentioned are good examples of this.3 The other extreme on the scale of language skills is represented by letters such as P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] (324–330 CE?), which has already been mentioned because of its exceptional length (see p. 9). The sender of the letter, Aurelius Ammon, not only shows his high education through well styled phrases and an ambitious syntax but also illustrates his mundane concerns with sophisticated philosophical thoughts. In col. 2, for example, he refers to unpleasant family affairs and tries to comfort his mother by linking them to the goddess Tyche (Fortune) herself, who controls and determines everything for all human beings. According to Ammon, the gods’ cycles are just—though sometimes good, sometimes unfavorable. Subsequently, he elaborates on the fact that his brother had apparently spent or lost a large part of the family’s heritage, but instead of expressing self-pity and complaints he again contemplates life and destiny in general at great length. Letters written or dictated by persons of high education are preserved from all periods. Some examples from the Roman period are BGU 4.1141 [2.58] (after 9 Apr 13 BCE) or several letters from the archive of a wealthy family in the Hermopolite nome (called the archive of Eutychides son of Sarapion, TM Arch 87, cf. p. 305), written between 90 and 133 CE, of which three are presented in this volume: P.Sarap. 85 [2.111], 89 [2.112], and 100 [2.113]. Some further examples of letters from the educated are: P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96] (I–II CE), P.Oxy. 73.4959 [2.145] (II CE), PSI 12.1261 [2.169] (212–217 CE), P.Oxy. 7.1070 [2.168] (after 212 CE), BGU 4.1080 [2.180] (III CE?), P.Oxy. 42.3069 [2.183] (III– IV CE), and P.Pintaudi 55 [2.186] (late III–mid IV CE). Compared with the letters of Cicero or the shorter letters of Paul, they would have been worth publishing if only someone had been interested in these letters (cf. p. 17). All these examples show that whether the style and language is of higher or lower degree simply depends on the education and skills of a letter writer, not on the contents of the letter itself. Even short letters that simply serve the purpose of communication, contain advice and requests, or pass on greetings from relatives or acquaintances, sometimes show elaborate and cultivated styles. Writing letters was practiced in Greek schools, but the papyrological evidence for copying epistolary expressions is not very numerous. One of the 3 Cf. O.Krok. 2.281; 286; 287; 288 [2.103]; 289; 290?; 291–299; 301?; 302–305; 307–311; 313; 314; 316–322; 324–327; 329 (all 98–117 CE); 285 (98–138 CE).

14

Chapter 2

earlier examples is P.Pintaudi 54 [2.184] (III–IV CE?), which at first sight only seems to be a private letter, but the repetition of greeting formulas and the overall graphic layout of the writing suggest that it was an exercise written by a learner who was trying to copy the typical appearance of a letter.4 The range of how far a student could get in mastering the Greek language and a good letter style is, again, enormous, and secondary education, in order to also acquire a respectable knowledge of Greek literature, may have been customary only in elite families. A private letter from Oxyrhynchos, P.Oxy. 6.930 [1.34] (II–III CE), testifies that a mother, who obviously had read Homer’s Iliad herself, not only enquires about the welfare of her son Ptolemaios, but also keeps track of his learning progress (in the meantime he has reached Il. 6) and is very interested in finding a suitable teacher for him after the previous one had to move on. Some writers of private letters even had classical literature to hand or had borrowed a text from someone else, as illustrated by an ostracon from Thebes, O.Bodl. 2.2000 [1.37] (II–III CE?), whose sender asks a certain Isidoros in a short note: “When you come, bring me the Vocabulary of Iliad A as I have begged you.” Five private letters from the archive of Heroninos (TM Arch 103), who was the manager of the Appianus estate in Theadelphia in the Arsinoite nome/ Egypt from September 249 to summer 268 CE (Rathbone 1991, 422), were written on the back of papyri that had been inscribed with literary texts from 100 years earlier. These had been discarded from the library of the elite family of Aurelius Appianus, prominent citizen and counselor of Alexandria who owned the estate until his death in 260 CE. P.Flor. 2.120 (with BL 1:148 and 8:126; 250–261 CE) was written on the back of a papyrus inscribed with a philosophical polemic, P.Ryl. 2.236 (10 Jan 253 or 11 Jan 256 CE) on the back of an unidentified Greek comedy, P.Ryl. 2.240 on the back of Demosthenes, Cor. 163–169, and P.Flor. 2.108.v (ca. 264–266 CE) on the back of Il. 3.397–408, 411–422 (Clarysse 1983, 47; Rathbone 1991, 12).5 Of particular interest is SB 18.13609 (249–268 CE), a letter written on the back of a scroll which had been inscribed with Homer, Il. 8 (TM 60582), about 50 years earlier.6 The letter was 4 Some further examples are P.Rain.Unterricht 73; 76; 78 (all IV–V CE). 5 An interpersonal loan of books among Christians is attested by P.Oxy. 63.4365 (Oxyrhynchus, IV CE): the letter sender asks his “dearest lady sister” to lend him “the Ezra since I lent you the little Genesis” (see Hagedorn 1997; Luijendijk 2018, 107–12). The “little Genesis” can be identified with the Book of Jubilees (cf. Hagedorn 1997, who also noted that this is the oldest testimony to the existence of the Greek translation of the Book of Jubilees), the identification of “the Ezra” is, however, less certain (Hagedorn identifies it with the apocryphal book 4 Ezra, Luijendijk argues that it could be 6 Ezra). 6 According to the editors (Pintaudi and Vidman 1983, 161), the scroll had been inscribed during the last decades of II CE. The recto still preserves fragments of Homer, Il. 8.30–54.

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament

15

sent to Heroninos, but the sender’s name is not preserved. That it was written by a certain Timaios (cf. Pintaudi and Vidman 1983, 161) is suggested by P.Flor. 2.259 [2.182], another letter sent to Heroninos, because Timaios is mentioned as letter sender, and the handwriting seems to be the same as that of SB 18.13609. Looking at both letters, we can easily imagine how a private library like the one of Appianus may also have served someone who had access to it to occasionally insert quotations from Homer or another Greek poet into the text of a letter. In P.Flor. 2.259 [2.182], Timaios asks Heroninos to pay for the delivery of several bags of grain and to tell a certain Kiot, “that if he does not give the other sakkos or come up and pay his dues, a soldier is coming down to get him” (lines 6–10). To emphasize his request, Timaios added a quotation from Homer, Il. 2.1–2, beautifully written in two lines in the left margin: “The other gods and chariot-fighting men slept all night long, but sweet sleep did not hold Zeus.” Below these two lines, the phrase “they slept all night long” was repeated, ironically alluding to the inactivity of Heroninos or the people in his office (D. Comparetti in P.Flor. 2, p. 227). BGU 4.1080 [2.180] (III CE?) is a private letter from a certain Herakleides who congratulates his son on the occasion of his wedding and hopes for a “sumptuous feast” as soon as they meet again. The phrase in line 10 is quoted from Homer, Od. 11.415, where it is also associated with marriage and thus identifies the letter author as someone who knows Homer well and who, conscious that he is writing to a person who is able to recognize the allusion to Homer, does not bother to mention his quotation explicitly (*Fournet 2012, 140–41). An example from Ptolemaic times is P.Köln 15.603.7–8 (5 Mar 213 BCE), where the saying “because as usual, the whole is borne by the parts” may be linked to a proverb, which is attested by Stob. 74. Other letter writers sometimes used a more general pool of aphorisms and proverbs (e.g., BGU 4.1141.24–25 [2.58], written after 9 Apr 13 BCE, or O.Did. 451.4–5 [1.36], written before 176–210 CE), or they were gifted enough to express their concerns or feelings poetically on their own, as a certain Didyme did during the second century CE, addressing her brother Apollonios as “sun” and emphasizing: “Know that I am not seeing the sun because you are not seen by me. For I have no other sun but you” (P.Oxy. 42.3059.3–5 [2.144]).

Private, Literary, and Official Letters

Literature B. Aland 2019, “Deissmann als Paulusexeget,” in *Breytenbach and Markschies 2019, 130–52; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 29–33; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 51–54; D. E. Aune 1990, “The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2–3),” NTS 36:182–204; *Bauer 2011, 55–57, 91–98, 396–404;

16

Chapter 2

*Burnet 2003b, 21–30; R. Burnet 2011, “Des textes comme les autres: Réinscrire le Nouveau Testament dan les écrits du monde méditerranéen,” in Reading New Testament Papyri in Context – Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte, ed. C. Clivaz and J. Zumstein, BETL 242 (Leuven: Peeters), 189–206; *Ceccarelli 2013, 298–330, 365–83; C. J. Cornthwaite 2018, “Seven Letters from Jesus and Manufacturing Social Capital in Revelation,” Early Christianity 9:135–57; *Deissmann 1927, 374–75; D. Dormeyer 2004, “The Hellenistic Letter-Formula and the Pauline Letter-Scheme: An Assessment of Theories,” in The Pauline Canon, ed. S. E. Porter, Pauline Studies 1 (Leiden: Brill), 59–93; W. G. Doty 1969, “The Classification of Epistolary Literature,” CBQ 31:183–99; *Gamble 1995, 13–41; A. Gerber 2010, Deissmann the Philologist, BZNW 171 (Berlin: De Gruyter); G. H. R. Horsley 2019, “Adolf Deissmann as a Philologist,” in *Breytenbach and Markschies 2019, 66–129; *Klauck 2006, 67–71, 77–82, 103–82; *Lieu 2006; J. M. Lieu 2016, “Letters and the Topography of Early Christianity,” NTS 62:167–82; *Luttenberger 2012, 87–100, 161–67; *Meecham 1923, 36–40, 97–112; *Milligan 1922, 19–26, 32–45; *Moulton and Turner 1976, 83; J. H. Oliver 1989, Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 178 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society); B. Palme 2009, “The Range of Documentary Texts: Types and Categories,” in *Bagnall 2009, 358–94; P. J. Parsons 1980, “The Papyrus Letter,” in Acta Colloquii Didactici Classici Octavi, Amstelodami, dd. 8–11 M. Apr. A.D. 1980, ed. J. Veremans and F. Decreus, Didactica Classica Gandensia 20 (Gent: [s.n.]), 3–19; S. Perrone 2019, “Banking Transactions on the recto of a Letter from Nero to the Alexandrians (P.Genova I 10)?,” in Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of Papyrology (Barcelona August 1st–6th, 2016), ed. A. Nodar and S. Torallas Tovar, Scripta Orientalia 3 (Barcelona: Publicacions del’Abadia de Montserrat), 540–50; J. Punt 2003, review of Stirewalt, M. Luther, Paul, the Letter Writer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, Neot 37:361–64; *Reece 2017, 17–51; *Reinard 2016, 66–77, 993–97; P. M. Robertson 2016, Paul’s Letters and Contemporary Greco-Roman Literature: Theorizing a New Taxonomy, NovTSup 167 (Leiden: Brill); *Roller 1933, 23–33, 345–52; G. Rudberg 1911, “Zu den Sendschreiben der Johannes-Apokalypse,” Eranos 11:170–79; *Sarri 2018, 6–16, 24–40; M. L. Stirewalt 1993, Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography, SBL Resources for Biblical Studies 27 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press); M. L. Stirewalt 2003, Paul, the Letter Writer (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); *Stowers 1986, 17–26; *Trobisch 1989; D. Trobisch 1994, Die Paulusbriefe und die Anfänge der christlichen Publizistik, Kaiser Taschenbücher 135 (Gütersloh: Kaiser); D. Trobisch 1996, Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, NTOA 31 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht); M. van den Hout 1949, “Studies in Early Greek Letter-Writing II,” Mnemosyne 2:138–53; C. B. Welles 1934, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy, Studia Historica 28 (New Haven: Yale University Press; repr., Rome 1966).

A. *Deissmann (1927, 228–29) is still known for the distinction he made between a real letter and an epistle. A letter has been defined by him as “something non-literary, a means of communication between persons who are separated from each other.” Since its nature is “[c]onfidential and personal,” it is “intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed, and not at all for the public or any kind of publicity.” According to Deissmann, there “is no essential difference between a letter and an oral dialogue; … and it has been

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament

17

not unfairly called a conversation halved.” As the contents of letters “may be as various as life itself, … letters preserved from ancient times form a delightful collection of the liveliest instantaneous photographs of ancient life” (p. 228). The epistle, however, is according to Deissmann “an artistic literary form, a species of literature”; it “has nothing in common with the letter except its form” and therefore “one might venture the paradox that the epistle is the opposite of a real letter.” As its contents “are intended for publicity …, the epistle is cried in the market; everyone may read it, and is expected to read it: the more readers it obtains, the better its purpose will be fulfilled” (p. 229). Or—explained almost poetically (p. 230): The epistle differs from a letter as the dialogue from a conversation, as the historical drama does from history, as the carefully turned funeral oration does from the halting words of consolation spoken by a father to his motherless child—as art differs from nature. The letter is a piece of life, the epistle is a product of literary art.

It was essential for Deissmann that early Christianity originated in the popular masses (not the intellectual or social elite) and remained embedded in the masses. Deissmann’s distinction between personal letters and epistles must be seen in this context. He describes many of the simple letters as if they were already of much greater importance and on a higher level. The fact that even papyrus letters occasionally have a literary character (see p. 13) is not sufficiently recognized by Deissmann. Nevertheless, his general description of the private letter (or letter of personal character) is still largely valid.7 A classification problem first arises from the sheer abundance of texts and document types that were written in letter form in the Greco-Roman period but would nowadays not be identified as letters. In addition to personal, business, and official letters, we find receipts, certificates of indebtedness, and various legal or administrational documents. More or less everything that in antiquity could be communicated in a written form between two individuals or groups was in the form of a letter by using the epistolary opening greeting χαίρειν, formally an infinitive meaning “to rejoice” (see pp. 75–77). As far as the letters of famous personalities of antiquity are concerned, they cannot a priori and in general be classified as literary letters and distinguished from letters of a personal nature, since they too were initially not written for the public, but for the original addressees. In this first form, therefore, these letters were not literary letters, but genuine letters of a personal character. 7 For further critique and appreciation of Deissmann see, e.g., Doty 1969; Dormeyer 2004, 61, 68–69; *Gamble 1995, 13–41; *Bauer 2011, 55–57, 91–98, 396–404; *Burnet 2003b, 21–30; Gerber 2010; Aland 2019; Horsley 2019.

18

Chapter 2

This applies to the letters of Paul in the same way as to numerous letters of other Greco-Roman writers or philosophers. According to *Deissmann (1927, 234), “[a]lmost all the mistakes that have ever been made in the study of St. Paul’s life and work have arisen from neglect of the fact that his writings are non-literary and letter-like in character.” A letter became literature not by its content, but by its publication, which could be due to either the content or the author. Only because of their publication can the letters of Cicero, Seneca, and others finally be called literary letters. But, even so, they are by no means to be regarded as “artistic letters” that were not originally addressed to any real addressees. This category applies altogether to only a few letters, and thus within the scope of this project should not necessarily be assumed for any letter of the New Testament. Whenever letters were to be published, they were editorially revised (*Trobisch 1989; Trobisch 1994; 1996, 90, 93–94), but apparently this did not happen to the extent that a letter would have completely lost its previous personal characteristics. From this point of view, too, it is therefore inappropriate to explicitly classify all letters that have been published and are thus accessible to a wider audience as “epistles” and to distinguish them from “private letters” in terms of genre (Burnet 2011). However, with their publication they have at least surpassed the border to a broader public and to later generations. In this way, it became possible to elevate private matters into the public domain without losing their personal character. Along these lines, both the private papyrus letters and the so-called literary letters offer valuable comparative material for interpreting the letters of the New Testament.8 M. L. Stirewalt (2003) has argued that the Letters of Paul should primarily be compared with the official letters of Ptolemaic kings and Roman emperors, not only in their preparation, delivery, and reception, but also in their formal design (type of greeting, structure of the letter corpus, subgenres). 1 Cor, in particular, is compared with P.Lond. 6.1912 [1.39] (10 Nov 41 CE), the famous letter of the emperor Claudius to the city of the Alexandrians (Stirewalt 2003, 66–77).9 It is commendable that Stirewalt has thus brought this type of ancient correspondence to the attention of New Testament studies. On the other hand, the strong emphasis on “official letters” (such as also two letters of Nero, see 8 Cf., e.g., *Klauck 2006, 103 (overview of letters of Greek and Latin authors pp. 103–148, including references and bibliographies); *Lieu 2006, 447–48. 9 For collections of official letters and edicts of Hellenistic kings and Roman emperors see Welles (1934) and Oliver (1989). For a brief introduction to the “official letter” see also Stirewalt 1993, 6–10.

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament

19

p. 3 n. 3) as the comparative material for the Pauline letters must be questioned. At minimum it is too selective (Punt 2003, 363). The epistolary characteristics (e.g., a special form of the opening greeting, a group as addressee), which Stirewalt considers to be typical features of official correspondence, can also be found in private letters. This is not surprising and indicates a lively exchange between these two genres, which have much in common anyway. As Stirewalt correctly observed, there were great differences in the “logistics,” especially in the delivery of letters (see Palme 2009, 375–76). Precisely at this point it must be emphasized that the options for official mail service were simply not available to Paul. The people who delivered his letters were not officials whom he could have sent off by official instructions, just as he himself did not hold any office within the Roman administration that would have enabled him to have his mail sent through official channels instead of by private transport. Even if the forms of written correspondence may be similar here and there, the entire way of Pauline communication must nevertheless be seen in light of private letter writing. Paul could never have expected that any of his letters would have been perceived a priori as authoritative as a letter from the Emperor or from a Roman governor. Paul’s letters, especially his Corinthian correspondence, abundantly illustrate that this was not the case. The fact that one or the other characteristic of official correspondence was sometimes imitated applies to both private letters and the letters of Paul.

A Closer Look #1: Paul of Tarsus and Other Emotional Letter Writers

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 85–91, 167–69, 207–212; E.-M. Becker 2012, “Die Tränen des Paulus (2Kor 2,4; Phil 3,18): Emotion oder Topos?,” in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, ed. R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2011 (Berlin: De Gruyter), 361–78; E.-M. Becker 2012, “Paulus als weinender Briefeschreiber (2Kor 2,4): Epistolare parousia im Zeichen visualisierter Emotionalität,” in Der zweite Korintherbrief: Literarische Gestalt – historische Situation – theologische Argumentation. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Dietrich-Alex Koch, ed. D. Sänger, FRLANT 250 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 11–26; *Clarysse 2017; P. v. Gemünden 2015, “Der ‘Affekt’ der Freude im Philipperbrief und seiner Umwelt,” in Der Philipperbrief des Paulus in der hellenistisch-römischen Welt, ed. J. Frey and B. Schliesser, WUNT 353 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 223–53; C. Kotsifou 2012a, “‘Being Unable to Come to You and Lament and Weep with You’: Grief and Condolence Letters on Papyrus,” in Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World, ed. A. Chaniotis, Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 52 (Stuttgart: Steiner), 389–411; *Kotsifou 2012b; C. M. Kreinecker 2012, “Emotions in Documentary Papyri: Joy and Sorrow in Everyday Life,” in Emotions from

20

Chapter 2

Ben Sira to Paul, ed. R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (Berlin: De Gruyter), 451–72; A. Nobbs 2018, “Communication within a Dysfunctional Family in Late Antique Egypt,” in Registers and Modes of Communication in the Ancient Near East: Getting the Message Across, ed. K. H. Keimer and G. Davis (London: Routledge), 220–27; P. Parsons 2007, City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish: Greek Lives in Roman Egypt (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson), 23–24 (with n. 17–19 on p. 228), 129 (with n. 39 on p. 240); *Palme 2007; M. Parca 2021, “‘For I Have no Other Sun but You’: Emotions and Married Life in Greek Papyri,” in Married Life in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. C.-E. Centlivres Challet (London: Routledge), 185–208; R. S. Schellenberg 2022a, “Epistolary Affects: An Introduction,” BibInt 30:539–55; *Schellenberg 2022b; E. Skarsouli 2020, “Some Remarks on the Use of εὐλαβέομαι and φοβέομαι in Greek Documentary Papyri and in Literary Texts,” in Writing Order and Emotion: Affect and the Structure of Power in Greek and Latin Authors, ed. A. Bettenworth and J. Hammerstaedt, Spudasmata 188 (Hildesheim: Olms), 47–64; L. L. Welborn 2001, “Paul’s Appeal to the Emotions in 2 Corinthians 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16,” JSNT 82:31–60; L. L. Welborn 2011, “Paul and Pain: Paul’s Emotional Therapy in 2 Corinthians 1.1–2.13; 7.5–16 in the Context of Ancient Psychagogic Literature,” NTS 57:547–70; F. Winter in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 81–82; *Winter 1933, 129–31. New Testament 1 Cor 1:18–29; 3:18–23; 4:8–10; 15:36; 2 Cor 1:8–10; 2:4; 11:1–12:13; Gal 3:1, 3; Phil 1:4, 18, 25; 2:2, 17; 4:1, 10; Jas 4:8; 2:20; 4:4.

Next to petitions, but even more so, private letters are by far the best source for emotional expressions of the people of everyday Greco-Roman life. Or in other words, among the writers of the papyri and ostraca that come from Greco-Roman everyday life, it is primarily the writers of letters who tell us something about their positive and negative feelings. We have letters in which the sender expresses emotions toward the addressee as well as letters in which the sender complains in an emotional way about a third party or reports someone else’s emotional behavior. In New Testament letters, we encounter mainly the former case, which is why the focus of this chapter will be on corresponding examples.10 A letter revealing anxiety of both correspondents is P.Oxy. 4.744 [2.67] (17 Jun 1 CE), the letter of Hilarion to his wife Alis. As *Palme (2007, 204) remarked, Hilarion had been gone and had probably not sent any money for so long that he did not even know whether Alis was pregnant; this is implied by his expression “if perhaps you give birth” in lines 8–9. The woman’s situation now appears even more dramatic, and her anxious admonition, “Don’t forget me,” which she had conveyed to her husband (cf. lines 11–12), suddenly lends a financial undertone to the emotional message. On the other hand, Hilarion’s 10 Some examples of the second group are: O.Did. 360.6–9 (before ca. 88–96 CE); SB 22.15708.41 with BL 11:240 [1.30] (ca. 100 CE); O.Did. 395.1–7 (before ca. 120–125 CE).

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament

21

request to “take care of the child,” is underscored by the double request “I ask you and beg you” (lines 6–7) which reflects his fear that Alis might even be willing to take drastic measures against the older child. Is the request to expose the child, Palme asks, then perhaps a calming concession on Hilarion’s part? Perhaps the most emotional and timeless example among the papyrus letters is P.Oxy. 1.119 [1.1] (II–III CE), the “impudent boyish scrawl” (*Deissmann 1927, 229) of a “rebellious schoolboy” (Parsons 2007, 129), which requires no further comment. Free of any irony, on the other hand, is P.Oxy. 85.5522 [2.97] (I–II CE), for the addressee Apollonios is indeed deeply and emotionally missed by Dionysios. The reason for this cannot have been a notorious negligence of Apollonios as a letter writer, which is confirmed by P.Oxy. 85.5523, the letter of an Ammonios to this very Apollonios, which was found together with 5522 and testifies that Ammonios was not negligent to inform his correspondents about his well-being. In O.Krok. 2.193 [2.118] (98–138 CE), a father tries to comfort his daughter, who obviously longs for him very much, but at present has to be with other people, whom she may consider as second parents for the time being. In the New Testament letters, genuine expressions of emotion are especially found in some of the letters of Paul of Tarsus. Other authors do sometimes use harsh expressions toward their addressees, but these tend to be abstract or of a general nature (cf., e.g., Jas 2:20; 4:4, 8). Paul, on the other hand, swears and uses insults, or he resorts to irony and sarcasms. The recipients of his letter to the Galatians are twice addressed as “foolish” (ἀνόητοι; Gal 3:1, 3). Several times in 2 Cor 11:1–12:13 he calls himself “unreasonable” or “senseless” (ἄφρων; 11:1, 17, 21) and his addressees “reasonable” or “sensible” (φρόνιμοι; 11:19),11 but both ironically, thus implying exactly the opposite (see also 1 Cor 15:36). The papyrological evidence of these adjectives is extremely scarce. Only in P.Fay. 124.11–14 (II CE), the addressee is scolded as “unreasonable” for not keeping his promise to pay his mother her allowance. In 1 Cor Paul uses the synonym word family μωρία which is supposed to provide the counterfoil to the concept of “wisdom” as represented by the “wise” of Corinth (1 Cor 1:18–29; 3:18–23; 4:8–10). As two private letters in particular show, μωρία should be translated with the emotional term “stupidity” and the adjective μωρός with “stupid” or “idiot” (F. Winter in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 82). In the postscript of the letter of a woman, whose name is not preserved, to Apollonios, the strategos of the Apollonopolites Heptakomias (see p. 329), P.Brem. 61.25–28 [1.15] (113–120 CE), the latter is told by the woman: “You know very well how this stupid fellow is bothering me again about his mother, since he is stupid and does not have you to drive out his stupidity.” SB 16.12579 (late 11 In 11:19, he also calls his opponents, not his addressees, “unreasonable.”

22

Chapter 2

II CE) is a business letter from a certain Aquila to his landlord Ptolemaios, who had ordered some locals to do something regarding cypresses or perhaps to supply cypress wood. Apparently, they were uneasy about some of the circumstances, which led them to write a letter to Ptolemaios, but subsequently they claimed that this letter had been suppressed by his agents, which then caused them to harass the administrators of the estate. In lines 9–14, Aquila reports: “But today also they assailed our men in considerable numbers, saying in their stupidity: ‘We want an answer to the letter. You probably opened it and did not send it to him.’” Aquila, therefore, asks Ptolemaios to send them a reply so that they might no longer attack the administrators. As already mentioned, in 2 Cor 11:1–12:13 Paul expresses his emotions in a sarcastic manner, for which there are some significant parallels in papyrus letters. In P.Tebt. 2.424.4–5 (late III CE), a certain Sarapammon writes to Piperas: “If you remain in your foolishness, I congratulate you.” In O.Berenike 2.129.3–5 [2.79] (ca. 50–75 CE), a mother reproaches her son for not sending her any letters, adding sarcastically: “Was it for this reason that I carried you for ten months and nursed you for three years, so that you do not know to remember me by a letter?”12 In a similar way, but without irony, Ploutogeneia accuses her mother in P.Mich. 3.221 (ca. 297 CE) that she has not written a single letter in the last eight months, and she adds: “Again then you do not regard me as your daughter but as your enemy” (lines 6–8). Likewise, Ploutogeneia’s mother Heliodora expresses her anger at her own mother with the following words immediately after the opening greeting of SB 16.12326 (ca. 297 CE): “I am intensely annoyed with you that you did not even send me a message by letter, disregarding me since I left you” (lines 1–4; for further details of this dysfunctional family see Nobbs 2018). The entire letter P.Flor. 3.367 [2.174] (III CE) is full of reproaches about the fact that the addressee does not write. A different reason caused a certain Cornelius to be annoyed with the Roman soldier Antonius and to write the ostracon letter O.Did. 333 [2.89] (before ca. 88–92 CE). It seems that Cornelius has allowed Antonius to have the prostitute Iulia for a few days free of charge; however, since Antonius has not returned the girl, Cornelius angrily threatens to make Antonius pay for the days the girl has not worked, but at the same time insists that no amount of money could stop him from taking Iulia away from the “burning” Antonius. An example that is quite close to the way Paul expresses his disappointment with the assembly at Corinth is P.Iand. 6.97 [2.181] (29 Nov 242 or 30 Nov 247 or 29 Nov 257 CE), the private letter from a certain Aurelios Zoilos to one 12

Some other ironic examples are SB 28.17112.5, 9, 15 (late II/early III CE); P.Oxy. 1.119.2 [1.1] (II–III CE); P.Sakaon 55.2–3 (254–343 CE; see *Clarysse 2017, 73).

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament

23

Diogenes. The reason for the letter is probably an earlier threat by Diogenes to assault Zoilos. The latter feels insulted and defends himself emphatically. The similarity with Paul can be seen in the fact that both sharply reject the direct or indirect accusations of being insane; Zoilos does this explicitly in lines 4–5, Paul ironically in 2 Cor 11:1, 17, 21. Moreover, both claim to have rendered so much good to their addressees, but instead of the reward they deserve, they only face rejection. Regarding Paul’s irony, the best parallel to 2 Cor 11:1–12:13 is preserved in P.Oxy. 7.1070 [2.168] (after 212 CE), a letter from Aurelius Demareus to his wife Arsinoe. In the first part of this relatively long and very stylish letter, Demareus encourages his wife, among other things, to take good care of herself in a generous way. He sends her a basket full of sweets and reports that there is nothing new in a legal matter about which we do not learn any details; however, he sends some documents on the subject. After a final greeting and a postscript, his friendly tone suddenly switches in the middle of line 47. With irony, he thanks his wife and her parents for not considering him worthy of a single letter, whereas he had written often and was taking care of all matters. If this does not change, Arsinoe might as well hand over the care of the entire house to the useless Heraïs, which would result in a complete mess. Another example of a man reproaching a woman, presumably his wife, for her unreliability is P.Dubl. 16 (II–III CE). Some details remain obscure, but it seems that the sender of the letter is impatient for the woman to come to him; in col. 2.5–7 he writes: “And bring all your stuff so you won’t annoy me again, my lady, whether you want to or not. I insist.” Instead of sending her the passage money to pay for her trip, he has already paid it himself, telling her in col. 2.9–14: “I am sending13 you, my lady, 40 (drachmas), and I have paid 60 (drachmas) for the passage money. I would be able to send you 100 (drachmas), but I do not send them. You know yourself why I do not send them. You’ve got sense. Think it over.” In 2 Cor 1:8–10, Paul reports on afflictions he faced in the province of Asia that even made him despair of life itself. Besides or in addition to external circumstances (detention, life-threatening attacks by the authorities), he may have been suffering from a severe depression. The drama of suicidality is illuminated in a particular way by two papyrus letters. In P.Petaus 29.6–9 [2.156] (late II CE), a certain Didymarion reports that her daughter is treated so badly by the addressee’s mother that she has already threatened to throw herself into the sea if the mother behaves like this for another month. Further, one Isidora notifies her husband in PSI 3.177.v [2.164] (II–III CE) that their child is sick 13

I consider the aorist forms in this passage to be epistolary (cf. p. 149).

24

Chapter 2

and has not eaten for six days; if he does not come and the child dies, she may hang herself. According to *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 280; extended eBook 2008, B1.19 no. 156) this letter “is evidence against the notion that high child mortality led to a lack of ‘emotional investment’ in young children.” The examples from papyrus letters that mention writing something “with many tears,” as Paul emphasizes in 2 Cor 2:4, have in common that the person involved is in an extremely awkward, distressed, or depressed situation that evokes such emotions. The sender of BGU 4.1141 [2.58] (after 9 Apr 13 BCE) seems to feel massively distressed when he poetically expresses his grief over malice done to him, which he would be willing to describe in more detail, and indeed “out of tears” (line 28), “if,” as he explains, “it were possible to write tears to you” (lines 27–28). In P.Mich. 8.465.9–10 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?), the soldier Apollinarios vividly describes his obvious homesickness to his mother Tasucharion, but at the same time tells her that he is often remembering her: “For whenever I remember you I do neither eat nor drink but I weep.” Compassion for a close person may have been the reason that the sender of P.Mil.Vogl. 1.24 (7 Dec 117 CE) was found by a visitor “weeping with many tears,” as he himself reports in lines 6–12 with BL 6:84. Likewise, the author of P.Oxy. 3.528 (II CE), a certain Serenus, was probably experiencing a roller coaster of emotions. His wife Isidora had cheated on him, which led him to send her by ship to another place for safety or punishment. Now, however, this hits him as hard as it does her, for she has already written him letters, “which would have shaken a stone” (lines 12–13), and he now assures her that ever since she left him, he has been mourning, “weeping by night and lamenting by day” (lines 8–9).14 Although being in prison, Paul expresses joy in no other of his letters as often and as intensely as in Phil (see 1:4, 18, 25; 2:2, 17; 4:1, 10). The most prominent place to express joy in papyrus letters is in a report of joy after receiving good news (see pp. 119–23). Besides that, expressions of joy are comparatively rare. The author of the ostracon letter O.Krok. 2.217 (98–117 CE) assures a certain Parabolos, maybe as a joke (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 108): “I am glad that you have become rich” (line 7). Near the end of the rather long postscript of the business letter P.Oxy. 55.3807 (ca. 26–28 CE?), the letter sender 14 The letter P.Giss. 1.17 (113–120 CE) is addressed to the strategos Apollonios (p. 329); not in tears, but with even more emotional words the female servant Taus, “probably an old freedwoman who was on very familiar terms with the strategos” (*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 149), writes in lines 7–13 (with BL 1:168): “I beg you, lord, if it seems good to you, to also send for us, but if not, we die because we do not see you every day. If only we could fly and come and embrace you; for we are anxious to follow you” (for this interpretation cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 149; extended eBook 2008, A7.14 no. 44).

Papyrus Letters and the Letters of the New Testament

25

mentions: “I am very pleased that I am about to sail downstream(?)” (line 43). A late parallel to Phil 2:17 (“I rejoice with all of you”) is preserved by BGU 4.1080.2–4 [2.180] (III CE?), where a father congratulates his son on the occasion of his wedding: “Before all, I greet you and rejoice with you in your good, pious and fortunate marriage.”

Chapter 3

Letter Types As mentioned above (p. 17) the letter form was used in Greco-Roman antiquity for a broad variety of genres, but in the narrower sense, which also is the basis of this volume, a letter can be defined as “a concrete medium of communication to be materially carried from a sender to a recipient” (*Luiselli 2008, 677). From Greco-Roman antiquity until today scholars have tried to distinguish between types or genres of the letter itself.

Ancient Epistolary Theorists and Model Letters

Literature S. Abram 2007, “Select Bibliography of Ancient Letter-Writing Collections and Epistolary Theory,” in *Poster and Mitchell 2007, 245–83; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 12–13 (extended eBook 2008, locations 49–51); *Bauer 2011, 33–44, 51–55; *Ceccarelli 2013, 2–8; *Drecoll 2006, 33–39; T. Fögen 2018, “Ancient Approaches to Letter-Writing and the Configuration of Communities through Epistles,” in Letters and Communities: Studies in the Socio-Political Dimensions of Ancient Epistolography, ed. P. Ceccarelli et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 43–80, here 43–55; S. Fogarty 2022, “Model Documents and the Scribe,” BASP 59:259–74; *Klauck 2006, 183–227; *Koskenniemi 1956, 18–63; *Lieu 2006, 445–49; *Malherbe 1988; C. Poster 2007, “A Conversation Halved: Epistolary Theory in Greco-Roman Antiquity,” in *Poster and Mitchell 2007, 21–51; *Sarri 2018, 28–29; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 48–52; *Stowers 1986, 51–60, 91–96, 125–27, 133–34, 139, 142–43, 166–68; *Thraede 1970, 17–27; *Trapp 2003, 42–46, 180–93 nos. 73–76; *White 1986, 190–91, 202–3; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 183–86. – See also L. Ferretti, S. Fogarty, E. Nury, and P. Schubert, A Typology of Greek Documentary Papyri, grammateus project, DOI: 10.26037/yareta:pwpy6suznrdnjg67znabqr2vl4.

The earliest handbook on Greek epistolography is entitled Typoi Epistolikoi (“Letter Types”) and has been attributed to Demetrius of Phalerum but was written by an unknown author. The handbook, written sometime between 200 BCE and 300 CE (but possibly originating in pre-Christian times), lists twentyone kinds of letters (translation *Malherbe 1988, 31):1 1 A later handbook, variously dated between IV and VI CE, is entitled Epistolimaioi Charakteres and lists 41 types of letters. Two manuscript traditions differ a lot from each other, and one attributes the handbook to Libanius, the other to Proclus (for Greek text and English translation of the “Libanius” tradition see *Malherbe 1988, 66–81; for a comparison of both manuals see also Poster 2007, 24–32). For chronological reasons, this handbook is not considered

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790487_004

28

Chapter 3

φιλικός/philikos (friendly) [1], συστατικός/systatikos (commendatory) [2], μεμπτικός/memptikos (blaming) [3], ὀνειδιστικός/oneidistikos (reproachful) [4], παραμυθητικός/paramythetikos (consoling) [5], ἐπιτιμητικός/epitimetikos (censorious) [6], νουθετητικός/nouthetetikos (admonishing) [7], ἀπειλητικός/apeiletikos (threatening) [8], ψεκτικός/psektikos (vituperative) [9], ἐπαινετικός/epainetikos (praising) [10], συμβουλευτικός/symbouleutikos (advisory) [11], ἀξιωματικός/axiomatikos (supplicatory) [12], ἐρωτηματικός/erotematikos (inquiring) [13], ἀποφαντικός/apophantikos (responding) [14], ἀλληγορικός/allegorikos (allegorical) [15], αἰτιολογικός/aitiologikos (accounting) [16], κατηγορικός/kategorikos (accusing) [17], ἀπολογητικός/apologetikos (apologetic) [18], συγχαρητικός/syncharetikos (congratulatory) [19], εἰρωνικός/eironikos (ironic) [20], ἀπευχαριστικός/apeucharistikos (thankful) [21]. Each type is introduced by mentioning one or several situations for which the particular style might be appropriate, before presenting an example. The first type receives a comparably long introduction by “Demetrius” which reads as follows (translation *Malherbe 1988, 33): The friendly type, then, is one that seems to be written by a friend to a friend. But it is by no means (only) friends who write (in this manner). For frequently those in prominent positions are expected by some to write in a friendly manner to their inferiors and to others who are their equals, for example, to military commanders, viceroys, and governors. There are times, indeed, when they write to them without knowing them (personally). They do so, not because they are close friends and have (only) one choice (of how to write), but because they think that nobody will refuse them when they write in a friendly manner, but will rather submit and heed what they are writing. Nevertheless, this type of letter is called friendly as though it were written to a friend.

here which is also not the case concerning the manual of Gaius Iulius Victor (IV CE; see *Malherbe 1988, 62–65; Poster 2007, 34–36).

Letter Types

29

What “Demetrius” writes here about the friendly type is, by analogy, also true for the other types of letters. For every letter type, Ps.-Demetrius presents a model letter which addresses a general situation in the relationship of fictitious letter partners, sometimes one situation, sometimes a selection of several. Ps.-Demetrius offers a selection of phrases that might be useful in a practical situation but there is, on the one hand, probably no practical situation which might suit all the phrases used in the model letter, and on the other hand, any practical situation demands mention of more personal or specific information, request, blame etc.2 than Ps.-Demetrius gives in his samples. Moreover, it has been observed that classifications such as “blaming,” “censorious,” “reproachful,” “accusing,” or “vituperative” are far too sophisticated to be observed by average people in their daily correspondence (*Koskenniemi 1956, 61–62). Model letters are also preserved on papyrus. C.Gloss.Biling. 1.16 [2.185] is a papyrus scroll dated to the late third or early fourth century CE, which has often been compared with Ps.-Demetrius. It was found in Egypt but possibly written in Northern Africa. The front side of it preserves seven columns of bilingual (Latin and Greek) model letters of the following types: two “congratulatory” letters, three letters of the “advisory” type, six letters entitled “Congratulatory Letters for Received Inheritances,” and two “Congratulatory Letters on the Reception of Freedom.” In length and style, the letters are similar to the model letters of Ps.-Demetrius but, contrary to those, they resemble much more real letters insofar as they mention personal names and sometimes more particular situations. Moreover, in C.Gloss.Biling. 1.16 [2.185] we always find more than one sample for a particular type whereas Ps.-Demetrius presents only a single sample for each of the letter types. Obviously, model letters like these indicate that students were trained to write letters that take account of different situations and certain addressees. Looking at C.Gloss.Biling. 1.16 [2.185] allows us to imagine easily how a teacher made them develop a more personal and individual style. The earliest preserved model letters so far have been identified on a papyrus scroll, written and found at Memphis. Its front side had been inscribed with an astronomical treatise, the so-called Ars Astronomica (P.Paris 1), before columns 1–9 and 11–13 of the reverse became occupied by copies of several letters (UPZ 1.110; 111; 144; 145).3 Three of them still preserve the exact datings of their originals: UPZ 1.110.1–192 is dated to 21 September 164 BCE; 110.193–213 2 Cf., e.g., *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 13 (extended eBook 2008, locations 49–51). 3 Before the back was inscribed, the space on the reverse representing col. 10 was already occupied by the acrostich of the astronomical text on the front side.

30

Chapter 3

to 23 October 164 BCE; 111 to 22 September 163 BCE. Palaeographical details suggest that the three copies on the scroll were written soon after the original letters. The two other letters, UPZ 1.144 and 145, have been attributed to the hand of a student and dated roughly to the first half of the second century BCE. According to U. Wilcken (in UPZ 1, pp. 473–75, 622–24) these texts were copied from real letters, whereas *Koskenniemi (1956, 58) argued that at least the original of UPZ 1.144 was already a model letter (cf. also HGV). It is generally agreed that the letter was copied and used to train apprentices who had applied for a position in the administration. Regarding the style and syntactical complexity, they should obviously become familiar with a high level of epistolographical art. This is also true for UPZ 1.146, a completely preserved letter which has been found on a separate sheet of papyrus on which it had been written in two columns. There is no letter opening and no closing, and the skilled handwriting relates this letter to a professional scribe who most probably produced this copy as a model for a teacher who trained some students in style and phraseology by making them copy it. It is not impossible that this sheet of papyrus was used in the same school as the scroll mentioned above, containing UPZ 1.110, 111, 144, and 145.

Modern Attempts of Classification

Literature J. G. Altman 1982, Epistolarity: Approaches to a Form (Columbus: Ohio State University Press); *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 15–18 (extended eBook 2008, locations 58–69); *Buzón 1984; J. Chapa 1994, “Is First Thessalonians a Letter of Consolation?,” NTS 40:150–60; *Chapa 1998; N. A. Dahl 1976, “Letter,” IDB Supplementary Volume:538–41; W. G. Doty 1969, “The Classification of Epistolary Literature,” CBQ 31:183–99; *Klauck 2006, 206–27; I. Kording 2018, “Epistolarisches: Die achtfache Relationalität des Briefes,” in *Matthews-Schlinzig and Socha 2018, 77–89; *Liebert 1996; *Lieu 2006, 447–48; D. Luckensmeyer and N. Bronwen 2016, “Reading First Thessalonians as a Consolatory Letter in Light of Seneca and Ancient Handbooks on Letter-Writing,” NTS 62:31–48; *Luiselli 2008, 677–78; J. Muir 2009, Life and Letters in the Ancient Greek World (London: Routledge; Paperback 2012); *Reinard 2016, 57–126; M. Reiser 2001, Sprache und literarische Form des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung, Uni-Taschenbücher 2197 (Paderborn: Schöningh); *Roller 1933, 23–32, 345–52; D. Roumpekas, “Alleviating Death: Consolatory Expressions in the Greek Mummy Labels from Roman Egypt,” in PapCongr. 29, 835–45, here 836; *Schubert 2021, 1–3; M. Sinding 2018, “Letterier: Categories, Genres, and Epistolarity,” in *Matthews-Schlinzig and Socha 2018, 21–37; *Stowers 1986, 58–173; *Stowers 1988; *White 1988, 88–95, 104–5; D. Wolff 2017, Paulus beispiels-weise: Selbstdarstellung und autobiographisches Schreiben im Ersten Korintherbrief, BZNW 224 (Berlin: De Gruyter), 38–42, 201–2; K. A. Worp 1995, “Letters of Condolence in the Greek Papyri: Some Observations,” Analecta

Letter Types

31

Papyrologica 7:149–54. – See also L. Ferretti, S. Fogarty, E. Nury, and P. Schubert, A Typology of Greek Documentary Papyri, grammateus project, DOI: 10.26037/yareta:pw py6suznrdnjg67znabqr2vl4.

In 1982, J. G. Altman argued “that the letter is a totally amorphous instrument in the hands of its creator” and that it “is unique precisely because it does tend to define itself in terms of polarities such as portrait/mask, presence/absence, bridge/barrier” (Altman 1982, 185–86; cf. Sinding 2018, 23). Moreover, letters are dialogical (Kording 2018, 80 et passim). These are also some of the plausible reasons why so many different proposals for the classification of letters still exist and why these themselves continue to be problematic. N. A. Dahl (1976, 539) listed the following criteria according to which letters may be classified: “writing materials; mode of preservation; private, official, or public character; levels of style; and … occasion, scope, and mood.” Simultaneously Dahl noted that these criteria “often overlap.” Therefore, in most cases a clear and differentiated classification is not possible as preserved letters cannot usually be assigned to a particular genre. Instead, they represent a mixture of features and contents of several letter types, which in their pure form exist almost exclusively in epistolary theory. Only letters of recommendation and (most) letters of consolation are to be classified and distinguished in a clear way (see below). Modern attempts at classification are nevertheless numerous and often based on the ancient typologies. It may suffice to mention just two significant examples. W. G. Doty (1969, 196–97) distinguished between four groups of “more private letters” and four groups of “less private letters,” the latter four groups being divided into several types; the eight groups are: – more private letters: 1. writer to an individual person, 2. writer to a discrete group, 3. writers to addressees; – less private letters: 4. official (administrative military or non-military, administrative, Christian, commercial, foreign affairs, legal documents), 5. public (“open” letters, school exercises), 6. “non-real” (pseudonymous, imaginary, letters from heaven or the gods, epistolary novel), 7. discursive (magical, scientific, religious, literary-critical, historical, knowledge-in-general, paraenetic, didactic), 8. other special types (amorous, erotic, poetic, inserted [stylized to fit content], consolation, dedication, introduction, congratulation).

32

Chapter 3

*Stowers (1986, 58–173) discerned different types which all more or less belong to the genre of private or personal letters: letters of friendship, family letters, letters of praise and blame, letters of exhortation and advice, paraenetic letters (exhortation and dissuasion), letters of advice, protreptic letters (exhortation to a way of life), letters of admonition, letters of rebuke, letters of reproach, letters of consolation, letters of mediation, accusing, apologetic, and accounting Letters. The first two types (letters of friendship and family letters) could be considered as groups of a higher level, the examples of which in practice contain one (or more) element(s) of the other letter types. De facto, hardly any letter will belong to only one genre, but will contain formal elements of several types as thousands of papyrus letters show. Even a particular letter of consolation can be a letter of friendship at the same time, containing encouragement, advice, and exhortation. Although, this certainly does not apply to all letters of consolation. In practice, it is therefore advisable to categorize letters only roughly into the following three classes (in order of frequency): 1. private and business letters (transitions are fluid, as business letters often contain private notes as well, see below), 2. official or administrative letters, 3. literary and philosophical letters (consisting generally of revised and published letters, which are thus not preserved in their original form, and are therefore not covered in further detail in this volume; cf. pp. 16–18).4

4 *Buzón (1984) divides classes 1 and 2 into four groups: a. letters of a personal nature, b. letters of recommendation, c. business letters, d. administrative letters. A similar classification has been suggested by Reiser (2001, 117) who distinguishes 1. letters of rulers, official and administrative letters (official correspondence), 2. private letters, 3. letters with “higher” intentions (philosophical, literary, etc.).

Letter Types

33

The more intimate the tone and personal character of a letter and the more extensive the purely domestic, amicable, or private contents, the more distinctly it can be referred to as a private or personal letter. The care of family members for one another is, for example, the central concern in P.Col. 8.215 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE), the private letter of a daughter to her mother concerning her health and the sending of supplies, but also the well-being of a little girl who has been ill. SB 3.6263 [2.153] (late II CE) is a papyrus on which a certain Sempronius wrote two letters, one to his mother Saturnila, the other to his brother Maximus. In the letter to his mother, Sempronius complains that he has written so many letters to her and his brothers but never received a single reply, which is why he persistently asks his mother to write to him about the state of her health so that he might worry less. In the second letter Sempronius asks his brother Maximus not to cause their “lady mother” any grief and to encourage the other brothers like a father not to dissent from her, who should be honored like a deity, especially since she is so good. Considering the conversational tone between the family members no further explanation is needed as to why the preserved correspondence between Saturnila and her five sons, to which also these two letters belong, has been called the “Happy Family Archive” (TM Arch 212). Likewise, a mother’s worry about her son’s health, on the other hand (his foot hurts from a splinter), is vividly illustrated by BGU 2.380 [2.172] (III CE), where the mother offers her son Hegelochos to drop everything at any time and travel to him; he would know how much a mother worries about her child. A large number of personal or private letters, however, do not deal exclusively with purely private content; many, such as P.Oxy. 7.1070 [2.168] (after 212 CE), concern deliveries of goods and other business matters, legal disputes and complaints, claims or warnings similar to those in business or official correspondence. Letters between family members that deal mainly or primarily with business matters or legal issues are often viewed as private letters because of the personal relationships between the correspondents, but at the same time those letters could also be analyzed as business letters, as two selected examples may illustrate: According to its address on the back, SB 3.7244 (with BL 2.2:131–32; 10:187; mid III CE) is from Herakleides and should be delivered to a certain Didymos, but actually this Greek papyrus contains four letters, all written by the same scribe and dealing with the exchange of goods: the first letter is from Herakleides to his son Didymos, the second from Adelphios (the reading is uncertain) to his daughter Melies, and the final two are from Hadrianos to Kollouthos. In SB 16.12981 (late II/early III CE), a certain Isis writes to “the brother” Serapion, possibly her husband, about the purchase of wheat and hay and asks for money for her expenses. On the other

34

Chapter 3

hand, business letters between non-family members often include personal lines, and commercial requests are occasionally even based on the personal relationship with the addressee, as for example in the case of P.Fay. 109 [2.70] (19 Jun 10 BCE or 34 CE).5 Last but not least, officials who have collaborated for years not only correspond about administrational matters but sometimes express a collegial and even amicable relationship (see also the selection of letters by Muir 2009). However, such observations are not intended to question attempts of classification altogether, but rather to draw attention to the fact that such attempts should always include consideration of the fact that there are occasional overlaps and often enough different perspectives under which ancient letters can be analyzed. As with the above-mentioned attempts, this also applies to the classification proposed by *Luiselli (2008, 678), which is based on the one hand on the material on which the individual categories have been preserved, and on the other on the different groups of addressees. Luiselli distinguishes between the following three types of letters: 1. “documentary” letters: letters composed for sending by individuals or groups of individuals who are known to have been living in antiquity, preserved on perishable materials, and unearthed from the collapsed buildings of ancient towns and villages, or from the rubbish mounds near them, or indeed from the ruins of military camps, monasteries, and so forth; 2. “literary” letters: letters composed for sending by equally historical individuals, and subsequently built into edited collections for a broad readership; these have come down to us in parchment and paper codices which are seldom earlier than the eleventh century; 3. “fictitious” letters: letters from and to fictional characters, preserved in manuscript traditions, but they are works of literature unrelated to actuality and sophisticated products of highly educated writers who were steeped in the literary language and the learned traditions of an earlier (reputedly golden) age. All this is also true for most of the letters of the New Testament. 1  Cor, for example, has been described by *Klauck (2006, 307) as a letter written in the “paraenetic or exhorting style,” but “also, with modifications, the friendly style, though this does not prevent features of other letter styles from being

5 Other examples are the letters between the gymnasiarch Chairemon and a certain Apollonios, written between 76 and 84 CE (e.g., BGU 2.531 [2.84]; cf. *Olsson 1925, 128–33 no. 43; see also p. 91).

Letter Types

35

manifested in individual passages.” Ultimately, 1 Cor will therefore have to be classified as a mixed form (cf., e.g., Wolff 2017, 201–2). Among the documentary letters only two types have developed their own particular and distinguishable styles and formularies, originating from the special situations for which these letter types were used: letters of consolation and letters of recommendation (see next chapter). For example, letters from prison and letters of soldiers are not types of their own because they contain the same formulas as other letters. The fact that soldiers sometimes express their longing for continued correspondence more deeply than other letter writers is simply due to the fact that the distance to the family at home is greater than average. Prisoners describing their present state more drastically than other letter writers is correlated to their arduous situation. There is nothing different or additional in their letters, but the usual formulas or conventions are only phrased more intensely depending on the situation. The earliest letter of consolation6 so far is the model letter P.Hamb. 4.254 (early II CE?). There is no such letter among the letters of the New Testament but Paul’s appeal in 1 Thess 5:14 to “encourage the faint hearted” may be illuminated by letters of consolation on both terms.7 An antonym of “faint hearted” is the verb “to be of good courage, to take heart” (εὐψυχέω) which is used as opening greeting only in a letter of consolation, P.Oxy. 1.115.2 [2.143] (II CE), but the imperative of the same verb shows up as farewell to a deceased at the end of many mummy labels.8 Despite the fact that this verb could be used on other occasions too (cf. Phil 2:19), it is not impossible that “to be faint hearted” in 1 Thess 5:14 refers to those who definitely are in need of becoming “of good heart,” who—according to the context—are those grieving over the deaths of relatives, acquaintances, and members of the community. The Greek verb παραμυθέομαι (in 1 Thess 5:14 usually translated as “encourage”) is preserved in three letters of consolation that are of a much later time: The sender of P.Ross. Georg. 3.2 (ca. 270 CE) tries to console his grieving mother and writes that he has also “comforted” his brother Marcus; the sender of P.Oxy. 55.3819 (early IV CE) “comforts” his grieving addressees; the sender of P.Oxy. 59.4004 (V CE) appeals to his brother to “console” himself. In light of such texts, παραμυθέομαι in 1 Thess 5:14 could include both aspects of the verb, to “comfort” and to “encourage.” 6 Cf. Ps.-Demetrius, Typoi Epistolikoi 5 (see p. 28). 7 Based on the ancient epistolary handbooks and on Seneca’s letters of consolation, Luckensmeyer and Bronwen 2016 suggested to read 1 Thess as letter of consolation. 8 Cf., e.g., SB 3.6700 (Ptolemaic); 18.13645 (late I/early II CE); 1.5626 (ca. 100 CE); 20.15115 (ca. 130–150 CE); P.Batav. 39 (II CE); P.Coll.Youtie 2.119 (first half III CE); T.Mom.Louvre 625 and 857; SB 1.777 (all II–III CE). See Roumpekas 2022, 836–37.

36

Chapter 3

Letters of Recommendation

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 59–61; P. Arzt-Grabner 2010, “Neues zu Paulus aus den Papyri des römischen Alltags,” Early Christianity 1:131–57, here 137–42; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 270–76; L. P. M. Berge 2015, Faiblesse et force, présidence et collégialité chez Paul de Tarse: Recherche littéraire et théologique sur 2 Co 10–13 dans le contexte du genre épistolaire antique, NovTSup 161 (Leiden: Brill), 146–70; A. Bernini 2020, “Notes on Papyri: P.Masada 724 Revised,” BASP 57:394–96; H. M. Cotton 1981, Documentary Letters of Recommendation in Latin from the Roman Empire, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 132 (Königstein: Hain); *Drecoll 2006, 51–52; A. E. Hanson 1984, “The Archive of Isidoros of Psophthis and P. Ostorius Scapula, Praefectus Aegypti,” BASP 21:77–87; A. E. Hanson 1997, “Isidoros of Psophthis, Augustan Cultivator: An Update,” in PapCongr. 21, 413–29; A. E. Hanson 2012, “A New Letter from the Archive of Isidorus from Psophthis, Memphite Nome,” in PapCongr. 26, 323–29; J. Hengstl 2007, “Das Archiv des Isidoros aus Psophthis aus rechtshistorischer Sicht,” in PapCongr. 23, 273–78; A. Kaiser 2010, “‘Ich bitte Dich, Herr, habe ihn vor Augen wie mich selbst …’: Empfehlungsbriefe auf Papyrus,” in *Kreuzsaler, Palme, and Zdiarsky 2010, 61–67; C. W. Keyes 1935, “The Greek Letter of Introduction,” AJP 56:28–44; *Kim 1972; *Klauck 2006, 72–77; S. R. Llewelyn 1998b, “Christian Letters of Recommendation,” New Docs. 8:169–72; *Luttenberger 2012, 144– 58; *Meecham 1923, 122; R. Rees 2007, “Letters of Recommendation and the Rhetoric of Praise,” in *Morello and Morrison 2007, 149–68; *Reinard 2016, 88–96; *Stowers 1986, 153–65; T. M. Teeter 1997, “Letters of Recommendation or Letters of Peace?,” in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses: Berlin, 13.–19.8.1995, vol. 2, ed. B. Kramer et al., APF Beiheft 3 (Stuttgart: Teubner), 954–60.; *Trapp 2003, 39–41; K. Treu 1973, “Christliche Empfehlungs-Schemabriefe auf Papyrus,” in Zetesis: Album amicorum, door vrienden en collega’s aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. E. de Strycker (Antwerpen: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel), 629–36; *White 1986, 204–5; *White 1988, 88–90; D. I. Yoon 2016, “Ancient Letters of Recommendation and 2 Corinthians 3.1–3: A Literary Analysis,” JGRChJ 12:45–72. – See also L. Ferretti, S. Fogarty, E. Nury, and P. Schubert, Description of Greek Documentary Papyri: Letter of Recommendation, grammateus project, DOI: 10.26037/yareta:gudbsboujnasxfsve2r6gglwpa. New Testament

Rom 16:1–2; 1 Cor 16:3, 15–18; 2 Cor 3:1; 8–9; Phil 2:25–30; Phlm. The Greek term for the commendatory letter type is συστατικός. The term is used by Ps.-Demetrius (Typoi Epistolikoi no. 2), by Paul of Tarsus (2  Cor 3:1 συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαί), and by the unknown author of P.Giss.Univ. 3.20 (113–117 CE), a letter written in Alexandria. In the first line of col. 2 of this rather long papyrus letter, we read of ἐπιστολαὶ συστατικαί that have been sent to the epistrategos, but because nothing is preserved of the previous column, the circumstances of these letters, and in whose favor they were written, remain unknown (cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 275). Also the verb συνίστημι (or συνιστάνω) is specific for the act of recommendation, and sometimes explicitly connected

Letter Types

37

with a letter of that type; for example, the form by which Paul styles Rom 16:1–2 as a letter of recommendation in favor of Phoebe is also attested in papyri of the identical genre, cf. P.Brem. 5.7 [2.129] (117–119 CE) and P.Stras. 4.174.5 (late II/early III CE; cf. also P.Giss.Univ. 3.20.24–26).9 For the Latin equivalent commendo in letters of recommendation see Ch.L.A. 10.424.4 (second half I CE) and 11.493.7 (late I CE). In his Typoi Epistolikoi (no. 2), Ps.-Demetrius presents the following sample of a letter of recommendation (translation *Malherbe 1988, 33): So-and-so, who is conveying this letter to you, has been tested by us and is loved on account of his trustworthiness. You will do well if you deem him worthy of hospitality both for my sake and his, and indeed for your own. For you will not be sorry if you entrust to him, in any matter you wish, either words or deeds of a confidential nature. Indeed, you, too, will praise him to others when you see how useful he can be in everything.

The whole content of this model letter is of a general kind, nothing specific is mentioned. At the same time, many of the aspects depend on a particular situation. Only if letter writers have tested the letter carrier, they might use this phrase. As the letters of recommendation that are preserved on papyrus show (see the following examples), letter writers usually style their letter more specifically or personally, and, most of all, mention in detail what they expect from the addressee. But in general, all letters of recommendation follow an identical formulary which consists of three parts: (1) the introduction of the letter carrier in whose favor the letter is written, and who is usually identified as a person well-known to the sender of the letter, sometimes also to the recipient; (2) the letter writer appeals to the addressee to support the letter carrier in a particular concern or generally; and (3) he expresses his gratefulness towards the addressee and eventually promises some compensation. BGU 16.2654 [2.65] (14 Jul 6 BCE) is a letter of recommendation from the Herakleopolite nome in Egypt, sent by a certain Philotas to the dioiketes Soterichos on behalf of the letter sender’s farmer Ptoys. Obviously, Ptoys hopes 9 The formula is also attested in O.Eleph.Wagner 201.4 (III CE) which may indicate that the fragmentary ostracon was part of a letter of recommendation. For the term as referring to the act of recommendation cf. also TM 10546.13 (P.Lond. inv. 2553 + P.Col. 8.211; 16 Feb 6 CE) and TM 130712.11 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69] (spring 6 CE). – The examples of συνίστημι in 2 Cor refer to the act of recommendation/introduction, be it orally and in favor of oneself (in favor of Paul himself in 3:1; 4:2; 5:12; 6:4; 12:11; of the members of the Corinthian Christ group in 7:11, and of others in 10:12, 18), orally or by letters of recommendation (12:11), or metaphorically by the Lord (10:18).

38

Chapter 3

for easier access to and more help from the dioiketes if his personal appearance before him is supported by a letter of recommendation, written by a person of higher status. This procedure is typical for all letters of this type (see also below on social networks). Other examples10 originate not only from different Egyptian nomes but also from Vindolanda in Britannia: T.Vindol. 2.250 [2.95] (ca. 97–103 CE) is one of several examples where the letter sender explicitly mentions to have been asked to write the letter by the person who seeks to be recommended; as typical for the Vindolanda letters this Latin letter is preserved on a wooden tablet. Among the papyrus letters from Egypt, requests by the person who seeks recommendation are explicitly mentioned in P.Oxy. 4.746.5 (30 Sep 16 CE) and BGU 16.2623.5–6 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE). Rom 16:1–2, 1 Cor 16:15–18, Phil 2:25–30, and Phlm show that Paul, as letter writer, was well familiar with the formulary of letters of recommendation. In addition to the letter from Vindolanda, these letters prove that the letter genre followed a similar pattern throughout the Roman Empire. Especially Phlm contains some details that we can observe also in earlier papyrus letters of recommendation. By P.Oxy. 2.292 [2.71] (ca. 25 CE) a certain Theon recommends his brother Herakleides to one Tyrannos. Like Paul in Phlm 8, Theon opens the recommendation with διό (“therefore”), and like in Phlm 10 he uses the form παρακαλῶ (“I beg”) to express his request (both in line 5).11 Later examples of letters of recommendation with the form παρακαλῶ are P.Oslo 2.51.6 (II CE) and P.Abinn. 31.7 (ca. 346 CE). A particular argument that Paul uses in Phlm 11 is paralleled in P.Oxy. 4.743 (4 Oct 2 BCE; cf. *White 1986, 110–11 no. 71). The opening of this letter is lost and, therefore, we know neither the sender’s name and status, nor those of the recipient, but the letter itself identifies them as friends and social equals. One part of the letter serves as recommendation of a certain Damas who is sent by the letter author with a certificate to collect money. The sender asks his addressee to support Damas in all that he needs, “because he, in turn, will serve you in the same way as he does also to me” (lines 34–35). In Phlm 11 Paul writes about the slave Onesimus that, although his master considered him useless before, the slave “is now indeed useful both to you and to me.” Finally, in Phlm 17 Paul writes to Philemon: “If you consider me your partner, 10 See the lists in *Kim 1972, Appendix III; Cotton 1981; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 59 n. 10; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 272 n. 68. – Further examples: PSI 15.1539 (end I BCE); P.NYU 2.18 (19 Feb 6 CE); P.Masada 724 (spring 73 or 74 CE; revised edition Bernini 2020); O.Did. 345 (before ca. 78–85 CE); T.Vindol. 2.250 [2.95] (ca. 97–103 CE); O.Krok. 2.217 (98–117 CE); O.Did. 409 (before ca. 110–115 CE); Ch.L.A. 42.1212 (113–117 CE); TM 140203 (P.WaPS.05.v; II CE). – P.Petr. 2.15 (3) has been re-edited as P.Petr.Kleon 83 (ca. 260–236 BCE). 11 The same verb but with a different syntax is used in BGU 16.2623.7 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE).

Letter Types

39

welcome him as you would welcome me.” Two similar conditional clauses may be remotely compared to this text. The author of BGU 16.2623 [2.59] writes: “I feel obliged to write you and appeal to you, if you are still able to remember us — and, of course, you are,” and in P.NYU 2.18.11–12 (19 Feb 6 CE) we read: “If you care at all for my friendship, leave him undisturbed.” The closest parallels to Paul’s appeal can be found in four letters of recommendation that were written some time after Paul: O.Did. 345.4–7 (before ca. 78–85 CE): “Whatever you give to Doras who brings you the ostracon, consider that you are giving it to me”; P.Brem. 6.4–5 (117–119 CE?): “Behave towards him as if he were a part of me” (on the context see p. 329); Ch.L.A. 4.267.6–8 [1.42] (II CE): “Now I also ask, lord, that you have him before your eyes as if he were me”; P.Oslo 2.55.7–9 (II–III CE): “You would do well, dear brother, to receive him as you would me.”12 In O.Claud. 1.158.3–7 [2.105] (ca. 110 CE), Domitius Capito reports to his brother Ballion that he asked a certain Valentinus to support Ballion, but we do not know whether he sent a letter of recommendation to Valentinus on Ballion’s behalf or asked him orally. In any case, Ballion himself was not the bearer of such a letter. Nevertheless, the fact that Ballion is now further told by Capito that the aim of his appeal to Valentinus was also that Ballion should be of good use to Valentinus in whatever he desired is a fitting parallel to Phlm 11. As significant background to 2  Cor 3:1 it should be noted that a letter of recommendation could also be written after one or more of the letter sender’s friends had asked him to introduce the person in question to someone else. A prominent case is covered by the Archive of Isidoros of Psophthis (TM Arch id 113) in the Memphite nome.13 So far, the archive consists of eight texts: two copies of two subsequent versions of Isidoros’s petition to the Roman prefect and six letters, all probably written at Philadelphia/Arsinoites. All the documents are concerned with an incident that probably took place during December 5 CE: Agents from Tryphon, the strategos of the Arsinoites, compelled Isidoros to commit himself in a sworn declaration (cheirographia) for sowing of 5 ½ arouras of land in the estate of the empress Livia near Philadelphia in the Herakleides division of the Arsinoite nome. But as he and his people are from Psophthis in the Memphite nome, Isidoros claims that he is not obliged to undertake the cultivation. Therefore, he wants to be freed from any further harassment, and his written declaration to be returned. 12

A similar thought is expressed in another letter of recommendation, this time however not referring to the letter writer himself but to his younger brother; lines 9–10 of P.Oxy. 14.1663 (II–III CE) read: “… in order that you may regard him (i.e., the recommended person) in the same way as our (i.e., the letter writer’s) small brother Serenus.” 13 Cf. Hanson 1984; 1997; 2012; Hengstl 2007.

40

Chapter 3

The earliest documents of the archive are the two versions of Isidoros’s petition to the Roman prefect Publius Ostorius Scapula, both versions probably written shortly after the incident (in December 5 CE). SB 16.12713 with BL 8:385 must have been the earlier version because 12714 has, as far as the document is preserved, the identical text but with cancelations and interlinear corrections. Neither copy was apparently ever sent, and probably no other copy ever reached the prefect; instead Isidoros turned, in addition or alternatively, to a network of friends in spring 6 CE to obtain justice through their support. Three letters of recommendation in favor of Isidoros are preserved from that time, two of them dated and one undated. The dated letters were both written by the scribe of a certain Proklos and signed by Proklos himself: TM 10546 (P.Lond. inv. 2553 + P.Col. 8.211) was signed on 16 February 6 CE14 and addressed to the dioiketes Asklepiades, while P.NYU 2.18 was signed three days later and addressed to Tryphon. Proklos’s rank or function is not mentioned. The back of both letters is blank which is different from the third one, the undated letter TM 130712 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69]. It remains unclear whether this letter was written before or after the two others or in between. All three mention Isidoros as letter carrier in whose favor they were written, and the similarity in their wording is striking. All three were folded which suggests that Isidoros actually delivered them to the respective addressees.15 J. Hengstl (2007, 277) argued instead that the whole matter may have been settled amicably in advance, which is, however, not supported by the fact that about two months later Isidoros’s case was still pending. This is confirmed by two different letters, both written to Tryphon on 3 April 6 CE: In SB 24.15909, a certain Lykarion claims to have been one of those who initially supported efforts to impress Isidoros, and now he urges Tryphon to renew the efforts because Isidoros’s status is not that of a metropolite of the Arsinoite nome (Lykarion apparently believes that Isidoros lives and runs his business in the Arsinoites, and not in the Memphites). The unknown author of SB 24.15910 appears instead to favor Isidoros’s position and to ask for 14

15

On the same day SB 16.12835 (with BL 9:293; 10:216) was written; the names of sender (also Proklos?) and addressee are not preserved but the latter is asked—similarly to TM 10546 (P.Lond. inv. 2553 + P.Col. 8.211)—to check on Isidoros’s origin and write to Tryphon about the results. As the beginning of SB 16.12835 is not preserved, we do not know whether this letter was also a letter of recommendation or not. Hengstl (2007, 277), however, argues that Isidoros collected the letters to hand them out to the addressees at the appropriate time, but that he never did. In this way Hengstl also explains how Isidoros may have succeeded to assemble the archive, whereas Hanson (1997, 417) argues that “Tryphon the strategos seems the one most likely to have been responsible for the assemblage, coming into possession of the chronologically earlier texts, even though they were not addressed to him, as well as retaining the three letters addressed to him.”

Letter Types

41

his release from all obligations. It is in any way significant that Isidoros is not only able to write (or have a scribe write) a well-designed petition but can also designate several people of social rank to support him. Isidoros obviously is part of a social network, and he takes advantage of it. How do these letters of recommendation, all three written in favor of Isidoros son of Isidoros from Psophthis in the Memphite nome of Egypt, illuminate 2 Cor 3:1? First, the plural that Paul uses (“letters of recommendation”) makes sense in referring to Paul himself (i.e., to a single person). As the case of Isidoros confirms, under serious circumstances one might not only ask one particular person of influence for support but rather approach several members of one’s social network to write letters of recommendation concerning one and the same affair. Second, Paul’s phrase “to need (or make use of) letters of recommendation” could mean to ask someone for recommendation at every opportunity instead of rather trusting oneself, as if a supporter and his letter were more important than one’s own and true qualification. Paul also criticizes the attitude of members of the Corinthian Christ group to receive those persons readily and with dignity, who are able to present letters of recommendation from important persons while causing him so much trouble. Third, the instruments of the letters of recommendation could sometimes become more and more complex and intense without achieving the desired goal as in Isidoros’s case. It is quite possible that Paul himself used such letters on other occasions but may have had disappointing results. Further examples of letters of recommendation within a social network are: P.Mich. 1.6 (24 Mar 257 BCE); SB 6.9564 with BL 13:203 (I BCE); P.Giss.Univ. 3.20 (113–117 CE; cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 275–76); cf. also BGU 16.2647 (21 Mar 8 BCE). They all shed light on three other passages in Paul’s letters that are to be interpreted in the context of his network: 1 Cor 16:3, 15–18 (see p. 197); 2 Cor 8–9 (see pp. 198–99). P.Mich. 8.498 (ca. 100–147 CE) preserves the response to a successful recommendation. In this letter, a certain Gemellus expresses his gratitude to his supporter Apollinarios: “Very many thanks to you, brother, for your care of me; your recommendation helped me greatly” (lines 4–7). And in lines 7–17, Gemellus adds: “And before that your very good friend Rullius, who knows the good will that you have for me, was concerned to make up for your absence; he introduced me without delay and with zeal to Aemilianus as a kinsman of you whom he cherished.” A later and explicitly Christian type of letters of recommendation is the so-called “Letter of Peace” which could be issued for a travelling Christian to receive material support when arriving at another community. These letters are “nearly identical in their content, wording, order, and brevity, differing from

42

Chapter 3

each other only in minor details” (Timothy M. Teeter in P.Col. 11, pp. 39–40) and usually introducing the Christian sister or brother to the letter’s recipient with the clause “receive/welcome her/him in peace.” The use of the Greek term προσδέχομαι for “receive/welcome” in these Christian letters, which is not used in earlier letters of recommendation, may be influenced by Phil 2:29 where Paul asks the Christ group at Philippi to “receive/welcome” Epaphroditus in the Lord with all joy. The following passages in Christian letters of peace may serve for comparison: P.Alex. 29.5–8 (first half III CE); PSI 9.1041.4–12 (second half III CE?); P.Col. 11.298.14–16; PSI 15.1560.4–8 (both III–IV CE); SB 16.12304.5–8 (late III/early IV CE); P.Oxy. 56.3857.4–9 (IV CE; cf. Teeter 1997); SB 3.7269 (IV–V CE).

Chapter 4

Letter Writers

Authors, Scribes, and Secretaries

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 242–43; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 170–71; P. Arzt-Grabner 2017, “Documentary Papyri and the Authors of Q,” Annali di storia dell’esegesi 34:248–58; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 41–55, 59–67 (extended eBook 2008, locations 137–81, 191–213); G. J. Bahr 1966, “Paul and Letter Writing in the Fifth Century,” CBQ 28:465– 77; L. H. Blumell 2006, “Scribes and Ancient Letters: Implications for the Pauline Epistles,” in How the New Testament Came to Be: The Thirty-Fifth Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, ed. K. P. Jackson and F. F. Judd (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book), 208–26; L. H. Blumell 2012, Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus, NTTSD 39 (Leiden: Brill), 23–25, 236; S. Bucking 2007, “On the Training of Documentary Scribes in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Egypt: A Contextualized Assessment of the Greek Evidence,” ZPE 159:229–47;*Cadwallader 2018; W. Clarysse 1993, “Egyptian Scribes Writing Greek,” CdE 68:186–201; P. W. Comfort 1997, “The Scribe as Interpreter: A New Look at New Testament Textual Criticism According to Reader Reception Theory” (diss., Pretoria); *Eckardt 2018, 41–50; B. D. Ehrman 2011, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne), 133–39; B. D. Ehrman 2013, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (New York: Oxford University Press), 245–49; *Elmer 2008; G. P. Fewster 2014, “‘Can I Have Your Autograph?’: On Thinking about Pauline Authorship and Pseudepigraphy,” BSR 43/3:30–39; G. P. Fewster 2016, “Ancient Book Culture and the Literacy of James: On the Production and Consumption of a Pseudepigraphal Letter,” ZAC 20:387–417; H. Halla-aho 2018, “Scribes in Private Letter Writing: Linguistic Perspectives,” in *Cromwell and Grossman 2018, 227–39; *Harrauer 2010, Textband, 81–125; D. Hartman 2020, “‘Verified Exact Copy’: Literacy, Scribes, and Copying in Papyri from the Judaean Desert (First to Second Century CE),” in Copying Manuscripts: Textual and Material Craftsmanship, ed. A. Brita et al., Università degli studi di Napoli “L’Orientale,” Dipartimento Asia, Africa e Mediterraneo and Universität Hamburg, Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures: Series Minor 93 (Naples: Unior Press), 529–60, plate LXV; B. Hartmann 2020, The Scribes of Rome: A Cultural and Social History of the Scribae (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); *Klauck 2006, 55–60; *Kreinecker 2010, 38–99; C. M. Kreinecker 2013, “The Imitation Hypothesis: Pseudepigraphic Remarks on 2 Thessalonians with Help from Documentary Papyri,” in Paul and Pseudepigraphy, ed. S. E. Porter and G. P. Fewster, Pauline Studies 8 (Leiden: Brill), 197–219; S. Lee 2021, “An Illiterate Fisherman and Impressive Letter: A Dialogue with Bart D. Ehrman,” JGRChJ 17:38–61; N. Lewis 2003, “Shorthand Writers,” Comunicazioni dell’Istituto Papirologico ‘G. Vitelli’ 5:19–27; *Lieu 2006, 452–53; *Luiselli 2008, 689–92; *Milligan 1922, 45–47; *Moulton and Turner 1976, 99–100; C. Poster 2002, “The Economy of Letter-Writing in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,” in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference, ed.

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790487_005

44

Chapter 4

A. Eriksson, T. H. Olbricht, and W. Übelacker, Emory Studies in Early Christianity (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International), 112–24; *Reinard 2016, 410–19; E. R. Richards 1991, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, WUNT 2/42 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; see the review by P. Arzt 1991, SNTSU Serie A 16:234–37); *Richards 2004, esp. 59–93; *Roller 1933, 12–23, 282–345; A. Sarri 2016, “Handshifts in Letters,” in Subliterary Papyri, Documentary Papyri, Scribal Practices, Linguistic Matters, vol. 2 of Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology, ed. T. Derda, A. Łajtar, and J. Urbanik, JJP Supplement 28 (Warsaw: Faculty of Law and Administration and Institute of Archaeology of the University of Warsaw, 2016), 797–819; *Sarri 2018, 126–46; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 52–55; G. Schwendner 2020, “Greek Writ Plain: Village Scribes, Q, and the Palaeography of the Earliest Christian Papyri,” in Scribes and Their Remains, ed. C. A. Evans and J. J. Johnston, SSEJC 21; LSTS 94 (London: T&T Clark), 88–119; *Stowers 1986, 32–35; E. Verhoef 1995, “Numerus, Sekretär und Authentizität der paulinischen Briefe,” PzB 4:48–58; *White 1986, 215–17; F. Winter in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 88–89. New Testament

All New Testament letters, in particular Rom 16:22; 1 Pet 5:13; Rev 1:11, 19; 2–3.

The office of a scribe is recognized from the earliest cultures of the Mediterranean and was one of the most important and respected positions everywhere. The Egyptian scribe and his education in scribal schools deserves special mention, but also in Sumerian, Akkadian, Ugaritian, Phoenician, and Hebrew texts the high rank of the scribe is evident. According to the documentary Greek papyri, the grammateus is not to be assigned to a specific individual office. Instead, the meaning of the word varies from simple “secretary” to officer on all levels of the administration (village scribe, scribe of a topos, sribe of a nome),1 who received special training. A good example of the writing exercise of an aspiring grammateus of the administration is preserved in BGU 20.2876 (160/161 CE); in col. 1 he practiced the opening parts of various letters. In addition, various groups and associations sometimes employed scribes or secretaries to keep their internal records, and/or as representatives that would be recognized by the authorities. The recto of P.Mich. 2.121 preserves the day-by-day register of abstracts from contracts recorded in the record-office (grapheion) of Tebtynis during the four last months of the second year of the Emperor Claudius; in abstract 6 of col. 4, which records an agreement of payment registered on 21 May 42 CE, we find a “secretary of the weavers” (col. 4.6.1); in two other abstracts of the same column, one recording the lease of pasture land registered on 21 May 42 CE (col. 4.5) and the other one an agreement registered on 28 May 42 CE (col. 4.12), we find a “secretary of the farmers.” 1 On the Roman scribae and their high responsibilities within the administration see especially Hartmann 2020.

Letter Writers

45

Another register of the same office, the recto of P.Mich. 2.123, records a written declaration, made by Heraklas, the secretary of the fishermen, and by the other fishermen to the agents of the nomarch Serapas (col. 14.37–38); the declaration was registered on 17 April 46 CE. When it comes to letter writing, we often do not know who genuinely penned the actual letter, whether it was the letter author, a family member, an acquaintance, or friend who stepped in because the author himself could not write, or simply did not want to, or whether a professional writer (i.e., a secretary) wrote the text on the papyrus or potsherd. A certain Iulius Clemens, for instance, who identifies himself as a centurion of the legion XXII Deioteriana,2 is the author of P.Mich. 8.483 (118–138 CE) and 484 (II CE). Letter 483 was dictated to a scribe, but the final greeting and the dating were written by Iulius Clemens himself, as we can see from the different handwriting, which we also find throughout letter 484, thus indicating that this letter was written entirely by Iulius Clemens himself. Why he used a scribe once, but not the other time, we simply do not know (Halla-aho 2018, 229–30). A certain Timaios seems to have written the letter P.Flor. 2.259 [2.182] (249–268 CE) himself in his skilled handwriting, which almost resembles a bookhand, but the final greeting suddenly becomes—from letter to letter—more cursive, whereby Timaios probably intended to give it the typical personal touch. If he had continued writing in his beautiful handwriting, the addressee might have interpreted this as being impersonally distant. For a similar reason, the letter sender of P.Oxy. 42.3069 [2.183] (III/early IV CE) added his own more cursively written final greeting to that of his scribe. There are numerous examples among family members. SB 3.7244 (mid III CE), for instance, is a papyrus with four letters: Herakleides to his son Didymos, Adelphios to his daughter Melies, Hadrianos to Didymos, Kollouthos to Didymos (see also p. 33). All four letters are written by the same writer, as evidenced by the identical handwriting throughout, but it is impossible to determine who was this writer, if one of the four senders or a scribe employed by (one of) them. P.Oxy. 7.1067 with BL 8:240 (III CE) was sent by a certain Helene to her brother Petechon but consists of two letters, whereby the second one is designed as a postscript (lines 20–23), by which Helene’s father Alexandros expresses himself. We do not know if the father also added his own greetings, since the papyrus breaks off below line 23, but as no change in handwriting is visible, the entire text was obviously written by one and the same scribe; we have, however, no further indication as to whether this was Helene herself or her father (*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 273; extended eBook 2008, B1.12 2 P.Mich. 8.483.11–12.

46

Chapter 4

no. 149). The handwriting of O.Krok. 2.239 (118–130 CE) has been identified as that of a certain Apollos, a soldier and main character of a small dossier of ostraca, which has preserved his correspondence with colleagues and friends; the potsherd in question contains two letters, both written by Apollos, who is the author of the first letter to a certain Priscus (lines 1–10) and wrote the second one (lines 10–17) for his colleague Valerius, addressing it to Domitius and Priscus. If a letter was written by a secretary, it is also relevant whether the secretary was only hired to write a single letter or whether he was always available as a member of the author’s household. In this context, some New Testament scholars have argued that the secretaries Paul employed may have taken an active role in the writing of his letters, also in terms of content, and that they could subsequently be held responsible for stylistic differences, which ultimately affects the debate on how the issue of authenticity of some of Paul’s letters is dealt with and answered (Richards 1991; *Richards 2004).3 With similar arguments, others have suggested that 1 Pet was written by an amanuensis and in this way authored by the illiterate fisherman from Galilee (Lee 2021). From a papyrological point of view, however, there are several clear reasons why the conceptual functions of a secretary should not be valued so highly.4 There can be no doubt that the ostensible author of a letter (i.e., the sender named at the beginning) was responsible for the entire text. A clerk employed for specific duties in the administration, collection of taxes, or in a commercial enterprise could be entrusted with tasks like the completion and correct execution of documents; P.Select. 22 (125–200 CE), for instance, is the agreement of the secretary Eutychides alias Horion with several tax collectors to be employed by them for specific tasks, whereas P.Mich. 11.604 (31 May 223 CE) is a similar contract between two sitologoi and the secretary Valerius, among 3 Richards’ arguments have often been too uncritically repeated (cf. *Cadwallader 2018)—for example, by Elmer 2008, who by and large repeated Richards’ speculations and did not check papyrus letters himself but merely repeated general, yet often unbalanced clichés about them. 4 On Richards’ (1991) problematic use of papyrus letters see Arzt 1991, 235–36; *Cadwallader 2018. The papyrological examples presented by Lee (2021) are in most cases irrelevant (most examples presented as letters are actually contracts, cf. p. 48 n. 43; p. 50 n. 49, 52, 53; pp. 58–59 n. 86), some are even wrong (e.g., there is no change in handwriting in BGU 2.632 [1.45] as mentioned p. 59 n. 86; this is also the case with several examples listed p. 48 n. 43). Lee’s idea that “illiterate and semi-literate individuals might have been able to write a simple postscript in their own hands by merely copying out the postscript that their amanuensis already had written for them on a wax tablet at the author’s request,” thus being able to “authenticate his letter” (p. 48 n. 43) is not evidenced; on the contrary, in case of final greetings written by authors with poor writing skills, an appended postscript was usually written by the scribe.

Letter Writers

47

whose duties are issuing receipts, obeying the strategos of the nome in respect to each monthly report, and presenting summaries of the wheat received by him.5 But in the case of private letters this was hardly the case. Only orthography, phonology, and morphology were under the influence of a scribe, while syntax and composition were directly subject to the dictation of the author (Halla-aho 2018). In fact, if the intentions of letter authors, who used secretaries, are recognizable from external indications, we can observe that they made great efforts to send their letters only in the appropriate personal form, regardless of whether they already dictated their letters in the exact wording— which seems to have been the norm—and sent them as they were or made a personal editorial revision. For example, the complex appearance of P.Oxy. 73.4959 [2.145] (II CE) can best be explained by several revisions to which this letter was subjected: Ammonios, the author, dictated the letter to his secretary, in which wording we do not know exactly, but the papyrus contains the text that the secretary wrote. The following steps are now important for our context, because first Ammonios merely added his own final greeting, folded the letter, and added the address on the back. But before he had it sent, he opened the letter again and made two corrections, which were obviously of personal relevance to him (lines 10–13 and 15–17; see p. 355–56). Ammonius not only altered one or the other wordings, but even changed the course of the composition by deleting one part and clarifying the whole with a postscript. Now Ammonios was obviously satisfied with the wording of his letter but not with its physical appearance, which led him to cross out the entire text, and to instruct the secretary to produce a fair copy, which was eventually sent to his addressees but has not been preserved. Naturally, only rich people could afford a secretary as, for instance, Lucius Bellienus Gemellus, a wealthy landowner in the Fayum. He was born in 32 CE and, after his career as a legionary, settled in Aphrodites Berenikes Polis, a village in the Arsinoite nome. His large estate consisted of several fields, especially in the area around Euhemereia, where his steward Epagathos lived, with whom—besides his family members—he used to correspond extensively. Numerous papyrus letters have been preserved (cf. TM Arch 134), which were written during a time when Gemellus was already in his sixties and seventies 5 For a summary of the responsibilities of scribes as public officials, see Hartmann 2020, 48: the official Roman scribae were not only “responsible for and occupied with the tabulae publicae, but they were also tasked, in the first place, with the making of the magistrates’ records (pericula) that were later incorporated into the public repository. As apparitors they were designated to serve and assist specific magistrates; as professional scribes they took care of clerical duties in the staff of these office holders; scriptum facere in technical terms. As a result, we encounter scribae busy at work wherever their respective superiors are found.”

48

Chapter 4

and seemed to be “a shrewd old man of business, somewhat willful and exacting, but of a kind and generous disposition” (B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt in P.Fay., p. 263). Despite his wealth, Gemellus only once clearly employed a professional scribe to have him write a particular letter to his steward Epagathos: it is the letter P.Fay. 110 [2.91] (11 Sep 94 CE) in which Epagathos is instructed to perform various tasks on the estates of his master; that this letter was written by a secretary can be observed from the trained handwriting that can easily be distinguished from Gemellus’s own cursive hand, visible only in the final greeting and the dating of the letter. All other letters from Gemellus, which have already been published or whose images are already available for examination, seem to have been written by himself, for they are all written with a similar handwriting. This observation should in principle be understood as a warning against assuming too quickly that the use of secretaries was a widespread phenomenon. Secretaries who were employed to write private or business correspondence were even less likely to have acquired specialized skills such as shorthand. The documentary record is scarce: only two apprenticeship contracts for training in shorthand have been edited so far, P.Oxy. 4.724 with BL 9:181 (1 Mar 155 CE) and 41.2988 (II CE?), and there are only few additional papyri6 and inscriptions referring to stenographers (cf. Lewis 2003, 25–26). More important, however, is the fact that due to his extraordinary skills, “the earnings of a stenographer would exceed, sometimes greatly, those of many or most other skilled workers” (Lewis 2003, 25), or in other words: to have a stenographer write one of the longer letters of Paul would have been a costly task, whether it was to pay the specialized secretary himself or the master of a well-trained slave, who was undoubtedly trying to make the highest possible profit by renting out his slave to the best bidder. In Paul’s letters we do not find a single clear indication that this would have been the case—unlike, for instance, Cicero’s clear remark about his secretary Tiro, “who can keep up with whole sentences,” in contrast to another secretary to whom Cicero has to dictate “syllable by syllable” (Att. 13.25.3). A private papyrus letter, first recorded by a secretary in shorthand and then transcribed in fair copy, may be preserved by P.Oxy. 6.932 [2.155] (late II CE). If this was the case, it is remarkable that the professional scribe took down carefully what he was dictated, transcribed it faithfully, and did not try to improve the flawed style (cf. p. 370). The use of a secretary and the motif of dictation are employed as background for Rev 1:11, 19 and chapters 2–3, because in contrast to Rev 1:4–5, where 6 The earliest evidence of Hellenistic shorthand is probably preserved by P.Brem. 82 (113–120 CE; image: https://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/urn/urn:nbn:de:gbv:46:1-2126).

Letter Writers

49

a certain John presents himself as the author of a letter to the seven communities in the province of Asia, Rev 1:11 and 19 explicitly speak of a dictation by “one like the Son of Man” (v. 13) to John. In this way John no longer appears as the author of the letter which started in Rev 1:4–5, but as its scribe, or—strictly speaking—as the secretary or even copyist of the seven letters following in chapters 2–3, which are actually designed as transcriptions of dictations and resemble more drafts of letters than genuine fair copies, since they each begin with a dictation formula and contain neither an opening nor a final greeting. Naturally, the use of a scribe or secretary is not always clearly visible. If, for example, the text on a papyrus has been corrected or there is other evidence that the document in question is not the final version but a draft, we cannot automatically conclude that a scribe or secretary was used. Such a document could also have been written by the author of the letter himself (see, e.g., p. 54 concerning P.Aegyptus Cent. 35 [2.173], p. 56 concerning SB 14.11644 [2.99]). A clear indicator of the use of a secretary is the presence of the professional handwriting of a scribe, which can be described as “a well-formed uncial hand of a literary type” as B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt classified the handwriting of P.Fay. 110 [2.91] (in P.Fay., p. 263). This also applies, for example, to BGU 1.37 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE), a rather short letter from Mystarion to his business partner Stotoetis which serves as a reference to the fact that a secretary was not only used for elaborate writing tasks, but according to the needs and whims of his employer or master, provided of course that the latter actually had a secretary available.7 Sometimes a script can be assigned to a certain style as in the case of P.Oxy. 55.3810 [2.162] (II–III CE), the main script of which has been described as “a very good official cursive, firmly based on the ‘Chancery’ style,” and attributed to “that of a clerk, possibly one who usually worked in the office of the royal scribe” (J. R. Rea in P.Oxy. 55, p. 191). Some further examples presented in this volume are: TM 130712 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69] (spring 6 CE); T.Vindol. 2.250 [2.95] (ca. 97–103 CE); P.Mich. 8.496 [2.108] (ca. 100–147 CE); P.Bingen 74 [2.132] (after 130 CE); P.Mich. 8.482 [2.110] (23 Aug 133 CE); PSI 15.1553 [2.170] (first half III CE); PSI 12.1247.v [2.171] (ca. 7 Two other short letters, (beautifully) written by a scribe and providing the final greeting in the letter author’s own handwriting, are O.Did. 435 (before ca. 110–115 CE; online image: https://www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/publications/fifao67/?id=435) and O.Claud. 2.258 (mid II CE; image: planche XVII; online image: https://www.nakala.fr/ [search for “O.Claud. 258”]). See also, e.g., SB 6.9532 with BL 5:116 and 9:260 (8 May 66 or 30 Apr 37 or 27 Apr 15 BCE; online image: http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~gv0/Papyri/P.Heid._II /212/P.Heid._II_212.html); P.Brem. 10 (113–120 CE; online image: https://nbn-resolving.de /urn:nbn:de:gbv:46:1-1812; as clearly visible on this image, the reading of line 4 as suggested according to BL 4:10 is incorrect).

50

Chapter 4

235–238 CE); BGU 4.1080 [2.180] (III CE?); probably also P.Oxy. 42.3069 [2.183] (III/early IV CE); perhaps also P.Oxy. 47.3356 [2.82] (28 Jan 76 CE); see also P.Brem. 63 [1.35] (16 Jul 116 CE?). In the case of P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139] and 491 [2.140] (both II CE), the use of scribes is evident only because both letters were authored by the same person, but each was written by a different scribe, including the respective final greeting; and furthermore, the second postscript of 490 was written by yet another writer. If a secretary does not identify himself in a certain way, at best in his own words like Tertius in Rom 16:22 (see pp. 61–65), or is not identified through words dictated by the letter author (perhaps Mark in 1 Pet 5:13), the use of a secretary can hardly be determined otherwise than by the presence of different hands of scribes and by assigning one of them to that of a competent clerk. With later publication such features get lost, which is why we no longer find any certain indications of a secretary’s hand in the letters of Paul and other letters of the New Testament. For the significance and interpretation of 1 Cor 16:21, Gal 6:11, Col 4:18, 2 Thess 3:17, and Phlm 19, see p. 182.

Multiple Senders

Literature *Adams 2010, 40–44; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 112–15; S. Byrskog 1996, “Co-Senders, Co-Authors and Paul’s Use of the First Person Plural,” ZNW 87:230–50; *Elmer 2008; G. S. Holland 1990, “‘A Letter Supposedly from Us’: A Contribution to the Discussion about the Authorship of 2 Thessalonians,” in R. F. Collins, The Thessalonian Correspondence, BETL 87 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 394–402; J. Murphy-O’Connor 1993, “Co-authorship in the Corinthian Correspondence,” RB 100:562–79; *Roller 1933, 153– 87, 571–90; E. Verhoef 1996, “The Senders of the Letters to the Corinthians and the Use of ‘I’ and ‘We’,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer, BETL 125 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 417–25. New Testament

1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; Phlm 1. Letters with several people named at the beginning as senders are mainly found within the family: sons and daughters write to their parents or other siblings and vice versa. There are also examples from the closer circle of acquaintances. Of course, such examples are relatively rare among the large number of personally designed papyrus letters. Letters from individuals to individuals are the rule, while letters from several senders to individuals or vice versa or even from several senders to several addressees are somewhat special, but not unique.

Letter Writers

51

In the case of the comparable letters of the New Testament (see the passages mentioned above) it is discussed whether and to what extent the cosenders mentioned could have had an influence on the content and style of the respective letters. Firstly, it should not be overlooked that also all comparable Pauline and Deutero Pauline letters have to be settled within a group, for which family terminology was of central importance, even if not in a literal, but in a figurative sense. It is no coincidence that the co-senders of 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Col, and Phlm (i.e., of five New Testament letters out of eight relevant ones) are explicitly introduced as “brothers,” but we find here the same setting as in family letters, where several siblings or both parents are mentioned as senders in the letter head. P.Athen. 60 (I BCE) is a letter, in which two senders as well as two addressees are mentioned: Apollonia and Eupous write to their (presumably younger) sisters Rhasion and Demarion; in the letter opening, the two senders write about themselves: “Also we ourselves are well.” P.Oxy. 14.1672 (37–41 CE) is the letter of the two brothers Demetrios and Pausanias to their father Pausanias; here too, both brothers appear as equal senders as they speak of themselves throughout in the plural. The style of the ostracon SB 6.9017.17 (I–II CE), however, is quite inconsistent: Markos and Apollinarios write to Germanos and another Apollinarios and accordingly use the plural first, both for themselves and for the two addressees, but two requests to forward greetings to others are suddenly written in the singular (i.e., addressed to only one of the two addressees; lines 9, 12–13), as is the final greeting (line 13); and a subsequent request in line 14 obviously involves only one sender and one addressee (“send me …”). The ostracon SB 6.9017.16 (with BL 5:106; I–II CE) was sent by G[erma]nus and Apolinaris to their brother Priscus; both senders together formulated the prayer report in lines 3–5 and sent greetings to a Markellos. The only sentence, however, which makes up the body of the letter, is formulated in the singular stating that only one of the letter senders has received some food from a certain Arimmas (lines 5–8). P.IFAO 2.8 (with BL 9:110; I CE) is the letter of Eunomos and Rufios to their brother Thon: right at the beginning of the letter body we find a singular form: “I want you to receive the letter quickly and …” (lines 4–5), while in line 8, where only fragments of the papyrus are preserved, a plural form can be identified; thus, only one of the two senders was the main author of the letter. O.Krok. 2.158 (98–138 CE?) is an ostracon letter by Philokles, his wife Sknips, and a third person (most probably Hegemonis) to Kapparis, a business partner of Philokles, and his companion Didyme. Throughout the main part of the letter we find only singular forms referring either to Philokles as author of the letter or to Kapparis as its recipient; only lines 14–15 preserve the greeting by Hegemonis, one of the co-senders (?), to both addressees (“Hegemonis is greeting you [plural form]”) before the

52

Chapter 4

text breaks off. P.Oxy. 1.118.v (with BL 5:75; late III CE) was sent by Saras and Eudaimon to their son Diogenes, and the whole letter gives the impression that both senders acted as equal authors here, for all forms referring to them are in the plural; only the farewell greeting, to which the dative singular μοι is added (literally “for me,” or in the sense of “as I wish”), reveals that only one person is the genuine author of the letter, who at the end repeats the greeting in his own hand. Concerning P.Oxy. 8.1158 [2.176] (III CE) the address on the back of the papyrus reveals that the letter is “from friend Lucius” and should be handed over to the merchant Diodoros, whereas the letter opening presents two senders, Lucius and Sarapion. It is therefore clear that Lucius is the only one who actually wrote the letter, while Sarapion is merely included in the plural forms, which are only used in the upper half of the letter; in the lower part, including the final greeting, Lucius writes in the singular (only an inserted request to greet others is again expressed in the plural). PSI 15.1553 [2.170] (first half III CE) is one of the rare examples where the plural referring to the two letter senders is consistently maintained, which is easy to explain, however, because this letter to the gymnasiarch of Oxyrhynchos obviously refers to matters which concern both of the two senders and, in addition, common friends in the same way. This becomes particularly clear from line 15 onwards, where they promise that they all will make Sarapion’s case their own; the text reads: “Cornelius wants the same thing. The friends write to you and greet you” (lines 15–17). That this is meant seriously is illustrated by lines 19–21, where the handwritten final greeting of the two letter senders is followed by another final greeting of an unnamed individual in a different handwriting and then the likewise handwritten final greeting of one Theon (lines 20–21). The general layout of this letter is in some ways similar to that of many contracts, since the handwritten final greetings of the letter senders and their friends are found at the position where, in the relevant documents, the witnesses’ confirmations are added. There are no analogies to this example in the letters of the New Testament. If we look at the other examples, a tendency becomes apparent: many wepassages in letters with multiple senders are limited to the formulaic parts at the opening and closing of the letter The more specific the concerns raised in the letter body are, the more likely we will find singular forms there which refer to only one responsible letter sender or author, although in many cases we will not be able to determine exactly who it is. Likewise, New Testament exegesis has in particular examined the alternation of singular and plural forms to investigate whether, and to what extent, the co-authors mentioned especially in several authentic Pauline letters could have been genuine co-authors of the relevant letters. As with papyrus letters, however, it is difficult to reach final conclusions. The only exception is Phlm, where Paul uses singular forms

Letter Writers

53

throughout; Timothy is mentioned as a co-sender, but does not re-appear afterwards, and Paul thus clearly presents himself as the only responsible author of the letter. Unlike P.Oxy. 8.1158 [2.176], where the address on the back of the letter clearly indicates who was the actual author of the letter, unfortunately not a single New Testament letter has survived with an address that might be equally instructive. However, the examples from the papyrus letters do at least demonstrate that Paul is part of the general Greco-Roman epistolary tradition when he mentions Timothy and other co-workers as co-senders of one letter or another, who are then usually referred to as “brothers.” At the end of this chapter, it is worth referring to a special letter, at the beginning of which only one sender is mentioned, but suddenly the text changes to the plural. The only author mentioned in the opening greeting of P.Phil. 34 [2.76] (I CE) is a certain Aristandros who writes to his brother of the same name. After reporting that he has arrived in the Arsinoite nome together with Apollonios, he writes (lines 6–8): “We greet you wishing you the best.” Although Apollonios is not mentioned as co-sender of the letter, Aristandros uses the plural at this point and writes also on his behalf.

Drafts and Corrections

Literature C. Armoni 2019, “Notes on Papyri,” BASP 56:251–57; *Arzt-Grabner 2020, 74–81; R. Luiselli 2010, “Authorial Revision of Linguistic Style in Greek Papyrus Letters and Petitions (AD i–iv),” in *Evans and Obbink 2010, 71–96; *Luttenberger 2012, 348–62; *Roller 1933, 44, 384–86; P. van Minnen 2002, “The Letter (and Other Papers) of Ammon: Panopolis in the Fourth Century A.D.,” in Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Acts from an International Symposium Held in Leiden on 16, 17 and 18 December 1998, ed. A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, and J. van der Vliet, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 31 (Leiden: Brill), 177–99. New Testament All New Testament letters; Rev 1:11, 19; 2–3.

It is one of the peculiarities of papyrology that we have access not only to final versions of letters, but even to some drafts. Like the mailed letters, drafts and copies were found where most papyri and ostraca have been found since the late 19th century—in the rubbish mounds of antiquity. Drafts of letters can usually be recognized by an increased number of reformulations, additions or corrections or by the fact that the strongly formulaic opening and closing sections of letters are reduced to a minimum or even missing (regarding Rev 1:11, 19; 2–3 see p. 48). The back of a papyrus from the Zenon archive, for instance, was re-used to draft five letters concerning the

54

Chapter 4

flight of three slaves, whom Zenon had previously bought in Idumaea from a certain Zaidelos and his brother Kollochoutos and who are said to be in their house at the moment; two of the drafts occupy col. 1 of P.Cair.Zen. 1.59015.v, the other three are preserved in col. 2, but each of them lacks an appropriate opening greeting at the beginning, where instead only the name of the respective addressee is mentioned. The drafts were composed after 6 September 258 BCE8 and relay that Zenon intended to have fair copies of the drafts produced, and to send his assistant Straton with them to five different people to ask them for support in fetching back the slaves. Although all five letters deal with the same request, the versions differ from one another and are individualized for each of the five addressees. Another example, written about 15 years later, is preserved by P.Col. 4.88 (16 May 243 BCE) which includes at least three drafts of official letters from Eukles. The papyrus BGU 16.2634 (with Armoni 2019, 254–56; ca. 21 BCE–5 CE) contains two letters with only the name(s) of the recipient(s) at the beginning of each; opening and final greetings are still missing. What the two have in common is the fact that a certain Hermas is to be sent off with the letters to deliver goods, once to a Seleukos, the other time to the “brothers” Euomenos and Dionysios. If the two letters are not first drafts, they ought to be copies that the letter author kept back with him, but some corrections rather suggest the first possibility.9 SB 5.8006 with BL 3:196 (III CE) preserves two drafts, one on each side of the papyrus; both drafts start with a well-formulated letter opening, however the draft on the verso lacks a closing section, which could also be true for the draft on the recto, but its text is incomplete. P.Aegyptus Cent. 35 [2.173] (III CE) preserves two fragmentary drafts which were written on one papyrus in two separate columns. The top of the papyrus and the lower right part are lost, but the last line of the first draft letter is preserved and followed by a blank space of 5.2 cm. The space between the two columns is extremely small; in line 13, the two letter texts even overlap, so that it would have been impossible to cut them apart afterwards. Final greetings are missing. All in all, these indications clearly suggest that these are draft letters dictated to a scribe or written by the author himself. Several corrections and additions improve the two texts stylistically and clarify syntax and contents. 8 The date is suggested by P.Cair.Zen. 5.59804 with BL 3:41, a letter from Philotas to Zenon dated to 6 September 258 BCE and informing Zenon about the runaway slaves. Also P.Cair. Zen. 4.59537 (after 6 Sep 258 BCE) is related to this case. See R. Scholl in C.Ptol.Sklav. 1, pp. 150–58; X. Durand in C.Zen.Palestine, pp. 216–27; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 128–30. 9 Both options are also discussed for the two letters of P.Gen. 12.7 (after 1 Oct 86 CE), which deal with specific charges attributed to the wrong persons.

Letter Writers

55

Other examples of draft letters from the Roman period are BGU 16.2636 (ca. 21 BCE–5 CE), P.Sarap. 54.r (ca. 121–122 CE?), and P.Cair.Mich. 3.33 (II CE). In this context it should be noted that—in relation to the large number of letters preserved on papyrus or related material—only a small number of artefacts can be classified as draft letters, and most of them are rather short like the examples mentioned above. A close correlation between an existing draft and the length of the final letter cannot be observed. Rather, letter drafts indicate that—as apparently with Zenon and in other cases—the author of a letter could dictate the main text to a scribe and entrust him with the completion of the fair copy—regardless of whether the letter was to be rather long or short, or that a version was not appealing and should therefore be improved. During the latter process, even a document that was planned as the only version of a letter could end up simply as a draft, which was obviously the case with P.Oxy. 73.4959 [2.145] (II CE). At the end of the private letter P.Sarap. 84a (90–133 CE) the author refers to another letter that was supposed to be sent to the Roman governor, but since—according to the sender of the current letter—it was “badly written,” he now sends it to his addressee so that the latter “writes it well” (col. 2.6–9), which in this context probably refers to good wording (and not to good spelling), for which obviously not every scribe was trained to the same extent. P.Zen.Pestm. 56 (25 Oct 251 BCE) contains even two slightly different drafts for a letter. Only a few of the surviving drafts had been composed for more extensive letters with complex contents. BGU 4.1141 [2.58] (after 9 Apr 13 BCE) is a vivid example of this, which also confirms that the writers of such texts were well educated and able to revise a letter in style and language. Perhaps BGU 16.2629 (6 Jun 4 BCE) contains a reference to the draft of a letter, which in any case was urgent and perhaps also more extensive: in lines 2–7, a certain Eurylochos reports of a letter which had indeed been ordered by the Roman governor himself, but which could not be sent because persons not further specified have so far prevented its completion; the letter is therefore only available in draft form and its fair copy still has to be written.10 Corrections, however, are not only evident in drafts but also in the final versions of some letters, and often enough, they are insufficient to clearly distinguish between a draft and the letter to be sent. As mentioned earlier, we 10 Further down in the text (lines 26–28), Eurylochos returns to the overdue letter and indirectly mentions that he has found a way of forcing its delivery: he himself has now received another letter (not specified in more detail by Eurylochos, but presumably his addressee knew what it was about) but will not have it delivered until a fair copy of the urgent letter has reached him (*Arzt-Grabner 2014, 118–20).

56

Chapter 4

may find a copy instead of a draft, which may be the case with O.Krok. 1.14 (22 Jan 109 CE). P.Brem. 53 (12 Jun 114 CE) is a rather long and carefully written letter, which was apparently dictated by the author, proofread, and grammatically improved in some places before he wrote his own final greeting underneath. The letter was dated and certainly dispatched, as evidenced by the remains of the seal mark on the back (cf. pp. 186–87). SB 14.11644 [2.99] (I–II CE), on the other hand, is only one example of several where no change in handwriting between the original text and the corrections is apparent. Such letters are nevertheless good examples confirming that the scribes certainly paid attention to the style and comprehensibility of a written text, reviewed it and corrected it, if necessary, before handing it over to a letter carrier. At the end of this chapter, it is of great interest to refer to the longest papyrus letter edited so far, P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] (324–330 CE?), since it is—already because of its length alone—an important reference to be compared especially with the longer Pauline letters. P. van Minnen (2002, 188) could indeed find significant hints that Ammon “went through several drafts to compose the letter to his mother” (on the details see pp. 425–26). From this, however, we cannot deduce more than the mere fact that Ammon most probably used drafts for his extensive letter, and that we can assume something similar for the longer letters of Paul. But we do not have any evidence of how these drafts looked, whether all passages were fully formulated and, in the end, only had to be arranged and provided with transitions, whether certain parts, even larger ones, were perhaps created in the course of the final version, or whether only keyword-like structures were established for some sections. If the interpretation of P. van Minnen is correct, then Ammon had, at least for two sections of his letter, word for word drafts at hand. Whether analogies can be drawn from this for all parts of a letter and even entire letters, or whether we should consider a more complex and manifold compositional process, must remain open—regarding both Ammon as well as Paul.

Letters as Representations of Their Authors

Literature R. Bieringer 2015, “Présence dans L’absence du corps: Constructions de la présence et de l’absence de Paul en 2 Corinthiens dans la perspective des épîtres pauliniennes et du monde grec,” in *Breytenbach 2015, 357–71; B. Bosenius 1994, Die Abwesenheit des Apostels als theologisches Programm: Der zweite Korintherbrief als Beispiel für die Brieflichkeit der paulinischen Theologie, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 11 (Tübingen: A. Francke), 86–88, 110–17; H. Halla-aho 2010, “Linguistic Varieties and Language Level in Latin Non-Literary Letters,” in *Evans and Obbink 2010, 171–83;

Letter Writers

57

*Koskenniemi 1956, 74–75, 172–80; J. Matthews 2006, The Journey of Theophanes: Travel, Business, and Daily Life in the Roman East (New Haven: Yale University Press), 20–21; *Reinard 2016, 72–75; *Reinard 2018, 194–95; *Schellenberg 2022b; *Thraede 1970, 39–47, 52–61, 77–81, 146–61; *Trapp 2003, 38–42; *White 1986, 190–91, 218–20; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 6–7. New Testament

1 Cor 5:3; 2 Cor 10:11; 13:2, 10; Gal 4:18–20; Phil 1:27; Col 2:5.

In his important study on the idea and phraseology of the Greek letter, *Koskenniemi (1956, 74–75, 172–80) referred to the fact that the personal letter of Roman antiquity was sometimes experienced as a substitute for the absence of its sender. Ch.L.A. 4.267 [1.42] is a letter of recommendation from Oxyrhynchos, written in Latin during the second century CE (Halla-aho 2010, 173–78). In a postscript (lines 31–33), the author of the letter, the beneficiarius Aurelius Archelaos appeals to his addressee, the military tribune Iulius Domitius, to “hold this letter before your eyes and to believe that I am speaking to you.” Through these words, the writer adds as much emphasis as possible to this letter of recommendation and further underlines the personal guarantee for his intercession. These lines, then, are not about the sentimental experience of geographical distance, but about the deeply felt desire to substitute through the letter what could otherwise have been done through personal presence (*Koskenniemi 1956, 174). In another letter from Oxyrhynchos of which only the upper part survived, P.Oxy. 6.963 (with BL 11:146; II–III CE), a certain Ophelia writes to her mother Theanous right after the opening greeting: “I greet you, mother, wishing to catch sight of you already through this letter.” During the same time, two brothers let their father know in P.Haun. 2.16.8–10 (II–III CE): “For through your letters that we receive, we also seem to see you.” Similarly, a certain Achillion, after asking his brother for a continuous mutual correspondence, closes the letter P.Oxy. 42.3067 (III CE) with the words: “We will hence seem to see each other through letters” (lines 12–13). In P.Herm. 2.3–4 (ca. 317–323), the same thought is expressed by a certain Anatolius, who first apologizes for not having visited his master Sarapion and not being able to do so now, and then adds: “You know that I pray, my lord, to catch sight of you also face to face and to speak to you.”11 Anatolius implicitly asserts to Sarapion that he wants to “see” him not only via the present letter, but also live and in person. 11 Matthews (2006, 21) translates the respective passage as “… that I pray both to see and speak with you face to face,” but in the Greek text the expression for “face to face” is preceded by a καί, which is why the translation has to read “to catch sight of you also face to

58

Chapter 4

In a letter of high stylistic quality, PSI 12.1261 [2.169] (212–217 CE), one Aurelius Apollonios reports to Aurelius Diogenes that he had been informed by a certain Gorgias that Diogenes is doing well and living safely and in reputation; the good news inspire Apollonios not only to thank the gods (on thanksgivings see in detail pp. 123–28), but also to assure his addressee that he hopes to see him again soon: “Very many thanks therefore to the gods and to the Fortune of our lord, the invincible Severus Antoninus, which preserved you, and of which we, in our longing for you, wish to benefit with our own eyes and no longer only by letters—since we already have seen you once in your home staying well” (lines 7–13). What Apollonios describes with “to benefit by letters” is exactly what he is doing at the moment and to which he prefers “to benefit with our own eyes,” although the latter is momentarily a mere wish. In an analogical way, many a letter writer assures an addressee that the latter’s personal presence was sensed in a recently received letter. In P.Lips. 1.104.14–17 [2.56] (30 Jun 95 or 22 Jun 62 BCE), Petesouchos son of Panebchounis thanks his brother Petearsemtheus for what he has written in his letters and assures him: “Whenever you write to us, I receive something alive,” which can only refer to his brother himself. In the postscript of the private letter P.Mich. 8.482 [2.110] (23 Aug 133 CE),12 for example, an unknown letter sender not only expresses his hope for continued correspondence, but at the same time indicates that he had felt the receipt of the most recent letter as a personal presence of his correspondent (lines 22–26). This is explicitly expressed by the author of SB 14.11584 (late II CE), who assures his brother Isidoros right at the beginning of his letter (lines 2–6) that, “as soon as I had come to Antinoopolis, I received your letter, through which I had the impression of seeing you. Therefore, I ask you to do the same constantly, because that way our friendship will be enhanced.” According to *Koskenniemi (1956, 175), messages like these, which are independent of each other, suggest through their similarity in content that such a comparison of the letter with the personal presence of the writer was a quite common stylistic feature. Based on these examples, it is not unreasonable to understand the relatively widespread and simple assertion “first of all I thought it necessary to greet you by letter” (cf. p. 118), which does not represent an opening greeting but rather a subsequent and separate message, as a substitute for a greeting that at the moment cannot be uttered in personal presence. Examples

12

face” and not “both to see and speak with you face to face,” as if the καί were in front of “to catch sight of you,” as the translation of Matthews suggests. According to *Choat 2006, 142 n. 652, the text is not Christian.

Letter Writers

59

of this phrase can be found in the following letters: O.Berenike 2.198.3–5 (ca. 50–75 CE); O.Did. 330.3–5 (before ca. 88–96 CE); BGU 3.824.3–5 (97–98 CE); P.Oslo 2.49.3–4 (II CE). In P.Freib. 4.57.3–5 (I–II CE) and in later (already Christian) letters—such as P.Herm. 4.3–4 (ca. 317–323 CE), P.Lond. 6.1925.4–7 (mid IV CE), or PSI 7.826.3–4 (IV–V CE)—the Greek verb used here for “to greet” is προσαγορεύω, which literally means “to speak or talk to somebody,” so that the whole phrase is most likely intended to express: “First of all I thought it necessary to speak to you—(if not in person, then at least) by letter.”13 As far as the letters of the New Testament are concerned, the idea that an author is present in his letters, and that therefore a letter is of equal value as its author’s physical presence, is mentioned several times by Paul of Tarsus, who is one of the earliest letter writers to clearly articulate this view, making a play on words with the participles ἀπών (“absent”) and παρών (“present”) in several of his letters (1 Cor 5:3; 2 Cor 10:11; 13:2, 10; Gal 4:18–20; Phil 1:27; cf. in addition Col 2:5). Probably in the third century CE, a father tells his son how much he rejoiced at the news of his marriage; in BGU 4.1080.6–8 [2.180] he writes: “And we, absent, were delighted with the news as if we were present in person.” Strictly speaking, by playing on the words “absent – present” the father does not refer to his own congratulatory letter but the good news from the son, which he heard14 while being absent, allow him to be present at the feast as if he were there in person. A similar case is evidenced by P.Warr. 20 (late III/ early IV CE), the second column of a private letter which was dictated to a scribe; the main contents remain unclear, but before the final greeting, which was written by the unknown author himself, we can read in lines 4–10 (with BL 4:103–104; 6:66): “You too, my lord patron, instruct me to do whatever you wish, for you provide me with a double holiday whenever I have the opportunity to kiss most warmly a letter of yours as if you were present.” Here, too, the letter sender refers to (previously received and hoped for) letters of his addressee, which make him feel the presence of his patron. Paul of Tarsus refers only in Phil 1:27 to a letter of the Philippian Christ group, the “hearing” of which would be as valuable as his personal presence in the community 13

14

A variant, without explicitly mentioning that the greeting is expressed “by letter,” is preserved in P.Bas. 2.43.4–5 (before Nov 239 CE) and P.Oxy. 1.123.4 (III–IV CE). The letter sender of P.Oxy. 85.5522 [2.97] (I–II CE) used ἐπισκοποῦμαι instead of προσαγορεύω (cf. lines 4–5; on the exact meaning of this verb in secondary greetings see p. 169). A few other letters like P.Oxy. 55.3819.4–6 (early IV CE) and 10.1300.3 (V CE) preserve the variant “I hurried to greet you by letter” or similar. The Greek text speaks literally of “hearing”; cf. Phil 1:27.

60

Chapter 4

and the “seeing” of its members, whereas in 1 Cor (5:3), 2 Cor (10:11; 13:2, 10), and Gal (4:18–20) he refers to his own letter(s) (cf. also Col 2:5), but in any case he expresses the idea that a letter functions as a medium of connectedness, overcoming local distance and serving as a substitute for personal presence. At about the same time as Paul, the idea that the presence of an author is perceivable in his letter can also be expressed in other words. In the letter of a certain Chairas to the physician Dionysios, P.Mert. 1.12 [2.78] (26 Apr 59 CE), the main part starts with the words: “When I received your letter, I was as exceedingly joyous as if I had actually been to my home town, because without it there is nothing” (lines 3–5). By the ostracon letter O.Krok. 2.155 [2.117] (98–138 CE), the businessman and pimp Philokles entreats his partners to look after his child and her mother and everything in the house, and he adds (lines 12–13): “I consider that I am there.” We thus observe that the whole idea has, phraseologically, not yet developed distinct stereotypical forms, which is only the case in the fully developed Byzantine style; nevertheless, we can already observe the presence of a solid topology. The fact that it is not only employed by reasonably educated scribes (such as those of P.Mert. 1.12 [2.78], BGU 4.1080 [2.180], PSI 12.1261 [2.169], and P.Oxy. 6.963), but also by less educated ones (such as Philokles in O.Krok. 2.155), may—according to *Koskenniemi (1956, 177)—allow the conclusion that it is not of an individual nature but rather based on a common background. P.Col. 10.279 (mid III CE) seems, at first sight, to refer to a common convention not to mention an accused person’s name by letter, but—we might add—that this person’s name should only be uttered in personal presence. The author of this letter asks his addressee for support against a certain man who owes him some money, but is obviously not willing to pay it back; in lines 9–14 we read: “You too know the man who owes me (money), since it would not be right to name him by letter, and please also do as much (as you can), for I know that you love me, in order to bother him, since he is careless.” The passage brings to mind 1 Cor 5 and the fact that Paul does not mention the name of the man whom he accuses of gross indecency, or 2 Cor 7:12, where someone who had obviously committed grave injustice remains anonymous. However, that P.Col. 10.279.9–12 is actually not based on a general principle, but rather an individual idea, is proven by P.Mich. 8.492.21–22 (II CE), where a letter sender encourages his sister Thaisarion: “And if anyone has injured you, let me know his name by letter.” In this context, P.Col. 10.279.9–12 and the respective passages in 1 and 2 Cor have one important point in common: If both correspondents already know exactly to which particular person one of them is referring, it is absolutely unnecessary to give that person’s name.

Letter Writers



61

A Closer Look #2: Tertius, the Scribe of Romans

Literature *Cadwallader 2018, 389–91; *Elmer 2008; P. M. Head 2019, “Epistolary Greetings in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri,” TynBul 70:269–90, here 272 n. 13; M. Homann 2012, “Eine Randerscheinung des Papyrusbriefes: der versiculus transversus,” APF 58:67–80; *Llewelyn 1994a; *Sarri 2018, 128–29. New Testament Rom 16:22.

Tertius is the only person in the New Testament who reveals his name and identifies himself as the one who wrote a particular letter (see Rom 16:22). Since he does not act as the sender of a letter, but simply as its writer, he is generally considered to be Paul’s secretary (or one of several secretaries employed by Paul). But how can Rom 16:22 be understood against the background of secretaries who were dictated papyrus letters? It is noteworthy that Tertius does not identify himself explicitly as “secretary” (γραμματεύς), but only as “the one who writes the letter.” Was he perhaps only someone who could write reasonably well or beautifully and whom Paul could afford to do so, but who was not a professional clerk or secretary earning his living through this profession? Perhaps a member of an early Christ group, Paul’s confidant, co-worker, or friend, or maybe a slave in the household of one of the assembly’s members (Stephanas, Chloe, Phoebe)? Be that as it may,15 the writer of a Pauline letter shows up here in person and tells his name, and in view of the general papyrological record of the role of scribes and secretaries, we can assume that he did not take any serious influence on the text of the Letter to the Romans, neither in terms of its content nor its composition (for arguments and further details see pp. 46–47). Examples of scribes or secretaries adding their greetings to a papyrus letter are rare. P. M. Head (2019, 272 n. 13) mentioned particularly two from Oxyrhynchos, P.Oxy. 42.3062 and 3057 [2.96], but a third from Oxyrhynchos, P.Oxy. 49.3505 (II CE?),16 should be added. However, all three deserve a closer look. The earliest example is P.Oxy. 42.3062, dated to the first century CE; lines 14–16 preserve a postscript that reads: “I, Apollonios, fellow secretary of the court-clerk Theon, greet you well.” The letter itself is sent by a certain Sarapion to Archelaos who is—in the address on the back of the papyrus—identified 15 On the different suggestions see *Cadwallader 2018, 318–19 (with references). 16 Head 2019, 276, mentions this papyrus letter among the examples for “greetings from those with the writer” which, as I will explain, should rather read “… with the sender.”

62

Chapter 4

as “secretary of Theon, the strategos of the Panopolite nome.” More important and decisive in comparison to Tertius is the fact that the postscript by Apollonios in lines 14–16 is written in a handwriting different from that of lines 1–13, which means that Apollonios was not—as Tertius in the case of Paul’s letter—the writer of Sarapion’s letter but merely added a postscript in his handwriting.17 Lines 29–30 in the letter from Ammonios to Apollonios, P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96] (I–II CE), preserve—as already suggested by J. Rea (cf. P.Oxy. 42, p. 146) and in light of P.Oxy. 49.3505.24–25 (see below)—the greetings of a certain Leonas. The whole letter, including the final greeting in line 30 and the address on the back, is written in a beautiful, regular handwriting which hints at a trained scribe, most likely Leonas, since only the writer of a letter is conceivable as the one who could have written in the first person singular except, of course, for the letter author. P.Oxy. 49.3505 (II CE?), finally, is a letter from Papontos to Alexander, written by a skilled writer whose handwriting is fluid but much more cursive than that of the scribe who wrote P.Oxy. 42.3057. The scribe finished the text with his own greeting in lines 24–25 (“I, Dionysios, greet you”) to which the final greeting was added immediately afterwards, obviously written by the letter author himself whose handwriting is quite clumsy. Then the scribe added the dating and two more lines of a postscript, and finally the address on the back of the papyrus. The result of this closer examination is more or less clear: We have two letters from Oxyrhynchos written by skilled scribes, some time after Tertius had penned down the Letter to the Romans, with the greetings of the scribes themselves together with their names similar to those of Tertius in Rom 16:22. As one further example from an unknown Egyptian nome, P.Mert. 2.82.19–20 (late II CE; cf. *Sarri 2018, 128 n. 480) may be added. *Cadwallader (2018, 391) added P.Giss.Apoll. 18 (= P.Giss. 1.85; ca. 117 CE), a letter addressed to a certain Apollonios. The letter sender’s name is not preserved but he is usually identified with Hermaios who is mentioned in lines 11–12, which read: “I, Hermaios, greet you likewise.” The term “likewise” refers to the greetings of a little girl named Heraidous and those of Helene, the addressee’s mother; these greetings are forwarded to Apollonios in lines 9–11. Hermaios himself is also mentioned in P.Giss. 1.80 (113–120 CE?), where he is identified as the son of Helene (lines 8–9). Both letters, therefore, confirm that 17

Similar cases are: the added greetings by a certain Hierakion in P.Brem. 48.35 (30 Oct 118 CE?); the greetings by persons who do not identify themselves by name in P.Brem. 9.23; 22.12; P.Giss. 1.75.11 (all 113–120 CE); P.Brem. 20.19 [2.128] (second half 116–120 CE?); 50.10 (117–120 CE; see p. 329); the additional final greetings in PSI 15.1553.19–21 [2.170] (first half III CE), which are announced earlier in lines 16–17.

Letter Writers

63

Apollonios, the addressee of P.Giss. 1.85, and Hermaios are sons of Helene and that the whole family had close relations with that of another Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias between 113 and 119 CE (see p. 329). The form of Hermaios’s greeting in P.Giss. 1.85.11–12 is remarkably similar to the greetings in P.Oxy. 42.3057.29–30 and 49.3505.24–25, and it is not impossible that Hermaios was the scribe of P.Giss. 1.85 but not the author of the letter. On the other hand it makes perfect sense to consider Hermaios (also) as the author, because we know from P.Giss. 1.80 that he was a classmate of Heraidous (her teacher had been asked to take care of him too), and because the main purpose of P.Giss. 1.85 is to ask Apollonios to turn to a guardian who should provide the sender of the letter with some school supplies, including a small book to read for Heraidous. Since Heraios was certainly still young at the time when P.Giss. 1.85 was written, he is the best candidate, also in terms of content, to be identified with the author of this letter because it could very well apply to him that his father, who is nowhere mentioned in both letters, had already passed away and that he as a minor (being not yet 14 years old) needed a guardian to arrange his maintenance. In this case the greetings in P.Giss. 1.85.11–12, unusually formulated for a letter author, would not be that strange, as they would have been written by a schoolboy who was not yet thoroughly familiar with epistolary formulas and conventions. For the comparison with Rom 16:22, P.Giss. 1.85.11–12 is therefore only a possible, but by no means a safe candidate. In his article, Cadwallader also remarks (p. 388) that the greetings of Paul in Rom 16:21 and v. 23 appear to be interrupted by the greeting of Tertius in v. 22, and he supposes that in the original letter, Tertius had added his greetings to Paul’s final words (i.e., at the end which would now be after v. 23). According to Cadwallader, Tertius presumably wrote his greeting in the margin like some scribes did with a postscript or an additional greeting as illustrated by P.Princ. 2.19 (c. 160–150 BCE) and 2.72 (III CE), where we find postscripts to the left of the main letter text.18 Eventually, Cadwallader finds a plausible analogy in a frequent phenomenon in letters from the first to the fifth century CE, which was analyzed by M. Homann (2012): after a writer had reached the end of the papyrus, he turned the sheet by 90° and continued writing on the empty (in most cases left) margin; this marginal text is thus perpendicular to the main text. With reference to Cicero, Att. 5.1, Homann identified this habit as versiculus

18

The postscript of P.Princ. 2.19 is written in a different handwriting in six horizontal lines (for a digital image see http://www.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/dlo?obj=princeton.apis.p428), that of 2.72 in the same handwriting as the main text in two perpendicular lines (see https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/10699896).

64

Chapter 4

transversus.19 Among these passages written in the margin are also greetings, sometimes in continuation of greetings begun in the main column of writing. On this background, Cadwallader assumes that Tertius’s greeting was originally written as a versiculus transversus, and that it was only inserted into the continuous text by a later copyist, but at the wrong place (*Cadwallader 2018, 389–91). To the text-critical question of how the greeting of Tertius could have ended up at the place where it is located in all the manuscripts of Romans (namely, in Rom 16:22), Cadwallader’s explanation is a plausible solution, but with one necessary limitation: Tertius must have used the right margin for this purpose, since for practical reasons only this margin, and not the left one, would have been considered when writing on a scroll, which was definitely the case when writing Romans. A versiculus transversus on the right margin is only found in four papyrus letters,20 but it is thus attested. As a consequence of his explanation, Cadwallader entertains the possibility “that Paul … did not know of, and therefore had no occasion to approve of or correct, Tertius’ selfrevealing supplement” (*Cadwallader 2018, 393). The best parallel to Rom 16:22 that I could find is P.Mich. 8.482 [2.110] (23 August 133 CE), and this letter offers a different explanation. The name of the letter’s author is not preserved because the upper part is missing. The second preserved line contains the frequently used convention to ask the addressee to write if being in need of anything. After mentioning the addressee’s hood, which is still at the letter author’s place, the scribe is dictated the final greeting, adding another confirmation that the hood is still in the letter sender’s keeping. What comes next is most important, still dictated to the scribe although referring to him (lines 8–12): “Peteeus, who is writing the letter for me, greets you very very much as well as your wife and your daughter and Bassos your horse.” After that, the scribe is dictated another five lines of text, a second final greeting, the exact dating, and an additional four and a half lines of a second postscript. There is no change in handwriting, which means that the entire letter was dictated to and written by the mentioned Peteeus. Actually, this letter is the only reference from the Roman era so far where someone mentioned by name is explicitly identified as the writer of a letter, and all this in connection

19 20

Homann’s list of references (2012, 74–80) has been supplemented by *Cadwallader 2018, 389–90 n. 89. Based on Homann 2012, 70 n. 16, I identified two letters in Greek, P.Turner 18 [2.90] (89–96 CE) and P.Col. 8.215 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE), and two in Latin, P.Mich. 8.468 (= C.Epist.Lat. 1.142; early II CE) and Ch.L.A. 1.12 (= C.Epist.Lat. 1.157; after 7 Oct 167 CE); Homann also lists PSI 3.207 but the marginal text is actually located left of the main text.

Letter Writers

65

with his greeting.21 The example is thus among all papyrus letters the clearest analogy to Tertius in Rom 16:22—with the only difference that Peteeus is here referred to in the third person and does not write of his own accord in the first person; however, what this example demonstrates in all clarity: The writer’s greetings are conveyed with the full consent of the letter’s author, who may have asked Peteeus beforehand if he too would like to send his greetings, and the writer gratefully accepted this opportunity. Finally, there is another point that Rom 16:22 and P.Mich. 8.482.8–12 seem to have in common: The sending of greetings by persons other than a letter’s author is based much more on a friendly relationship between that person and the addressee(s) of the letter than on the relationship with the author. It is simply a matter of whether one wishes to send greetings to the addressees or not. Therefore, Tertius evidently wished to greet the addressees of Paul’s letter, and presumably did so with Paul’s consent—perhaps even after Paul had asked him whether he wanted to.

21

A rather late example is P.Iand. 6.103.16 (VI CE): “Your servant Lykatos, who is also writing (sc. this letter), greets you.” P.Berl.Möller 11.15–16 (30 Jan 33 CE) is different: “All at home send their regards to you and I, who is writing the letter, greet you (χαίρω)” (on the meaning of ἐπισκοποῦνταί σε in line 15 see p. 169); *Sarri 2018, 128 n. 480, noted: “because the writer does not mention his name, so it cannot be excluded that it may be the sender himself who wrote the letter and referred to himself at the end.”

Chapter 5

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés Pre-forms of letters do not contain formulas at all, but only a short message or request, such as Agora 21.B1 [2.52] (mid VI BCE), a potsherd from Athens incised with a request to deposit a saw under the threshold of the garden gate. A real letter usually begins and ends with a formula, due to which it is only recognized as a letter. Ancient and modern epistolary theorists have not only tried to distinguish between different types of letters (see pp. 27–29), but also to divide a letter itself into different letter sections. In accordance with their observations, letters written and preserved do not meticulously follow an idealtypical theory but occasionally deviate from it. A letter is basically characterized by the fact that it emerges from a certain situation in everyday life and is connected to the personal situation of the sender and to that of the recipient. The discrepancy between theory and practice thus has to do with the genre of the letter itself, and we can even observe that clear boundaries between the various sections of a letter are crossed by experienced letter writers too, who do not compulsively apply a letter form to a particular text, but rather deal with such boundaries in a creative way by still revealing an underlying pattern which is artistically adapted to the respective needs. A first rough distinction can be made between the actual letter text, which is constitutive for every letter and without which a letter could not be recognized as such, and additions, which are not constitutive and often or even mostly absent. Both can then be further subdivided. Additional sections include date and address. The actual letter text is traditionally divided into three sections: letter opening, letter body, and letter closing. The boundaries between these sections are, however, not always obvious, and there may even be transitions. As the study of the letters of Greco-Roman celebrities and of approximately 11,800 edited Greek and Latin letters preserved on papyrus and other material (cf. pp. 3–4) has shown, letter writers could express their intentions quite effectively by using a variety of formulas or clichés, the function of which was determined by their position within a letter and their wording. Their frequent use also helped the reader to identify and understand their intentions. Some of these formulas introduce a request or conclusion, others disclose something or call someone’s attention to something. Furthermore, they also have their particular epistolary position: in the letter opening, the letter body, or the letter closing.

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790487_006

68

Chapter 5

In his book on the idea and phraseology of the Greek letter, *Koskenniemi (1956) evaluated both papyrus letters and published letters of famous personalities of antiquity and observed that the comparison with the latter (e.g., with the New Testament letters of Paul) reveals again and again, that formulas of the Greek papyrus letters from Egypt can be considered common Greek. Meanwhile this is also proven by letters from other provinces of the Roman Empire (see PNT 1, pp. 191–97). Many years before Koskenniemi, *Exler (1923) had already compiled the most important formulas from Greek papyrus letters published in the first decades of papyrology, and he distinguished between certain letter genres (familiar letters, business letters, petitions, complaints, applications, official letters). In recent decades, the ever-growing number of edited papyri and ostraca was repeatedly evaluated for (updated) studies of the letter form and the individual formulas, sometimes extending the time frames within which one or the other formula had previously been evidenced and adding new, often individual variations. Here the studies of *White (1978 and 1984) should be mentioned as well as those of *Buzón (1984), *Stowers (1986), *Klauck (2006, 17–41), and *Arzt-Grabner (2003, 109–42, 192–95, 264–70).

Layouts

Literature *Roller 1933, 42–45, 382–89; *Sarri 2018, 87–124; *White 1986, 193–211.

While the possibilities for design were generally limited by the available space and the skill of the scribe, and the greater part of a letter text was usually written in scriptio continua (i.e., without spaces) and with almost no attention to line breaks along syllables, both the beginning and the end of a letter were regularly designed with great care and thus also served to facilitate the identification of a letter as such. Opening greetings are frequently written in a separate paragraph. Letter writers tended to leave a blank space between the names of sender and recipient, sometimes also between the addressee’s name and some form of address. If line 2 of the opening greeting contains one, two or three words, they are frequently aligned at the left and right margins similar to a justified type set; SB 3.6263.1–2 [2.153] (late II CE) may be mentioned as only one example out of many. Or the scribe centered these words with indents from both sides as in BGU 1.37.2 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE). In both cases, relatively large word spacing is typical.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

69

These layouts of the opening greeting seem to have become such a regular habit of epistolary culture that a certain Heliodoros, for instance, not only followed them in all his surviving letters (P.Sarap. 84; 84a; 85 [2.111]; 86; 89a–c; 90; 91), but even the copies of some of his letters kept at home (P.Sarap. 87–89 [2.112]) show the same design; they were all written between 90 and 133 CE. Examples showing similar layouts are numerous1 and suggest that the letter writers shared a common idea or even tradition of what an opening greeting should look like and that it should be distinguishable from the following text. P.Pintaudi 54.1–2 [2.184] (III–IV CE?) may indicate that not only the greeting formulas but also their layout were practiced in school lessons. No doubt such a layout was extremely useful not only for the identification of the text as a letter but also for the immediate identification of the respective correspondents, especially when the address on the exterior mentioned persons different from those greeted in the letter opening as, for example, in the case of one of the earliest Greek private letters, Syll.3 3.1259 [2.54] (early IV BCE), in which the writer left more blank space on the right of lines 1–4 than on the right margin of the other lines, and has also written the essential elements into separate lines—namely, letter sender (line 1), addressees (line 2), opening greeting including health wish (line 3), and a short report that the author too is doing well (line 4). The patterns, which have remained the same over the centuries, suggest that they were already taught at school, and passed on from generation to generation. Some letter writers, who used more detailed and personalized greetings, even inserted a space between the simple greeting χαίρειν and the respective extensions, as if to make clear where the basal and formulaic part ended and the personal one started. An example of this is BGU 16.2654 [2.65] (14 Jul 6 BCE), where the scribe inserted a blank space after the simple greeting formula χαίρειν (line 2), but not after the extension “and through all good health” with which the opening greeting ends. In a comparable way, the writer of CPR 5.19 [2.114] (I–II CE) left a whole line empty after χαίρειν (line 2) before adding three more lines of a personally formulated greeting extension. At the beginning of P.Oxy. 4.744 [2.67] (17 Jun 1 CE), Hilarion left blank spaces after the names of him and his wife, the main recipient, and another blank space after the whole opening greeting (in line 3), with which he also addressed two 1 Some examples of letters from I CE, which are presented in full in this volume and can be added to those commented on below, are: TM 130712.2 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69] (spring 6 CE); P.Oxy. 2.292 [2.71] (ca. 25 CE); P.Fouad 75 [2.81] (15 Oct 64 CE); P.Fay. 110 [2.91] (11 Sep 94 CE); P.Phil. 34 [2.76] (I CE); T.Vindol. 2.250 [2.95] (ca. 97–103 CE); P.Col. 8.215 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE); P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96] (I–II CE).

70

Chapter 5

other persons who can probably be identified as his mother or mother-in-law and as the couple’s daughter. In the letter of recommendation P.Brem. 5 [2.129] (117–119 CE), which was sent by Vaberius Mundus to the strategos Apollonios, the writer not only used a separate paragraph for the opening greeting but also carefully emphasized the names of the sender and the recipient and even the title of the recipient (strategos) by inserting a blank space after each (lines 1–2).2 SB 14.11901 (III CE), on the other hand, was written by a scribe whose faible for aesthetics outweighed his adherence to logical word division and graphic separation of the opening greeting from the rest of the letter.3 Within the letter body, the writers only rarely used blank spaces to separate one part from another. In line 11 of P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96] (I–II CE), the writer left a blank space before introducing his wish with “I beg,” but he also left a similar gap in line 28 before “but it endures” where the blank space does not make any sense as a separator. The writer of P.Mich. 8.499 [2.109] (117–147 CE) left a blank space between the end of a prayer report (which at the same time marks the end of the letter opening) and the body of the letter (line 7), and another blank space before turning to the main subject of the letter, the request for assistance in becoming the sister’s legal guardian (line 14). Spaces in line 3 of the letter of recommendation P.Brem. 5 [2.129] (117–119 CE) are certainly related to this letter type: in order to emphasize who is recommended, the writer inserted a blank space after this person’s name (actually after the two parts of his name Ulpius Malchus).4 A certain Apollos left an empty space in O.Claud. 1.147.5 [2.149] (II CE) in order to emphasize the seriousness of the following instructions to his sister. Special signs such as the horizontal strokes at the end of lines 2 and 13 of BGU 16.2623 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE) or the curved lines on both ends of BGU 16.2611.14 [2.60] (17 Dec 10 BCE) do not necessarily serve as structuring elements but may simply have a decorative function, since the final greetings in the following lines of both letters are indented anyway. However, P.Oxy. 67.4624 (I CE), a letter from the gymnasiarch Dios to his agent Sarapion, preserves a distinctive feature: the various instructions “are separated by paragraphoi, 2 On the structuring elements of P.Pintaudi 55 [2.186] (late III–mid IV CE) see p. 418. 3 Lines 1–4 can be translated as follows: “Euterpe to Didymas, the brother, greetings. I make the obeisance for you before the local gods.” But the scribe’s arrangement of letter groups looks approximately like this (to facilitate understanding I have each word begin with a capital letter): Euterpe (To)Didy masHer Brother Greetings. TheObei sance … For online images of this papyrus see https://findit.library.yale.edu/catalog/digcoll:2792518. 4 On the structuring elements of P.Pintaudi 55 [2.186] (late III–mid IV CE) see p. 418.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

71

sometimes in combination with short preceding lines or spaces or both, making clear its function as a memorandum” (J.-L. Calvo Martínez in P.Oxy. 67, p. 257).5 Another paragraphos is attested to the left of line 30 of the draft letter BGU 4.1141 [2.58] (after 9 Apr 13 BCE), indicating that the following lines concern a different subject. For the vast majority of the letters, subdivisions within the letter body are only possible on the basis of formulas. This even applies to the longest papyrus letter edited so far, P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] (324–330 CE?): its opening greeting has not been preserved, but the sections that can be distinguished by content always begin in the middle of a line; only the final greeting in col. 6.17 is indented.6 Like the opening greeting, also the final greeting often shows a specific design that separates it from the preceding text. Final greetings are frequently written in a separate line which, in many cases, is also indented (e.g., BGU 1.37.8 [1.2]),7 a habit that was certainly connected with the notion that the final greeting had to be personal and was therefore in most cases written by the author of the letter him- or herself, even if the rest of the text was penned by a scribe. Some examples are special, but nevertheless reveal the same idea and intention. In P.Phil. 34.11–14 [2.76] (I CE), the letter author’s final greeting begins right after the end of the letter corpus, in continuation of line 11, but the following three lines of this greeting (lines 12–14) are indented. In this way, the final greeting is not entirely separated from the letter body, but the writer obviously had a good notion of this habit. The farewell of P.Oxy. 2.269, col. 2 [4.#] (after 13 May 57 CE) follows the forwarding of greetings (lines 13–14) after a gap and is written slightly lower than line 14. The writer obviously had in mind to separate it from the previous text since it is also aligned at the right margin of the column.8 The scribe of SB 20.14132 [2.101] (late I/early II CE) proves that even a very narrow strip of papyrus could be used to graphically emphasize the final greeting (see p. 288). 5 A digital image is available at https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21179395.v1. 6 This is similarly true for the rather long letters BGU 3.884 (ca. 76–84 CE) and SB 22.15708 with BL 11:240 [1.30] (ca. 100 CE). 7 Some further examples in letters from the end of the first century BCE or from the first century CE, which are presented in full in this volume or PNT 1, are: BGU 16.2623.14 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE); 2611.14 [2.60] (17 Dec 10 BCE); 2618.25 [2.64] (10 May 7 BCE); 2654.10 [2.65] (14 Jul 6 BCE); TM 130712.15 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69] (spring 6 CE); P.Oxy. 2.292.13 [2.71] (ca. 25 CE); BGU 4.1078.14 [2.72] (20 Oct 38 CE); 1.37.8 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE); P.Fouad 75.17 [2.81] (15 Oct 64 CE); P.Fay. 110.31 [2.91] (11 Sep 94 CE); O.Did. 429.17 [2.92] (before ca. 96 CE); CPR 5.19.23 [2.114] (I–II CE). 8 On P.Brem. 5.14–16 [2.129] (117–119 CE) see note 2 (p. 329), on P.Oxy. 73.4959.20–24 [2.145] (II CE) see note 3 (p. 355), on SB 3.6263.32 [2.153] (late II CE) see note 6 (p. 367), and on P.Oxy. 7.1070.43 [2.168] (after 212 CE) see note 2 (p. 388).

72

Chapter 5

If the letter closing contains other formulas before the final greeting, letter writers sometimes used blank spaces as separators, such as in lines 17, 18, and 20 of P.Oxy. 73.4959 [2.145] (II CE) where the writer obviously wanted to separate the different greetings from each other. Comparable examples are P.Oxy. Hels. 48.20, 23 [2.163] (II–III CE; see p. 382) and P.Pintaudi 55 [2.186] (late III/ early IV CE; see p. 418). The author of P.Tebt. 2.418.v (III CE) had a scribe write a beautifully crafted opening greeting and the text of the letter body before he picked up the pen, left a blank space, and added a secondary greeting, which he connected syntactically with the final greeting in lines 17–20: “Greet all yours from me, with whom you may fare well and prosper together with your whole household, as I pray.” Additionally, to make this closing section even more recognizable, these four lines are indented.9 A similar design was used by the writer of P.Princ. 2.70 (II–III CE).10 Despite the frequency with which the basic patterns of layout observed in papyrus and ostracon letters are encountered (see above, pp. 68–72), it must not be overlooked that their use or non-use does not imply a more or less extensive knowledge of epistolary habits or skills. Even undoubtedly highly educated letter writers sometimes simply append a final greeting in the same line to the preceding text, without any blank space in between, such as Eudaimonis, the highly educated mother of the strategos Apollonios, at the end of her letter to her daughter-in-law Aline, P.Brem. 63.31 [1.35] (16 Jul 116 CE?). The same applies, for example, to two of the three letters of Heliodoros to Athenodoros, BGU 16.2610.11 [2.62] (13 or 23 Nov 9 BCE) and 2608.9 [2.66] (14 Mar 7 or 4 BCE?). Based on this evidence, it can be assumed with the utmost probability that the original versions of all the letters of the New Testament, including the longer letters of Paul and even his Letter to the Romans, did not contain any external signs of division, except in the case of the opening and final greetings. The structuring elements in the manuscripts, which are much less present in them than in modern editions, must therefore be considered secondary and are probably related to the tendency to no longer read an entire letter at once, but to use selected sections in religious services or Bible study. The opening and closing sections of New Testament letters can be distinguished rather clearly from the rest of the text due to the formulas used. However, similarly to P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188], the letter body can in each case only be divided roughly and by means of some formulas, which are explained in the following chapters. 9 10

A digital image is available at https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.tebt;2;418v. A digital image is available at https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.princ;2;70.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés



73

The Letter Opening

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 109–35, 145–56; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 35–37; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 132–43, 149–51; *Bauer 2011, 47–50; *Buzón 1984, 5–9, 19–22, 49–50, 54–69, 99–102, 108–12, 159–71; *Chapa 1998, 25–26; *Doty 1973, 29–31; *Evans 1985; *Kim 1972; E. R. Richards 2013, “Pauline Prescripts and Greco-Roman Epistolary Conventions,” in *Porter and Pitts 2013, 497–514; J. Starr 2013, “Letter Openings in Paul and Plato,” in *Porter and Pitts 2013, 515–49; *Steen 1938; *Stowers 1986, 23–26; P. L. Tite 2010, “How to Begin, and Why? Diverse Functions of the Pauline Prescript within a Greco-Roman Context,” in *Porter and Adams 2010, 57–99; *Weima 1994, 28–56, 77–239; *White 1972, 32–42, 73–85, 114–25, 153–58; *White 1978, 289–96; *White 1981, 92–94; *White 1984, 1736–38; *White 1986, 193–96, 202–13; J. L. White 1993, “Apostolic Mission and Apostolic Message: Congruence in Paul’s Epistolary Rhetoric, Structure and Imagery,” in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd, ed. B. H. McLean, JSNTSup 86 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), 145–61, here 153–60. – Special bibliography on particular formulas is also listed at the beginning of the subchapters. Opening sections of New Testament letters Rom 1:1–7; 1 Cor 1:1–3; 2 Cor 1:1–2; Gal 1:1–5; Eph 1:1–2; Phil 1:1–2; Col 1:1–2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1–2; 1 Tim 1:1–2; 2 Tim 1:1–2; Titus 1:1–4; Phlm 1–3; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1–2; 2 Pet 1:1–2; 2 John 1–3; 3 John 1–2; Jude 1–2; Rev 1:4–5.

Besides a special layout, the beginning of a letter or letter opening can usually be easily and clearly distinguished from the letter body by the use of fixed formulas which can be introduced at the beginning of any letter, which means, independently of its content. In addition to a greeting formula, the letter opening can also contain a health wish or prayer report and a remembrance motif (see below, pp. 102–15). Some scholars call the part, which follows the greeting but still belongs to the letter opening, a prooemium or proem (e.g., *Klauck 2006, 21–23).

Opening Greeting

Literature *Adams 2010; *Armoni 2018; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 109–23; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 181–86; *Arzt-Grabner 2022; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 88 (extended eBook 2008, locations 258–59); *Bauer 2011, 44–47; *Ceccarelli 2013, 35–47, 89–98; *Exler 1923, 23–68, 133– 34; G. A. Gerhard 1905, “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des griechischen Briefes I: Die Formel ὁ δεῖνα τῷ δεῖνι χαίρειν,” Phil 64:27–65; C. J. Haddad 2019, “Phraseological Borrowing and Interference in Two Formulaic Expressions Found in Roman Letters in Greek,” ZPE 212:147–57; *Klauck 2006, 17–21, 28–31; *Koskenniemi 1956, 155–67; *Kreinecker 2010, 101–6; S. R. Llewelyn 1997, “The Prescript of James,” NovT 39:385–93; *Llewelyn 1998a; J. M. Lieu 1985, “‘Grace to You and Peace’: The Apostolic Greeting,” BJRL 68:161–78; *Luiselli 2008, 692–96; *Meecham 1923, 114–16; *Nachtergaele 2023, 31–59; V. Parkin 1986, “Some Comments on the Pauline Prescripts,” IBS 8:92–99; E. R.

74

Chapter 5

Richards 2013, “Pauline Prescripts and Greco-Roman Epistolary Conventions,” in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, vol. 1 of Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context, ed. S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts, TENTS 9 (Leiden: Brill), 497–514; *Roller 1933, 54–62, 417–59; *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 3–41; *Sarri 2018, 16–18, 40–42, 53–56, 72–74, 87–90; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 57–59; I. Taatz 1991, Frühjüdische Briefe: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religiösen Briefe des Frühjudentums, NTOA 16 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht); *Tibiletti 1979, 28–31; *Trapp 2003, 34–35; M. van den Hout 1949, “Studies in Early Greek Letter-Writing,” Mnemosyne 2:19–41; R. Wachter 1998, “Griechisch χαῖρε: Vorgeschichte eines Grusswortes,” MH 55:65–75; *White 1986, 194–98; K. A. Worp 1995, “Letters of Condolence in the Greek Papyri. Some Observations,” Analecta Papyrologica 7:149–54; N. Zavoykina and N. Pavlichenko 2018, “The Lead Letter of Pistos from Patraeus,” Hyperboreus 24:40–51; *Ziemann 1910, 252–58, 266–76, 283–88, 290–302. New Testament Acts 15:23; 23:26; Rom 1:1–7; 1 Cor 1:1–3; 2 Cor 1:1–2; Gal 1:1–5; Eph 1:1–2; Phil 1:1–2; Col 1:1– 2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1–2; 1 Tim 1:1–2; 2 Tim 1:1–2; Titus 1:1–4; Phlm 1–3; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1–2; 2 Pet 1:1–2; 2 John 1–3; 3 John 1; Jude 1–2; Rev 1:4–5.

The opening greeting is one of the most characteristic elements of the Greco-Roman letter form. This greeting has also been called a prescript (cf., e.g., *Bauer 2011, 44 et passim), which is at least ambiguous since the term in its proper sense refers to a note found before or above the actual letter where it was placed after the letter itself had been written (e.g., as an acknowledgement of receipt, especially in the case of official documents). Only Rev 1:1–3 can be understood as a real prescript; since vv. 4–5 are formulated as a letter opening, namely, as an opening greeting, vv. 1–3 at least give the impression that they were prefaced to the whole letter only afterwards. The conventional form of the opening greeting consists of the names of letter sender (A) and addressee (B) and the infinitive χαίρειν which literally means “A to B to rejoice,” but is usually translated as “A to B, greetings.” Apart from the oldest references in Homer (Il. 10.462; Od. 13.357–358), this can only be understood by looking at the development of the formula in the earliest extant Greek private letters, which are preserved on lead tablets. SEG 48.988 from Berezan in the northern Black Sea region (TM Geo 38253) is inscribed in boustrophedon style11 and was dated to ca. 540–535 BCE, but its beginning is far too fragmentary to be restored as a specific epistolary greeting formula (*Sarri 2018, 42 n. 181). SEG 26.845 (second half or end VI BCE),12 11 The boustrophedon (“ox-turning”) way of writing was broadly used in early inscriptions. Rather than going left-to-right, every other line is reversed, with reversed letters. 12 For additions and corrections see SEG 30.960, 37.634, 40.609, 48.987, 51.953, 61.598 et al.; digital image: https://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/portal/hermitage/digital-collec tion/25.+archaeological+artifacts/1142090.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

75

another lead tablet from Berezan, is so far considered the earliest Greek private letter, because its text begins with a kind of epistolary introduction: “O Protagoras, your father ‘sends’ to you.” The Greek term ἐπιστέλλω which literally means “to send (something) to (someone)” or “to request,” is significant for the earliest opening formulas of letters, and already hints at the general function and intention of a letter: in its literal sense, a “letter” (in Greek ἐπιστολή, from which comes the term epistle) is a written message by a certain sender to one or several recipient(s), sent by the former to the latter with a specific request. Because this message is delivered by someone else (i.e., a messenger or letter carrier), sender and recipient are usually mentioned by name, as in SEG 61.614 from Hermonassa/Black Sea (TM Geo 38265, V BCE) which also starts with the vocative of the recipient: “O Aristokrates, Kledikos sends to you.”13 Several early letters provide the names of sender and recipient, but no verb that would connect the two. SEG 48.1012 (ca. 500 BCE), for instance, a lead tablet from Olbia (TM Geo 451), starts with the name of the addressee in the dative, which is followed by the name of the letter sender in the nominative: “To Leanax, Apatorios,” whereas SEG 37.665 (ca. 400 BCE), a private letter on a potsherd from Kerkinitis near Olbia (TM Geo 38270) has: “Apatorios to Neomenios.” The same order is attested by SEG 50.276 [2.53] (early IV BCE), a lead tablet from the Ancient Agora of Athens, but here the verb ἐπιστέλλω combines the two names: “Lesis sends to/requests Xenokles and his mother to …” (followed by the main request). Given the relatively narrow time period to which these early examples are dated, it is advisable not to postulate a chronological development of a formula, but rather to assume that these forms coexisted in this early period of Greek letter writing, when a formula for the letter opening did not yet exist. This seems to have changed during the fourth century BCE, and the lead tablet Syll.3 3.1259 [2.54] (early IV BCE) from Athens probably preserves the earliest extant letter in which the verb ἐπιστέλλω is combined with the Greek infinitive χαίρειν (“to rejoice”), thus urging the addressees to rejoice in receiving the letter. From that stage onwards, a letter (ἐπιστολή) is sent to the addressee to make him or her rejoice in receiving a message from a relative, friend or another person. Obviously not very much later, the verb ἐπιστέλλω was regarded as self-evident and thus dropped from the opening formula of a letter, and the absolute infinitive χαίρειν becomes the most usual form of an opening epistolary greeting and, at the same time, a marker to identify a text 13

Cf. *Ceccarelli 2013, 344–45 no. 18; *Sarri 2018, 40, 89–90; SEG 65.602. In the part of the ancient Greek settlement Patraeus/Black Sea (Pleiades 854723), a third lead letter with this form of introduction was found (edited by Zavoykina and Pavlichenko 2018), dating to the last quarter of V BCE; line 1 reads: “O Aristonymos, Pistos sends to you.”

76

Chapter 5

as a letter. One of the earliest examples with this absolute infinitive is attested on an amphora fragment from Chersonesos in Tauris, SEG 59.814.1–2 (375–325 BCE), which reads: “To Timosthenes, to rejoice (or: greetings).” The letter sender is not mentioned on this sherd, contrary to the lead letter SEG 43.488 [2.55] (ca. 350–325 BCE) from Torone/Macedonia (line 1: “[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]̣ tos to Tegeas, greetings”) and to SEG 65.631 (second half IV BCE), a letter incised into an amphora fragment and found at Vyshesteblievskaya-3/Black Sea (line 1: “[…] iē14 to Apollas, greetings”). Exactly this formula appears at the beginning of the two oldest papyrus letters edited so far, in P.Sorb. 1.9.1 (Herakleopolites or Oxyrhynchites, 27 May 268 BCE) and P.Köln 9.364.1 (Arsinoites?, 3 May 270 or 29 August 232 BCE). From that time onwards, the opening greeting is very rarely omitted. Only four completely preserved Greek letters contain neither an opening address nor a final greeting: UPZ 1.148 (II BCE); P.Lips. 1.105 (I–II CE); P.Oxy. 3.525 (early II CE); 51.3645 with BL 8:272 (III CE). These letters do not reveal why, unlike O.Krok. 2.208 [2.116], where the reason for this lies quite obviously in the letter sender’s fury against the woman Secunda. To mention only the names of the correspondents (“A to B” without a following greeting or wish), is also found in several letters between officials (see the references listed by *Exler 1923, 56). The shipmaster Horion, on the other hand, inserted in his letter to Ploution the greeting, which had been initially omitted, between lines 1 and 2 of P.Oxy. 40.2926 (III CE). A certain Areios, who opened the letter P.Ryl. 2.245 (III CE) by naming only himself as the sender of the letter (line 1: “From Areios”), even added the name of his recipient and the formula of an opening greeting only to the final greeting in lines 24–26 (“Farewell. | To Lucretius, | very many greetings”). Among the New Testament letters, 1 John does not begin with an opening greeting, neither with the mention of a sender or addressee nor with a greeting formula. As a greeting formula is also missing at the end of the whole text, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for an average Greco-Roman reader of letters to recognize 1 John as a letter. While in the course of time the infinitive χαίρειν became a simple phrase, the extensions with terms expressing well-being or health show that—at least in certain situations—it retained its specific function and meaning, albeit in a weakened form. For example, at the beginning of a letter to her father, P.Fouad 75 [2.81] (15 Oct 64 CE), a certain Thaubas originally chose the usual formula in combination with the superlative “most” (i.e., “to rejoice very much,” usually translated as “very many greetings”). However, since the message Thaubas had 14 “Demetriē” (Ionian form for Attic Demetria) would be possible.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

77

to deliver to her father was by no means something he could rejoice in, since it concerned the passing away of his other daughter Herennia, Thaubas (or her scribe) may have considered the superlative in connection with such sad news inappropriate and scraped it off. The letter of condolence P.Oxy. 1.115 [2.143] (II CE) begins with the opening greeting “be of good courage,” probably to avoid χαίρειν, which seemed inappropriate for greeting the mourning addressees (*Palme 2007, 212). The conventional form of the opening greeting in Latin letters is salutem, a shortened version of salutem dicit (literally “he/she says ‘health’”), which can be found in the abbreviated spelling S·D· in Ch.L.A. 10.428.1 (Bousiris/Egypt, second half I BCE). The shortened version salutem has been preserved in letters from various regions of the Roman Empire, such as T.Vindol. 2.250.1–2 [2.95] (Vindolanda/Britannia, ca. 97–103 CE). This Latin formula is not a calque of the Greek formula, since salutem (“health”) is not a literal translation of χαίρειν, and it is an abstract noun, not a verbal infinitive (Haddad 2019, 151). Nevertheless, the consistent papyrological records indicate that the two formulas were easily perceived as the correct equivalents in everyday correspondence. The first four and a half lines of O.Claud. 4.788 (Mons Claudianus, ca. 98–117 CE), for example, contain a Greek letter with the Greek formula, to which a short note in Latin is appended, beginning with the salutem formula. Even better proof is provided by the Archive of Claudius Tiberianus (TM Arch 54) from the second century CE: the Greek letters written by Claudius Terentianus to his father Claudius Tiberianus (P.Mich. 8.476–480) always begin with the greeting formula πλεῖστα χαίρειν, while the Latin ones (P.Mich. 8.467– 469) contain the opening greeting plurimam salutem as an equivalence; both formulas can ultimately be translated as “very many/best greetings.” New Testament examples of the simple Greek form are the opening greetings of the two fictitious letters of Acts (15:23 and 23:26) and of Jas (1:1). Different from that is the typical Pauline greeting “grace to you and peace” (except 1  Thess always followed by “from God our father and the lord Jesus Christ”). Formally, this opening greeting consists of two parts, the phrase “A to B” and the greeting “grace and peace” which is syntactically independent of “A to B.” On the one hand this form may have been strongly influenced by Paul’s Jewish background, but on the other hand it can be supposed that also Semitic-thinking letter writers, if they wrote in Greek, normally used the correct Greek form (Taatz 1991, 19). Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that Paul wanted to allude to the usual Greek greeting at the beginning of a letter by way of the linguistic similarity between χαίρειν and χάρις (“favor, gratitude, grace”), but at the same time wanted to distinguish himself from it.

78

Chapter 5

Also in Greek papyrus letters, deviations from the simple form “A to B, greetings” are not unusual; letter writers either turned to extensions of this simple form or they used another verb. Already in the letter of Mnesiergos from the early fourth century BCE, in Syll.3 3.1259.1–3 [2.54], the simple greeting is followed by the infinitive “and to stay healthy” which is the most usual way of extending the opening greeting, connecting it syntactically with the shortest form of the health wish. Furthermore, the health wish can be emphasized by “through all” (i.e., “all the time, always”), which then literally results in the expression: “A (commands/requests) B to rejoice and stay healthy all the time,” which is usually translated as “greetings and continual health.” At the same time, the infinitive χαίρειν can also be intensified by “much” or “most,” which can then be translated as “many greetings”15 or “most/very many greetings.”16 A combination of all these extensions together is found, for example, in BGU 16.2654.1–2 [2.65] (14 Jul 6 BCE) and O.Krok. 2.227.2–4 [2.120] (98–138 CE?). Instead of “and to stay healthy,” the simple form of the opening greeting can also be extended by “and to fare well.” A special form of this version is preserved on the ostracon SB 6.9017.31 (I–II CE) in lines 1–5: “Papirios to his sister Demetrous, very many greetings (literally: to rejoice very much), and that you always fare well, I wish, along with your unenchanted17 children.” The first three lines of the opening greeting could initially be read in the usual way (as two isolated infinitives expressing “very many greetings and continual welfare”) until one suddenly realizes that “and to fare well” is not simply connected with “very many greetings,” but syntactically depends on the following “I wish.” It is not impossible, though unlikely, that in this case also χαίρειν was to be read in dependence of “I wish” in line 4. A different and very individual variant based on the same formula is attested by CPR 5.19.2–5 [2.114] (I–II CE) and literally reads: “to rejoice and always stay well in the whole body for a long time.” SB 20.14728.4–5 dates back to the Ptolemaic period (29 Jun 103 BCE) and literally reads: “to rejoice and, faring well, spend the days well at all times.” Other infinitives that may be added are: “to be fortunate” as in P.Oxy. 2.396.1 (late I CE), “to remain fortunate” as in BGU 16.2616.2 (9 Jan 13 BCE; both forms 15 Cf., e.g., P.Leid.Inst. 42.2 [2.136] (II CE); P.Oxy. 8.1158.2 [2.176] (III CE). 16 Cf., e.g., BGU 4.1141.1 [2.58] (after 9 Apr 13 BCE); TM 130712.2 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69] (spring 6 CE); P.Oxy. 2.292.2 [2.71] (ca. 25 CE); BGU 1.37.2 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE); P.Col. 8.215.2 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE); O.Claud. 1.151.2 [2.124] (ca. 100–120 CE); P.Leid.Inst. 42.20–21 [2.136] (II CE); SB 3.6263.2, 19 [2.153] (late II CE); O.Did. 451.1 [1.36] (before ca. 176–210 CE); P.Mich. 3.209.2 [2.154] (late II CE); P.Pintaudi 54.1–2 [2.184] (III–IV CE?). 17 The Greek term ἀβάσκαντος is not easy to translate into English; it means that the person described as such may not be struck by the evil eye (i.e., may remain immune from any harm caused by spells etc.).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

79

may also be translated as “good fortune”), and “to be successful” as in P.Amst. 1.88.1–3 (1 Apr 156 or 15 Mar 89 BCE). In place of χαίρειν, some letter authors used the infinitive of other verbs as simple opening greetings, for example “to do well” as in BGU 16.2619.2 [2.63] (ca. 21 BCE–5 CE), “to be of good courage” as in P.Oxy. 1.115.2 [2.143] (II CE) and “to be of good cheer” as in PSI 12.1248.2 (after 14 Dec 235 CE).18 Between the first and third centuries CE, also other forms of the Verb χαίρω are used from time to time, namely, the imperative (literally “rejoice”) as in P.Phil. 34.15 [2.76] (I CE) or P.Oxy. 14.1664.1 [2.167] (ca. 200 CE),19 and the optative (literally “may you rejoice”) as in P.Oxy. 49.3469.1 (I CE), P.Princ. 3.165 [2.146] (II CE), and P.Lond. 2.144 (p. 253) [2.161] (II–III CE).20 A real treasure trove with already mentioned and further variations is the Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26), edited by W. M. Brashear in BGU 16. The papyri were retrieved from mummy cartonnage and contain many letters addressed to or written by Athenodoros, a manager of the estate of a certain Asklepiades in the Herakleopolite nome during the time of Augustus (*Armoni 2018, 123–26). The documents belong to a time frame between 21/20 BCE and 5 CE.21 Two of the letters present only the names of letter sender and addressee but no particular greeting, both authored by Athenodoros himself between 7 and 4 BCE, one of them sent to the Roman prefect Gaius Tyrannius (BGU 16.2605; new edition *Armoni 2018, 129–31), the other one to the strategos of the Herakleopolites (BGU 16.2662). As is customary in letters to higher authorities, Athenodoros gives first the name of the addressee, then his own. The simple greeting χαίρειν is used by Athenodoros in BGU 16.2641 (10/9 BCE), a letter to a certain Skolops,22 the formula extended by the health wish “and to stay healthy” in 2640 (letter to Theophilos, 9 Aug 10 BCE), 2652 (to Eurylochos, ca. 10–2 BCE), and 2653 (to Soterichos, 26 Jun 9 BCE). The opening greeting 18 The opening greetings in the letters of condolence P.Oxy. 1.115 [2.143] and PSI 12.1248 cannot be interpreted as “supposed intentional avoidance,” since the form χαίρειν is also used more often in such letters than the alternatives mentioned (Worp 1995, 151; see also *Chapa 1998, 25–26). 19 The references have been collected by D. Hagedorn (P.Hamb. 4, pp. 109–11); see further P.Oxy. 66.4544.1, 77.5113.1 [2.178] (both III CE), and 85.5525 (mid III CE). See also D. Hagedorn and B. Kramer in P.Pintaudi, p. 242; *Sarri 2018, 49–50. 20 Cf. D. Martinez in P.Mich. 18, pp. 272–76. See further PSI Com. 9.10.1 (mid III CE) and line 1 of TM 981681 (P.Heid. inv. G. 1401; III CE). The optative plural χαίροιτε is only preserved in P.Pintaudi 55.1 [2.186] (late III/early IV CE). 21 Letters, for which no date is given in the following section, can only be dated according to the time frame of the archive (i.e., ca. 21 BCE–5 CE). 22 Further letters in the archive with a simple χαίρειν are BGU 16.2609 (28 Sep 7 BCE) and 2655 (21/20 BCE).

80

Chapter 5

that Athenodoros chose for BGU 16.2616 (9 Jan 13 BCE), a letter to his father, can be translated as “very many greetings, welfare, and good fortune.”23 A very elaborated form has been preserved in Athenodoros’s letters to “[dearest] brother” Seleukos (BGU 16.2614.2–3) and to an unknown recipient (2642.2–3): “very many greetings and—faring well all the time—to make the best progress as I wish” (or “very many greetings, continual welfare, and best progress as I wish”).24 Other variants are found at the beginning of letters addressed to Athenodoros. The form “very many greetings and health” was used by Euomenos and Dionysios in BGU 16.2633.2 as well as by a certain Sarapion in 2637.1–2 (3/2 BCE); the form “greetings and continual health” is preserved in a letter of Sotas, 2606.2 (23 Jul 7 BCE),25 the version “very many greetings and continual health” in a petition from the farmers of Techtho, 2602.3–4 (ca. 14/13 BCE), and in two letters from unknown senders, 2639.2–3 (10/9 BCE) and 2647.2–3 (21 Mar 8 BCE).26 The opening greeting of BGU 16.2600 (4 Aug 13 BCE), a petition stylized as a letter which was sent to an unnamed epistates (line 10) who can probably be identified with Athenodoros, reads: “very many greetings and continual health as we pray” (lines 4–5). The same form, but with the singular (“as I pray”), is also preserved in letters addressed to Athenodoros, namely, by a certain Herakleides in BGU 16.2608.1–2 [2.66] (14 Mar 7 or 4 BCE?), 2611.1–3 [2.60] (17 Dec 10 BCE), and 2610.1–3 [2.62] (13 or 23 Nov 9 BCE), by Ammonios in 2620.1–2, and by an unknown sender in 2643.1–2 (after 4 Feb 8 BCE).27 Sotas, the letter author of BGU 16.2607 (27 Apr 15 BCE) who is probably identical with the Sotas of 2606, uses an only slightly different version: “greetings and continual health as I wish.” This form was also used by a certain Achilleus in a letter (BGU 16.2625) which he sent to Athenodoros only three weeks after Sotas, on 16 May 15 BCE, as well as by Ischyras in 2635.1–3.28 Tryphas was the mother 23 Further references — some of them without “very many” — are BGU 16.2628.1–2 (ca. 21 BCE–5 CE); 2658.2–3 (24 Jul 16 BCE); 2630.1–2 (22 Dec 10 BCE); 2624.2–3 (10 Jul 7 BCE?); 2629.1–2 (6 Jun 4 BCE); 2627.2–3 (25 Jul–21 Aug 2 BCE). 24 This version was also used by a certain Phaidros in BGU 16.2623.1–2 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE), and similarly by Mnaseas in 2622.1–3 (ca. 21 BCE–5 CE) and by an unknown sender in 2644.2–3 (26 Jun 4 BCE); cf. also 2649.1–2 (30 Oct 6 BCE?), where neither the sender nor the addressee have been preserved. 25 Further examples of this form in the archive are BGU 16.2636.1–2 and 2657.2–3 (17/16 BCE). 26 It was also used by a certain Philotas in his letter to Soterichos, BGU 16.2654.1–2 [2.65] (14 Jul 6 BCE). 27 The same form was also used by Asklas in his letter to Soterichos (BGU 16.2659.2–3). 28 Achilleus and Ischyras only changed the word order by putting “always” after the health wish.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

81

(or mother-in-law) of Athenodoros (*Armoni 2018, 131); the opening greeting of her letter to Athenodoros and Artemis (probably Athenodoros’s wife) reads: “very many greetings and continual welfare” (BGU 16.2618.2–3 [2.64], 10 May 7 BCE). The same form was used by a certain Seleukos in 2613.1–2 (27 Jan or 26 Jul 14 BCE) and by an unknown sender in 2645.2 (19 Feb 13 BCE).29 Earlier, in 2612.1–2 (25 Jun 15 BCE), Seleukos had used a variation of the same formula with a unique extension: “very many greetings and welfare in every way—I desire (it).” The syntax here is similar to that in the above-mentioned ostracon letter SB 6.9017.31. Or did the writer inadvertently omit “as”? Another letter from Tryphas to Athenodoros, BGU 16.2617 (11 Jul 7 BCE), preserves the greeting “very many greetings and continual good fortune as I pray” (lines 2–3). The opening greeting of BGU 16.2623 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE), a letter of recommendation from a certain Phaidros to Athenodoros, reads: “greetings, welfare, and best prosperity as I wish.” One Stilbon, however, simply writes in 2604.2 (28 Sep–27 Oct 7 BCE): “greetings and good fortune.” Apart from the letter opening, not much has been preserved of BGU 16.2615; the letter was written by Menelaos and Herakleia and is addressed to their son Athenodoros; it is therefore probably from his biological parents (W. M. Brashear in BGU 16, p. 104), who sent him elaborately formulated greetings: “very many greetings, welfare, and good fortune, forever and at all times, as we wish.” BGU 16.2631.2–3 [2.61] (2 Mar 9 BCE) preserves the version of a certain Pappos: “very many greetings and continual good fortune, best prosperity.”30 A unique form of the opening greeting was created by one Aphrodisios in BGU 16.2632.2–3 (after 28 Aug 7 BCE): “very many greetings and continual fulfillment of your own wishes.” A certain Erasistratos, however, replaces the simple greeting χαίρειν with “to do well” (BGU 16.2619.2 [2.63]).31 The picture can be completed by individual examples from letters of the archive, which were neither written by nor addressed to Athenodoros. The basic form, which is only extended by the superlative (“very many greetings”), is found in BGU 16.2648, the letter to a certain Theon. The greeting chosen by one Artemidoros for his letter to Apollonios, BGU 16.2650 (13/12 BCE), reads: “very many greetings and health as I pray” (line 2; almost identical is 2656.2–3 in a letter from Herakleides to Soteles). The variant “greetings and continual health as I pray” is used by Asklepiades in 2651.2 (22 Aug 9 BCE). 29 30 31

Cf. also BGU 16.2660.1–2 (14 Aug 1 CE). Syntactically noticeable is the simple addition of the two infinitives “to remain fortunate” and “to prosper” (without connecting “and”). The first three lines of the papyrus are incomplete, but since the opening greeting was centered by the writer, it is unlikely that anything is missing in line 2.

82

Chapter 5

An overview of the opening greetings found in the Athenodoros Archive illustrates once again the options for variations and extensions (I offer here the literal translations, followed by the more common ones in parentheses): – No greeting formula – “to rejoice” (“greetings”) – “to rejoice very much” (“very many greetings”) – “to rejoice and stay healthy” (“greetings and good health”) – “to rejoice very much and stay healthy” (“very many greetings and good health”) – “to rejoice and through all stay healthy” (“greetings and continual good health”) – “to rejoice very much and through all stay healthy” (“very many greetings and continual good health”) – “to rejoice very much and stay healthy as I pray” (“very many greetings and good health as I pray”) – “to rejoice and through all stay healthy as I pray” (“greetings and continual good health as I pray”) – “to rejoice very much and through all stay healthy as I pray” (“very many greetings and continual good health as I pray”) – “to rejoice and through all stay healthy as I wish” (“greetings and continual good health as I wish”) – “to rejoice very much and through all fare well” (“very many greetings and continual welfare”) – “to rejoice very much and fare well in every way—I desire (it)” (“very many greetings and welfare in every way—I desire [it]”) – “to rejoice and—faring well—to make the best progress as I wish” (“greetings, welfare, and best progress as I wish”) – “to rejoice very much and—through all faring well—to make the best progress as I wish” (“very many greetings, continual welfare, and best progress as I wish”) – “to rejoice very much and—through all faring well—to make the best progress as I pray” (“very many greetings, continual welfare, and best progress as I pray”) – “to rejoice and remain fortunate” (“greetings and good fortune”) – “to rejoice very much and through all be fortunate as I pray” (“very many greetings and continual good fortune as I pray”) – “to rejoice and—faring well—remain fortunate” (“greetings, welfare, and good fortune”) – “to rejoice very much and—faring well—remain fortunate” (“very many greetings, welfare, and good fortune”)

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

83

– “to rejoice very much and—faring well—remain fortunate, forever and at all times, as we wish” (“very many greetings, welfare, and good fortune, forever and at all times, as we wish”) – “to rejoice very much and through all remain fortunate, to make the best progress” (“very many greetings and continual good fortune, best progress”) – “to rejoice very much and through all receive what’s yours at (your) discretion” (“very many greetings and continual fulfillment of your own wishes”) – “to do well” (“prosperity”) All these examples show that it was possible again and again to modify the simple opening greeting according to individual needs or taste, but they do not explain the specific form of the Pauline opening greeting. Taatz (1991, 112) assumes that Paul did not associate the Jewish greeting of peace (shalom) with the Greek form χάρις (“grace”), but introduced χάρις, which was central for Paul, as replacement for the first half of the Jewish double greeting ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη (cf. 2 Bar. 78:2). On the other hand, it is clear, according to Taatz that the Greek infinitive χαίρειν was actually used when the Hebrew shalom formula was to be translated into Greek (cf. 2 Macc 1:1). Only later the Pauline greeting may have become comprehensible to non-Jewish readers by linking χάρις to χαίρειν. Be that as it may, from the perspective of Greek epistolography, the final shape of Paul’s opening greeting seems to have been deliberately designed and customized by Paul himself (Lieu 1985, 169–70, 178). The above-mentioned combination of the formula “A to B” with a syntactically independent greeting is significant. With this combination Paul created for himself the possibility, on the one hand, to act as the actual sender of the letter (“Paul … to …”), but on the other hand also to merely convey the greeting, since “grace and peace” do not come from Paul, but from God, the father, and the lord Jesus Christ. Paul introduces himself as a subordinate of these two authorities, but at the same time they are to determine his special function and importance: On the one hand he is merely a mediator of divine grace and peace, but on the other hand he emphasizes that it is precisely him who is this mediator, and that God is thus certainly in support of what he will reveal in the following letter. The opening greeting “grace and peace” is used by Paul in all of his authentic letters (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Phil 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; Phlm 3). That it was imitated by his followers is only logical (cf. Eph 1:2; Col 1:2; 2 Thess 1:2; Titus 1:4). An already extended variation was used in 1 Tim 1:2 and 2 Tim 1:2: “grace, mercy, and peace” (cf. also 2 John 3 and Rev 1:4–5). The unique version “may grace and peace be yours in abundance” shows up only in 1 Pet 1:2 and 2 Pet 1:2 (and at the beginning of 1 Clem) as well as in Jude 2 with the addition “and love.” The readers of these letters have undoubtedly noticed the special, if

84

Chapter 5

not individual character of these greetings. From a papyrological point of view, however, they can easily be placed in a series of occasional attempts to greet the respective addressee not merely with the usual formula, but with a more detailed and personal note.

Forms of Address

Literature R. Aasgaard 2004, “My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!”: Christian Siblingship in Paul, JSNTSup; Early Christianity in Context 265 (London: T&T Clark); P. Arzt-Grabner 2002, “‘Brothers’ and ‘Sisters’ in Documentary Papyri and in Early Christianity,” RivB 50:185– 204; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 85–90 (extended eBook 2008, locations 251–63); A. D. Clarke 2004, “Equality or Mutuality? Paul’s Use of ‘Brother’ Language,” in *Williams et al. 2004, 151–64; H. Cuvigny 2002, “Remarques sur l’emploi de ἴδιος dans le praescriptum épistolaire,” BIFAO 102:143–53; E. Dickey 1996, Greek Forms of Address: From Herodotus to Lucian, Oxford Classical Monographs (Oxford: Clarendon Press; repr., 1999); E. Dickey 2001, “Κύριε, δέσποτα, domine: Greek Politeness in the Roman Empire,” JHS 12:1–11; E. Dickey 2004a, “The Greek Address System of the Roman Period and Its Relationship to Latin,” ClQ 54:494–527; E. Dickey 2004b, “Literal and Extended Use of Kinship Terms in Documentary Papyri,” Mnemosyne 57:131–76; E. Dickey 2010, “Forms of Address and Markers of Status,” in A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, ed. E. J. Bakker, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell), 327–37, here 333–37; L. Dinneen 1929, Titles of Address in Christian Greek Epistolography to 527 A. D. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America; repr., Chicago: Ares 1980); P. A. Harland 2005, “Familial Dimensions of Group Identity: ‘Brothers’ (ἀδελφοί) in Associations of the Greek East,” JBL 124:491–513; O. Hornickel 1930, Ehren- und Rangprädikate in den Papyrusurkunden: Ein Beitrag zum römischen und byzantinischen Titelwesen (Borna: Noske); K. S. Kim 2015, “Reframing Paul’s Sibling Language in Light of Jewish Epistolary Forms of Address,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71.1:1–8, Art. #2860, 8 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts. v71i1.2860; *Koskenniemi 1956, 95–105; *Meecham 1923, 118–20; *Nachtergaele 2023, 278–98; A. Nobbs 2004, “‘Beloved Brothers’ in the New Testament and Early Christian World: Paul’s Use of ‘Brother’ Language,” in *Williams et al. 2004, 143–50; B. R. Rees 1964, “A Roman Officer in Egypt,” Classical Review 14: 102–3; *Sarri 2018, 43, 46; *Tibiletti 1979, 31–46; *Zerbini 2014, 293–94; H. Zilliacus 1943, Zur Sprache griechischer Familienbriefe des III. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (P. Michigan 214–221), Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 13/3 (Helsingfors: Societas scientiarum Fennica); H. Zilliacus 1949, Untersuchungen zu den abstrakten Anredeformen und Höflichkeitstiteln im Griechischen, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 15/3 (Helsingfors: Societas scientiarum Fennica). New Testament “Beloved,” often combined with “brother(s and sisters)”: Rom 1:7; 12:19; 1 Cor 10:14; 15:58; 2 Cor 7:1; 12:19; Phil 2:12; 4:1; 2 Tim 1:2; Phlm 1; Heb 6:9; Jas 1:16, 19; 2:5; 1 Pet 2:11; 4:12; 2 Pet 3:1, 8, 14, 17; 1 John 2:7; 3:21; 4:1, 7, 11; 3 John 1, 2, 5, 11; Jude 3, 17, 20. “Brother” (singular, always used metaphorically): Phlm 7, 20; the plural “brothers and sisters” (again always used metaphorically): Rom 1:13; 7:1, 4; 8:12; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, [30]; 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10, 11, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 11:33; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, [31], 50,

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

85

58; 16:15; 2 Cor 1:8; 8:1; 13:11; Gal 1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18; Eph 6:23; Phil 1:12; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:1, 8; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:4; 2:1, 9, 14, 17; 3:7; 4:1, 10, 13; 5:1, 4, 12, 14, 25; 2 Thess 1:3; 2:1, 13, 15; 3:1, 6, 13; Heb 3:1, 12; 10:19; 13:22; Jas 1:2, 16, 19; 2:1, 5, 14; 3:1, 10, 12; 4:1; 5:7, 9, 10, 12, 19; 2 Pet 1:10; 1 John 3:13. See also Rom 16:13 (literal and metaphoric use of “mother”); 1 Tim 5:1–2.

When addressing the recipients of a letter, be it in the opening greeting or within the main text, special titles or epithets are often used which can provide information about their social or political status or about their relationship to the letter author. The most common forms of address (“dearest,” “sweetest,” “most honored,” etc.) have been well researched in papyrological studies (especially Dinneen 1929; Hornickel 1930; Zilliacus 1949; *Koskenniemi 1956, 95–104; Dickey 2004a). P.Oxy. 2.269, col. 2 [4.#] (after 13 May 57 CE), for instance, is a letter from the weaver Tryphon to his “by far dearest” Ammonas, O.Claud. 1.151 [2.124] (ca. 100–120 CE) is a short ostracon letter from Sabinus to the “dearest” Zosimos, and P.Flor. 2.259 [2.182] (249–268 CE) is from Timaios to the “dearest” Heroninos. Athenodoros addresses a certain Eurylochos as his “dearest” in BGU 16.2652.1 (ca. 10–2 BCE), as Eurylochos does the other way round in all his five preserved letters, namely, in BGU 16.2630.1 (22 Dec 10 BCE), 2629.1 (6 Jun 4 BCE), 2626.1 (after 5/4 BCE), 2627.1–2 (25 Jul–21 Aug 2 BCE), and 2628.1 (ca. 21 BCE–5 CE). The Latin equivalent carissimus, usually written kar(r)issimus, is found, for example, on many tablets from Vindolanda and two tablets from Londinium/Britannia.32 Less common is the form of address “sweetest.” Sabinus who sent O.Claud. 1.151 [2.124] (ca. 100–120 CE) to the “dearest” Zosimos (see above) writes as final greeting: “I pray that you are well, sweetest” (lines 6–7). In the letter SB 3.6263.18–31 [2.153] (late II CE), a certain Sempronius addresses his real brother Maximus as such at the beginning of the letter’s main request (lines 21–22). Actually, these examples are among the rare evidences before the fourth century CE where this form of address is used between men, since until that time it was usually reserved for mothers, sisters, and children, as in P.Daris 48.1–2 (late I/early II CE). An example where the epithet is possibly used for a “brother” in a metaphoric sense is BGU 1.27.1–2 with BL 12:10 [1.46] (II–III CE). In various documents the adjective “own” is often used for family members, while as a form of address in letters it simply indicates a relationship with a close person, such as in BGU 1.37.1–2 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE), or with one’s own 32

For Londinium/Britannia cf. T.Bloomberg 29.2 and 185.a.2 (both 50–90 CE); for Vindolanda cf., e.g., T.Vindol. 1.61.1 (ca. 95–105 CE); 2.242.2.3; 247.3; 285.2; 288.5; 291.14 [1.49]; 293.2; 331.3; 355.3 (all ca. 97–103 CE); see also the indexes in T.Vindol. 3, p. 178; T.Vindol. 4.2, p. 142; T.Vindol. 4.3, p. 249 (always s.v. carus).

86

Chapter 5

slave as in P.Fay. 110.2 [2.91] (11 Sep 94 CE), one of the letters of L. Bellienus Gemellus to his slave Epagathos (cf. *Koskenniemi 1956, 104). The Greek adjective may also be a transposition of the Latin suo (“his” or “her”) or designate an employee or agent as “a man of confidence of someone,” or “a man of the house of someone” (Cuvigny 2002). For family members usually those terms are used which directly express the family relationship, whereby further epithets can be added, such as “sweetest” which a certain Origenes uses in a letter to his “sweetest daughter” Alexandra, P.Daris 48.1–2 (late I/early II CE). The epithet “most honored” expresses veneration, respect, and a real social and hierarchical distance. It is used mainly in semi-official and private correspondence, such as P.Sarap. 100.2 [2.113] (90–133 CE), PSI 15.1553.2 [2.170] (first half III CE), and P.Pintaudi 55.1 [2.186] (late III–mid IV CE). Family members are, however, rarely addressed in this way; some of the few examples are P.Turner 18.2 [2.90] (89–96 CE), P.Mich. 3.206.1, and P.Petaus 29.1 [2.156] (both late II).33 Besides such frequent forms of address, letter writers sometimes use relatively unique versions. BGU 16.2600 (4 Aug 13 BCE) is a petition stylized as a letter which was addressed to “the most respectful god and lord, protector” (lines 2–3), who in the course of the document is addressed as epistates. In BGU 16.2631.1–2 [2.61] (2 Mar 9 BCE), a certain Pappos addresses the dioiketes Athenodoros as “most divine,” as also Heraklas does in his letter to his father, BGU 16.2660.1 (14 Aug 1 CE). Additionally, the highly educated Eudaimonis, for instance, sent P.Giss. 1.22 [4.#] (117 CE?) to her “most distinguished” son Apollonios (line 2 with BL 2.2:62); she also uses the adjective “sweetest,” but only instead of a common proskynema phrase (see pp. 109–11) when reporting that she is praying to worship his “sweetest appearance” (lines 3–6). When searching for corresponding forms in New Testament letters, it is remarkable that neither the usual honorary titles (e.g., “most honored”) nor the most frequent personal forms of address (especially “dearest” or “sweetest”) can be found. In the letters of Paul and other New Testament letter writers, they are replaced primarily by “beloved” (ἀγαπητός; for references see the list on p. 84). The earliest evidence of this form of address is found in a horoscope belonging to the archive of the weaver Tryphon (TM Arch 249): P.Oxy. 2.235 with BL 6:95 was obtained for a child born at 10 pm on either 28 or 29 September; the year is not preserved but must have been between 15 and 22 CE. The papyrus is broken off at the top, so it is not impossible that the document originally began with an epistolary greeting and was styled as a private letter. Be that as it may, in line 2 the obtainer of the horoscope is addressed 33 In P.Oxy. 42.3057.30 [2.96] (I–II CE) it is used in a final greeting.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

87

as “beloved Tryphon.” In Christian letters, this form of address is particularly common (often in connection with “brother” or “sister”); among the earliest references are P.Alex. 29.2, 14 (250–330 CE), PSI 9.1041.1–2 (mid III–early IV CE), P.NagHamm. 73.1 (III–IV CE), PSI 15.1560.2 (mid III–IV CE), P.Nekr. 28 (late III CE), and SB 16.12304.3 (late III/early IV CE). In this context it is noteworthy that the synonymous form “dearest” (φίλτατος) began to appear at the beginning of the Roman period and was very common from the first to the third century, but from the fourth century onwards it became increasingly out of use; among the rare examples are P.Mert. 2.90.5 (after 15 Jun 310 or 311), P.Oxy. 17.2113.3–4, 20, 26 (1–26 Jan 316 CE), and 2114.3, 17 (10 Aug 316 CE). Furthermore, φίλτατος is hardly found in Christian letters,34 and in New Testament letters—as already mentioned—not at all. It seems, then, that the address “beloved,” used predominantly in Christian circles, increasingly substituted the pagan “dearest,” at the latest from the fourth century onwards, and finally replaced it completely. This may also be connected with the relevant use of “dearest,” which as an epithet of the letter style is— according to H. *Koskenniemi (1956, 98)—not emotional but factual; the relationships at issue do not seem to require close friendship between the partners. The relationships around which “dearest” occurs do not seem to be intimate at all, focused on the whole personality, but rather close yet secondary relationships that are limited to a specific, mainly economic part of life (*Koskenniemi 1956, 100). To some extent Koskenniemi’s observations may also apply to “beloved” (ἀγαπητός), because the spectrum ranges from the form of address of the physical father as in P.Oxy. 14.1680.19 (late III/early IV CE) to the formal title of spiritual authorities as in P.Nekr. 28.1–3 (late III CE) or P.Berl. Sarisch. 11.v (first half IV CE) up to any Christian. Yet, “beloved” was obviously intended to express a closer fellowship than would have been possible with the term “dearest,” namely, the close communion based on common faith, which could be expressed particularly well with an adjective derived from the key Christian term ἀγάπη (“love”). In comparison to the papyrological record, the use of ἀγαπητός by Paul is among the earliest ever. He may have influenced later Christian use and is certainly at the beginning of a tradition that became apparent as such no later than the fourth century CE. That in Christian times the address “beloved” is not exclusively reserved for Christian letters is perhaps proven by a letter that can be assigned to a pagan circle (obviously worshippers of Hermes Trismegistos in Hermopolis) and was 34

Definitely of Christian origin are P.Oxy. 12.1493.1 (late III/early IV CE) and 63.4365.1 (IV CE), which is addressed to the “dearest lady sister” whose personal name is not mentioned (see also p. 14 n. 5).

88

Chapter 5

written between 317 and 323 CE by Ioannes and Leon to the “beloved” brother Theophanes (P.Herm. 4.1). The similarities in phraseology with Christian letters is certainly striking and has already led some scholars (e.g., *Naldini 1998, 181) to assume that at least the senders of this note could have been Christian. In summary, we can say that “beloved brother” is “normally used by Christians but is also found in pagan letters, thus illustrating the two-way traffic in religious phraseology at this time” (Rees 1964, 102). In addition to the adjectives mentioned so far, family terminology such as “brother” is also frequently used. As background for New Testament letters the metaphorical use is of particular interest (for references in New Testament letters see the list on p. 84). Letters written before those of the New Testament or shortly thereafter are therefore of interest primarily with regard to the question of which areas, still independent of Christian ideas, might have influenced the respective metaphorical address in New Testament letters. Papyrological evidence for the metaphorical address “brother” is abundant, and the range of applicability is quite extensive: a husband without any biological kinship may be addressed as “brother” as in P.Giss. 1.19.1 (30 Aug–28 Sep 115 CE) and 20.1–2 [4.#] (ca. 117–118 CE), a future father-in-law as in P.Oxy. 59.3992.2 (142–200 CE), a colleague in an office, a social equal, a friend, a business partner, a Christian monastic brother, and finally a “brother in Christ” (see the references collected by Arzt-Grabner 2002). Even soldiers of Bar Kokhba addressed each other as “brother” as attested by P.Yadin 2.59 (135 CE?). In principle, however, it is often difficult to prove a metaphoric use of “brother,” since officials and members of the same profession can easily be real brothers. On the other hand, biological brothers and sisters cannot always be clearly identified. No doubt remains of course with formulations like “my brother from the same mother and father” as in P.Lond. 2.281.7–8 (p. 65–66; 66/67 CE), which, however, are of an official or legal nature and are not used in letters. The form of address “brother and lord/master” as in SB 18.13303.1 (I CE) cannot automatically be interpreted as a reference to a metaphorical meaning of “brother”; often an older physical brother is addressed in this way, as is the case in the archive of Saturnila and her sons (TM Arch 212) from the late second century CE: Sempronius, the firstborn, never addresses one of his brothers as “lord,”35 while his younger brother Saturnilus addresses him as “brother and lord” in P.Mich. 3.209.1–2 [2.154]. This form of address is also used—and definitely in a metaphorical way—by the decurio Asinnius Secundus in his letter 35

Letters of Sempronius are SB 3.6263.18 [2.153]; P.Mich. 15.752.27; P.Wisc. 2.84, col. 2 [1.22].

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

89

to Apollonios, P.Brem. 56app.19–20 [2.127] (113–120 CE).36 In general, “brother and lord/master” does “apparently not” mean “something more intimate than just ‘brother’” (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 38). Similarly, the version with the word order “lord (and) brother” which can be used for a real brother37 as well as metaphorically, is attested at least from the reign of Trajan (98–117 CE) onwards in several letters from Krokodilo (e.g., O.Krok. 2.203.1–2 [2.115]; 214.2).38 Among the earliest metaphorical references is P.Brem. 9.22 (113–120 CE) where the strategos Apollonios is addressed as such; a later example is P.Oxy. 8.1158.1 [2.176] (III CE). On a stylus tablet from Londinium/Britannia, T.Bloomberg 38.3–4 (50–90 CE), the Latin version [do]mine f(rater) has been preserved and may thus be the earliest reference, although the text is too fragmentary to be sure whether the phrase is meant literally or metaphorically. The study of papyrus archives can be helpful in this respect, as the correspondence between the members of a cohesive group sometimes reveals more clearly where kinship relations exist and where they do not. The following investigation is therefore limited to selected archives, which provide most significant results. A treasure trove is once again the Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26). Some of the following letters can only be dated according to the range of the archive (21 BCE–5 CE). A certain Seleukos appears in the archive as dioiketes, and in BGU 16.2612.1 (25 Jun 15 BCE) he addresses Athenodoros, who is of equal rank, as “brother,” as Athenodoros does the other way round in 2614.1–2. In 2613.1 (27 Jan 14 BCE?), Seleukos again addresses Athenodoros as “brother” in the opening greeting, but then complains that some agents of Athenodoros have harassed his own people and requests to stay away from them; otherwise Athenodoros would anger him. In 2611 [2.60] (17 Dec 10 BCE), a certain Herakleides asks the “brother” Athenodoros three times to send him information about a certain measure which Athenodoros has obviously failed to do in his previous letter. In 2610.3–9 [2.62] (13 or 23 Nov 9 BCE) the same Herakleides accuses Athenodoros of not having complied with his requests. These inconveniences, however, do not keep him from addressing Athenodoros as “brother” 36

37 38

“Brother and lord” is also used by an unknown letter writer in O.Krok. 2.231.1 (98–117) and by a certain Longinus Apolinarios addressing his brother Apolinarios in O.Krok. 2.267.3–4 and 268.3 (both 110–117 CE). Also a certain Tiberia addresses Pompeius as “brother and lord” in O.Krok. 2.202.1–2 (98–117 CE) but it is uncertain whether “he is a real brother or spouse, or both” (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 90). E.g., in P.Phil. 34.13–14 [2.76] (I CE) and P.Mich. 8.499.2–3 [2.109] (ca. 117–147 CE). The dating of SB 5.7743, a letter from Claudia Dionysia to her “lord brother” Teiron (lines 2 and 27–28) is uncertain, maybe I–II CE.

90

Chapter 5

in all his letters—besides the two already mentioned also in 2608.1 [2.66] (14 Mar 7 or 4 BCE?). The accusations of Seleukos and Herakleides, however, are nothing compared to those of Achilleus in 2625 (16 May 15 BCE), who right at the beginning of his letter accuses Athenodoros of not missing any opportunity to neglect his friends (lines 3–4), and—after some further complaints— he ends up screaming angrily (in line 19): “And that in (our) lifetime!”39 Nevertheless, the letter is addressed to the “brother” Athenodoros. A certain Mnaseas addresses the letter BGU 16.2622 to “the brother and dioiketes Athenodoros” and calls him once again dioiketes in line 10 in the middle of various concerns and requests. Phaidros, obviously a friend of Athenodoros, addresses the letter of recommendation 2623 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE) to “Athenodoros, the brother.” Ischyras reports to Athenodoros, the “brother” (2635.1), about outstanding deliveries of wool and oil. The beginning of 2647 (21 Mar 8 BCE) is not preserved, but at the beginning of the main request, Athenodoros is called “brother” (line 6); he is asked to write to his people to receive a certain Hieronikes, who is to be interrogated for the loss of goods due to a shipwreck. BGU 16.2650 (13/12 BCE) is a letter about fiscal or financial matters from a certain Artemidoros to the “brother” Apollonios who is also called “brother” in line 10. An unknown sender addresses the letter 2643 (after 4 Feb 8 BCE) to the “brother” Athenodoros reporting on official but also agricultural and private matters, whereas in 2645 (19 Feb 13 BCE) another unknown sender asks the “brother” Athenodoros for assistance in apprehending a runaway slave. A certain Apollon uses the pet-name Athas for Athenodoros and calls him “brother” in 2621.1 (25 Sep 16 BCE); whether both were real brothers or simply business partners, as the content of the letter suggests, is uncertain. Several letters were sent to Athenodoros by agents, who nevertheless addressed him as “brother”: Sotas in BGU 16.2607.1 (27 Apr 15 BCE), and probably Euomenos and Dionysios in 2633.2. In a letter from a certain Ammonios, the address “brother” can be restored (2620.1). Athenodoros himself addressed the letter BGU 16.2640 (9 Aug 10 BCE) to the “brother” Theophilos asking him to investigate the insolent behavior of a tax collector towards one of their farmers, and 2653 (26 Jun 9 BCE) to the “brother” Soterichos to announce to him the arrival of ships with a cargo of 400 artabas (of wheat?) the next day. Of some interest is also 2656, the letter from Herakleides to the “brother” Soteles about a delivery of oil which the “brother” Athenodoros (line 6) should have sent to him.

39

W. M. Brashear translates (in BGU 16, p. 117): “That such a thing should happen in (our) lifetime!”

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

91

From the time between about 76 and 84 CE, several letters from the correspondence between Chairemon, the gymnasiarch of Arsinoe, and a certain Apollonios are preserved (Archive of Apollonios of Bakchias, TM Arch 16; see p. 261). The letters are mainly concerned with business matters, so that the “brother” address Chairemon uses for Apollonios should have originated in the business relationship between the two. Four letters of Chairemon are addressed to “dearest Apollonios” (BGU 1.248.1 with BL 13:17; 249.1; 2.531.1.1 [2.84]; 3.850.1), who is only called “brother” in the course of the letters (BGU 1.248.4, 18; 249.5 with BL 13:18; 2.531.1.21 [2.84]; 3.850.6). The same Chairemon is perhaps the author of another letter, BGU 2.597 (5 Dec 75 CE), which is immediately addressed to “Apollonios, the brother” (lines 1, 31). In return, Apollonios never calls Chairemon a “brother,” and in the address of his letters he explicitly refers to him as gymnasiarch (BGU 2.594.1–2, 12; 595.1–2). Therefore, the rank of Chairemon may have been decisive for the different forms of address. Many clear examples of the metaphorical use of “brother” can also be found in the Archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias between 113 and 119 CE (TM Arch 19; see p. 329), who is kindly addressed as “brother” in several letters (if no date has been preserved, the respective letter can only be dated to 113–120 CE according to the range of the archive). Several of those letters are letters of recommendation: P.Brem. 5.7 [2.129] (117–119 CE) is sent to Apollonios by Faberius Mundus on behalf of Ulpius Malchus, a beneficiarius of the Roman prefect Q. Rammius Martialis (in office 117–119 CE); in lines 14–16, Faberius Mundus adds the final greeting in his own hand: “I pray that you fare well, most honored brother.” P.Giss. 1.71 is another letter of recommendation, this one sent by Tithoetion for a certain Achilleus some time after 117 CE; Apollonios is addressed as “brother” in the opening greeting (lines 1–2). P.Alex.Giss. 53 was issued for a certain Kolluthes and sent from one Horion to Apollonios, who is addressed as “brother” in line 2, whereas in P.Brem. 7 (with BL 8:68) Demetrios, the former strategos of the Arsinoite nome, recommends Hermaios, a friend of his father, to the “brother” Apollonios (line 2; cf. the vocative in line 4). Another Apollonios, strategos of the Thinite nome, sends to our Apollonios a letter of recommendation on behalf of his female servant Apollonous; at the beginning of his request, he calls Apollonios “brother” (P.Giss. 1.88.5). As explained in the letter P.Giss. 1.75 with BL 1:171, the sender’s servant should turn to Apollonios if he needs his support in purchasing certain goods; the letter sender Harpokration is presumably an agent of Apollonios and calls him “brother” in line 3. Further examples in letters of recommendation to Apollonios, where he is addressed as “brother,” are P.Brem. 8.1, 8; 9.20, 22. The Roman citizen Ulpius Celer writes to “most honored Apollonios” in P.Brem. 10.3–5: “It is a convenient opportunity, as Proculus passes by to you, to

92

Chapter 5

hurry up. With joy I greet you, brother.”40 According to U. Wilcken (in P.Brem., p. 34), in such a letter we see Apollonios in friendly interaction with Romans, who took some official positions in the interior of Egypt. This also applies to P.Brem. 56app [2.127], a letter from the Roman decurio Asinnius Secundus to the “brother” Apollonios whom he had earlier invited to his house to have dinner with him and his family; but now Asinnius had just received a letter instead, in which Apollonios asked to be excused because he is suffering from a foot problem. In his reply, Asinnius emphasizes that he is deeply concerned about the health of Apollonios, and he, whom he once again addresses as “brother” (line 15), may enjoy his share of the dinner which Asinnius has sent along (half a piglet, two chickens and two doves). At the end of the letter, the decurio greets Apollonios in his own handwriting as “most honored brother and lord” (lines 19–20). P.Giss. 1.69 (29 Dec 118 CE?) is from an unknown sender to Apollonios concerning the delivery of grain to the quarries at Kaine (TM Geo 952); Apollonios is called “brother” in lines 4 and 16. In P.Alex.Giss. 54.4, another Apollonios calls the strategos a “brother” and uses the same term for himself in the address on the back of the papyrus (lines 10–11). A certain Tryphon writes to the “brother” Apollonios (P.Giss. 1.72.2) and complains that for a long time he has not received any news from the strategos. Too fragmentary for an interpretation is a letter from two senders, who greet Apollonios right at the beginning as “brother” (P.Giss. 1.89.4). Something similar applies to P.Giss. 1.91.4, 7, authored by an unknown person. The address on the back of P.Giss. 1.76 (117–120 CE) reads: “[To Apollonios,] the ‘brother,’ from Lys[imachos]”; a large part of the letter itself has been lost, but the rest reveals that the sender is one of Apollonios’s employees in his weaving workshop in the Hermopolites, reporting on business matters. After receiving a letter from the strategos Apollonios another Apollonios writes in his reply to the strategos, whom he addresses as “most honored” in the opening greeting of P.Brem. 20 [2.128] (second half 116–120 CE?): “I rejoiced, brother, that you are faring well together with your people” (lines 4–6). P.Brem. 21 is an accompanying letter to a delivery of money from Germanos, who too must have been one of the employees or agents whom the wealthy Apollonios had working for him in various places; in line 7 and in the final greeting (line 13), 40

The reading suggested according to BL 4:10 is to be rejected according to the image which confirms Wilcken’s edition (cf. https://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/papyri/content/title info/770832), but I take the syntax differently from Wilcken (in P.Brem., p. 35) who translated: “It is a convenient opportunity (to send you a letter), as Proculus passes by to rush to you. With joy I greet you, brother.”

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

93

Germanos addresses the strategos as “brother.” According to the address on the verso of P.Brem. 22, this letter to Apollonios is from Demetrios “the friend;” after he reports of successful purchases and offers to take over further orders, he greets Apollonios in the final greeting, written in his own hand (lines 13–15), as “most honored brother.” These business letters show that not only equal business partners, but also agents and employees of the strategos addressed him more or less naturally as “brother.” Perhaps more explicitly than any other archive, the dossier of Philokles (TM Arch 621) demonstrates the great importance of systematic excavations also as far as the issue of forms of addresses is concerned. The ostraca belonging to this archive have been excavated in Didymoi (today’s Khashm el-Menih, TM Geo 3125) in stratigraphic contexts of roughly 110–140 CE and in Krokodilo (today’s El-Muwayh, TM Geo 3655) in stratigraphic contexts of the reign of Trajan (98–117 CE) or early in the reign of Hadrian (117–138 CE). Through the precise archaeological data collected during the excavations, the numerous ostraca could be assigned to the acting persons, who could then be related to each other (see the prosopography by A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, pp. 38–41). Many of the letter writers of the archive maintain regular business relationships with each other and are not physically related. It is therefore “striking how all the writers address each other as brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, masters, etc.” (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 37). One of the most exciting examples is preserved in O.Krok. 2.227 [2.120] (98–138 CE?), a letter from the prostitute Serapias but probably written by her pimp Philokles. It was obviously sent to a client of Serapias with whom she had fallen passionately in love. In the letter opening, she addresses her lover as “master and brother,” and in lines 20–22 she even calls him “my brother, and my father, and my mother.” Through this unique combination Serapias addresses him as if he were her whole family, which from the perspective of a prostitute could well be a reference to dramatic circumstances within her biological family or even to a complete loss of her biological family. Philokles himself addresses many people as “brother”: the cavalryman Demetrios in O.Krok. 2.164 and 165 (98–117 CE), several business partners such as Claudius in O.Krok. 2.167 (98–117 CE), Arrius in O.Did. 389 (before ca. 115–120 CE), and Kapparis in O.Krok. 2.153 and 156 (both 98–117 CE), O.Did. 376–378 and 381–382 (before ca. 110–115 CE) as well as in 379 (before ca. 115–120 CE). Of special interest is O.Krok. 2.155 [2.117] (98–138 CE), a letter from Philokles to Kapparis and his companion Didyme, who are both addressed as “brothers” (see also below). Also, in Latin letters from Egypt, Dura Europos, and Vindolanda the form of address “brother” (Latin frater) is sometimes used in a metaphorical sense. The most obvious example is found on an ostracon from Persou (near Wadi

94

Chapter 5

Fawakhir in Egypt), which belongs to a series of letters written by a certain Rustius Barbarus to a Pompeius in the first or second century CE. In C.Pap. Lat. 304.6–9 [2.100], Rustius Barbarus assures Pompeius: “I treat you, not as a friend, but as a twin brother who came out from one womb. This (term) I often write you.” Indeed, he writes “this (term),” which can only be “brother,” in all his preserved letters to Pompeius (in addition to this letter also in C.Pap.Lat. 303.1; 306.1, 2; 307.1). As this example shows, in some letters it becomes evident only through the explicit mention of friendship between the correspondents that the fraternal form of address is used in a metaphorical sense. That applies also to O.Did. 429 [2.92] (before ca. 96 CE), a letter of Iulius Priscus to “his brother” Vettius, where we read in lines 5–8: “And you know how I love you like my brother, and I never forget the friends.” An explicit example for friend is also P.Oxy. 8.1158.1 [2.176] (III CE) because in the address on the back of the papyrus, the principal letter sender introduces himself as “friend” whereas in the letter head he addresses his addressee as “my lord brother.” P.Mich. 8.500 (ca. 100–147 CE) is the private letter from a certain Rullius to “the brother” Apollinarios. That Rullius was not the physical brother of Apollinarios is testified by a passage in another letter of this archive, P.Mich. 8.498.8–10, where Rullius is mentioned as a “very good friend” of the same Apollinarios. The author of P.Flor. 3.367 [2.174] (III CE) refers to himself as the “brother” of the addressee (cf. lines 13–14), but according to the reverse of the papyrus, the letter should be delivered to Didymos the “friend.” A business partner is addressed as “brother” in P.Oxy.Hels. 48.1 [2.163] (II–III CE). The correspondents of T.Vindol. 2.250.17 [2.95] (ca. 97–103 CE) were probably military fellow-prefects which may have moved one to call the other “brother,” whereas PSI 15.1553.19 [2.170] (first half III CE) clearly refers to a friend. The author of P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96] (I–II CE) was probably a member of a social, religious or economic group; not only did he repeatedly refer to his addressee as “brother” (lines 2, 7, 12, 31), but he also wrote with regard to all his companions: “For I do not want you, brothers, on account of me or another to have any difference” (lines 13–15). Col 4.8 of C.Gloss.Biling. 1.16 [2.185] (late III/early IV CE) indicates that the metaphorical use of “brother” was probably also trained when writing sample letters. It is noteworthy that the earliest papyrological examples of members of a club or association being addressed as “brothers” do not show up until the second century CE (that is, later than most New Testament letters were written): P.Petaus 28.1 with BL 8:277 (II CE) and P.Ryl. 4.604.14, 15, 28, 31, 33 with BL 8:297 (III CE) may refer to members of an athletic or professional club. We may, therefore, argue that, during the first century CE, the metaphorical address “brother” was not constitutive for communication within an association.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

95

Against the background of the broad use of this form of address, it probably did not qualify as a distinguishing feature. The metaphorical use of “sister” is more difficult to identify than the metaphorical form of address “brother” and only rarely attested, although the point of departure can be seen as similar: besides the biological sister, the term can also be used for the unrelated wife, a dear acquaintance, a friend, or the member of a special circle. In analogy to “lord brother” we now find the salutation “lady sister” as in P.IFAO 2.41.b.10 (I–II CE), P.Mert. 2.82.2 (late II CE), and SB 26.16759.1 (late II/early III CE). However, it is especially difficult to identify clear examples from the time before the New Testament letters were written, in which the address “sister” for the female member of an early Christ group is quite common.41 Texts like P.Fouad 33.16 (I CE) are uncertain also due to their fragmentary state of preservation. In a nearly complete letter from the second century CE, P.Bingen 74 [2.132] (after 130 CE), a certain Heraïs addresses one Lucretias as “sister” (line 1), but in lines 11–12 Heraïs speaks of an unnamed person as “your brother” as if she and Lucretias were not real sisters. Regarding the relationship between the two women the editors of this letter remarked that “sister” could “be a term of endearment, but there are no indications that she is not her real sister or, at least, her sister-in-law” (R. Caldwell and L. Koenen in P.Bingen, p. 314). Ultimately, the family relationships remain unclear here. Maybe we are on safer ground with P.Mich. 3.202 (5 May 105 CE): Two women, Valeria and Thermouthas, address a certain Thermouthion as “sister” (line 3) and ask her to rear and nurse the child of Thermouthas (see also p. 144). The explicit information that this child is freeborn (lines 15 and 28) would probably be superfluous in the case of a biological kinship between the correspondents. Moreover, the prospect that Thermouthion herself would find “parents” if she agreed to raise the child suggests that “sister” is used metaphorically here. The Christian origin of P.Ant. 2.93 (IV CE) is uncertain (*Choat 2006, 60 n. 244). This letter, sent from the bridegroom Papais to “most honored” Nonna, who is apparently his future mother-in-law, is a particularly beautiful and clear example of the familial character of the metaphorical form of address “sister.” In lines 10–11 Papais assures Nonna: “After god I have you as mother and as sister.” As “mother” he has her also because of the forthcoming marriage; that he has her also as “sister” probably relates to the membership of both in a uniform,

41 Cf. Rom 16:1; 1 Cor 7:15; 9:5; 1 Tim 5:2; Phlm 2; Jas 2:15; in 2 John 13 the whole community is referred to as “your elect sister” and its members as her “children.”

96

Chapter 5

presumably religious group, regardless of whether this group was pagan or Christian. In a double sense, Papais and Nonna belong to the same “family.”42 What are the implications for the metaphorical use of the terms “brother” and “sister” in New Testament letters? A Jewish background is, of course, to be taken seriously, because the forms of address “brother” and “sister” are numerous and widespread in all text groups of the LXX (in addition to many passages in Historical Books cf. Song 5:1 and Jer 22:18). In the New Testament, these forms of address are found in all authentic Pauline letters, but rarely outside (for references see the list on p. 84), and there are no references in the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Pet, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Rev, which clearly demonstrates that in New Testament letters the metaphorical use of “brother” as form of address occurs above all in Paul. The rich use in the LXX suggests that Paul must have been well acquainted with the metaphorical forms of address “brother” and “sister” from his Jewish background. However, the wide range and large number of references in the papyrus letters show that these forms were by no means reserved for the Jewish religious sphere but were also characteristic of various areas of Greco-Roman culture. Especially the metaphorical use of the term “brother” is found here among officials, in the world of businessmen, and in the friendly contact of acquaintances with each other. It seems, however, that the desire to establish or maintain a certain closeness was far more important than a possibly predefined or even predetermined use of titles. Some used this form of address, others did not. Some people only addressed each other as “brothers” if they had already been interacting as colleagues at work or in office, or if they wanted to express the interest and willingness to become more familiar in this way, whereas in other groups it seems to have been almost natural to address each other as “brothers,” regardless of whether one was superior, subordinate, or equal. Consequently, in such circles the writers of letters saw no reason to refrain from calling an addressee “brother” even if they were angry, upset, or disappointed with him. Perhaps this is the closest analogy to the biological brother, who remains a brother even if you do not like him at all. Among the members of an early Christ group, it may have been understood as a sign of this membership to address the other as “brother” or “sister.” On the other hand—and the examples from the mentioned papyri show that too—these forms of address were, also without a specific religious background, understandable as expressions of a family-like friendship and community. Also, the fact that many of the early Christ groups were founded as house churches may have had a certain influence on addressing each other 42

The personal name of the addressee of the Christian letter P.Oxy. 63.4365 (IV CE) is not mentioned, but “sister” in the address is certainly meant metaphorically (see also p. 14 n. 5).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

97

as “brothers” and “sisters,” because in such a setting it may have developed sooner or later in a quasi-natural way to apply family terminology also to nonmembers of the house. Vice versa, egalitarian behavior of siblings may have led to greater equality within the household community. Especially with Paul, business life is also conceivable as a further background, for which the examples from the Apollonios Archive offer vivid parallels (see pp. 89–93); Paul may have been additionally motivated to call the co-workers of his mission and the members of his communities “brothers” (and “sisters”), because he was in some way already used to these forms of address from his professional milieu as an entrepreneur in the textile industry. Concerning the address “brothers” for an entire assembly, it is worth noting that already biological brothers and sisters are subsumed under the masculine plural “brothers.” This is not only attested by some legal documents,43 but also in O.Krok. 2.155 [2.117] (98–138 CE), a letter from Philokles to his business partner Kapparis and to Didyme, the female companion of Kapparis. In O.Berenike 2.129.6 [2.79] (ca. 50–75 CE), a mother writes about “brothers” of the addressee, but in the following lines she mentions two sisters and at least one brother. The term “brothers” is thus to be understood as “brothers and sisters” or “siblings.” In addition to “brother” and “sister,” also the forms of address “father,” “mother,” “son,” and “daughter” are found in letters between the respective family members. The metaphorical use of these terms is, however, rarely attested, or it is uncertain whether, for example, a real father is addressed as such or someone else, which remains unclear in P.Messeri 47.2 [2.138] (II CE) and other references. Among the certain witnesses of the metaphorical use are P.Diosk. 15 (31 Aug 158 or 30 Aug 155 BCE), a private letter from a certain Sosos to Dioskourides, “the brother, the friend, father, my hope” (lines 1–3), and P.Col. 10.252 (late I CE), a letter from one Longus to “the father” Iulius, who is only honorifically addressed as “father” in line 1, since the letter author writes about his real father in lines 6–9. A further example is P.Mich. 3.209.11– 13 [2.154] (late II CE) where Saturnilus assures his real brother Sempronius: “You know, brother, that I regard you not only as a brother but as a father and lord and god.” P.Oxy. 10.1296 (III CE) is a letter from Aurelius Dios to his father Aurelius Horion, but in lines 15 and 18 he refers to two other men as “father”; moreover, in lines 8–9 he greets his “mother” Tamiea and in lines 15–16 his “mother” Timpes0uris which means that one of the two cannot be his real mother. One of the earlier examples for the metaphorical use of “mother” is 43 Cf. BGU 11.2100.11–12 (83 CE); P.Fouad 30.10–14 (26 Jan 121 CE); P.Oxy. 52.3690.5 (1 Jun 139 CE); P.Freib. 2.8.3–4 (after 20 Feb 144 CE); for further references see *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 184 n. 23.

98

Chapter 5

O.Krok. 2.293.23–24 (98–117 CE). According to P.Ant. 2.93 (IV CE) a certain Papais considers his future mother-in-law as “mother” (cf. p. 95). In letters of the New Testament, real fathers are addressed in Eph 6:4; Col 3:21; 1 John 2:13–14. In Rom 16:13, Paul greets the mother of Rufus and mentions that she is also his “mother.” Also 1 Tim 5:1–2 is well comprehensible in accordance with the papyrological record, when the addressee is told to speak to an older man as to a “father,” to younger men as “brothers,” to older women as “mothers,” to younger women as “sisters.” In this context, it is noteworthy that the form of address “lord” (in Greek κύριος), which is very often used in papyrus letters to address fathers, brothers, or sons, is in the New Testament letters, with only two exceptions, always related to God or Jesus; only in Eph 6:9 and Col 4:1 does it refer to “masters” of slaves. Two unique forms of address should be mentioned at the end of this chapter: A certain Stilbon addresses the letter BGU 16.2604 (28 Sep–27 Oct 7 BCE) to Athenodoros, “the god and lord,” a form of address which is elsewhere only found in petitions: BGU 16.2600 (4 Aug 13 BCE) is a petition stylized as a letter and probably also addressed to Athenodoros, whereas BGU 4.1197.1 (7–4 BCE) is addressed to a certain Asklepiades and 1201.1 (26 May–24 Jun 2 CE) to one Soterichos. In some way comparable is a passage of P.Mich. 3.209 [2.154] (late II CE), a letter from Saturnilus to his real brother Sempronius, who is addressed as “lord and brother” in the opening greeting; in lines 11–13, Saturnilus writes: “For you know, brother, that I regard you not only as a brother but as a father and lord and god.” The other unique form of address to be mentioned is found in P.Oxy. 42.3059 [2.144] (II CE), a letter from a certain Didyme to her “brother and sun” Apollonios (lines 1–2) who is told immediately after the opening greeting (lines 3–5): “Know that I am not seeing the sun because you are not seen by me. For I have no other sun but you.”

Multiple Addressees

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 111–15; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 35–37; D. H. Liebert 1996, “The ‘Apostolic Form of Writing’: Group Letters before and after 1 Corinthians,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer, BETL 125 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 433–40.

New Testament Rom; 1 Cor; 2 Cor; Gal; Eph; Phil; Col; 1 Thess; 2 Thess; Phlm; Jas; 1 Pet; 2 Pet; 2 John; Jude; cf. 1 Tim 6:21; 2 Tim 4:22; Titus 3:15; Rev 1:4.

Most Pauline letters are addressed to a Christ group (Rom, 1 and 2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess) which is also true for Eph, Col, 2 Thess, Jas, 1 and 2 Pet, and Jude.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

99

Phlm is addressed to three people mentioned by name (Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus), but the whole Christ group who meets in Philemon’s house is greeted as well. In a somewhat similar way, 2 John is stylized as a letter to a household headed by an “elect lady”; she and her “children” are the addressees. Each letter of the Pastorals is addressed to an individual (1 and 2 Tim to Timothy, the third letter to Titus), the final greetings, however, are styled as if addressed to a whole group which is not mentioned earlier in any of these letters: “Grace be with you (plural!)” (1 Tim 6:21; 2 Tim 4:22; Titus 3:15). Only 3 John is consequently addressed to an individual. If we look at letters preserved on papyri or ostraca, we soon realize that it is not unusual for a letter to be formally addressed to several recipients. P.Mich. 3.201 [2.93] (11 Feb 99 CE), for example, is a letter from a certain Antonius to Apoleius and Valerias (presumably his parents-in-law; cf. TM Arch 525) who are mentioned as recipients both in the address on the back of the papyrus and in the opening greeting. Two of them are addressed together in plural forms almost throughout the entire letter, which is consistent with the fact that Antonius explicitly addresses his opening greeting “to both” (line 2). In most cases, however, and analogous to the phenomenon of multiple formal letter senders (see pp. 50–53), one addressee is usually dominant. A typical example is P.Athen. 60 with BL 4:86, a letter from the first century CE (*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 374; extended eBook 2008, B9.1 no. 266), in which multiple senders as well as multiple addressees are named: Apollonia and Eupous to their sisters Rhasion and Demarion (the opening greeting matches the address on the back). Plural forms are conspicuously used in the other formulas (health wish, final greeting), but the singular is used throughout the letter body (lines 4–10) and in a postscript (lines 12–14). To whom of the two sisters these lines were addressed cannot be clarified in terms of content: the exhortations to light up the lamp in the shrine, to shake the pillows, and not to worry about their mother, since she is well already, as well as the admonitions in the postscript not to play in the courtyard and to take care of Titoas and Sphairos (probably younger relatives), could refer to either of them. Perhaps the lines were primarily addressed to the older of the two sisters, presumably Rhasion, since she is mentioned in first place both at the beginning of the letter and in the address on the back. The admonition not to play in the yard suggests that she too had not yet grown up but was old enough to read the letter and carry out the instructions, as also the exhortation to devote her attention to learning (line 8) presumably refers to learning to read and write. Despite the time interval, some letters of Plato, strategos of the Thebaid of 88 BCE (TM Arch 484), are of particular interest, since he sent them to the inhabitants or specific groups of Pathyris; the opening greeting of SB 3.6300

100

Chapter 5

(28 Mar 88 BCE), for example, reads: “Plato to those who live in Pathyris, greetings and welfare” (lines 1–3).44 The similarity to the way Paul of Tarsus addresses the Christ groups in Rome (Rom 1:7), Corinth (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1), and Philippi (Phil 1:1) is striking (cf. also Eph 1:1; Col 1:2; Rev 1:4). P.Lips. 1.104 [2.56] (30 Jun 95 or 22 Jun 62 BCE) is the letter of Petesouchos son of Panebchounis to nine men, all of whom are mentioned by name, and “to the children,” whereby it is unclear whether these are the children of several named addressees or the children of the immediately before mentioned Pakoibkis. The fact that the author of the letter identifies himself by also mentioning his father’s name, as he also does with some of the addressees, confers an official character on the letter. The following content, however, is mainly of a private nature, as Petesouchos only reports on his own and his family’s well-being and assures his addressees that some individuals at his place of residence, who are again mentioned by name, are concerned about them. The fact that the local strategos Ptolion is among them suggests that this is a private letter whose correspondents must have belonged to a circle of higher society. That the main addressee of the letter is the first-mentioned Petearsemtheus is confirmed by the address on the back of the papyrus, because he is the only one mentioned there as addressee. He alone is obviously meant, when Petesouchos in the middle of the letter (lines 14–17) thanks a single person for the letters received, before he returns to the plural when referring to his addressees. Many letters addressed to multiple recipients are sent to one and the same household, which makes them well comparable to Phlm and 2 John. BGU 16.2618 [2.64] (10 May 7 BCE), for example, is the letter of Tryphas to her son Athenodoros and her daughter Artemis. The latter, however, is mentioned only at the beginning, the whole rest of the letter—including the greetings forwarded by Tryphas from third parties and the final greeting (lines 22–25)—is addressed only to Athenodoros (i.e., in the singular), who alone is mentioned in the address on the back of the papyrus. The simple reason for this may have been that Artemis lived in the same household as Athenodoros. On 17 June 1 CE, one Hilarion wrote a letter to his sister (and wife) Alis (P.Oxy. 4.744 [2.67]) and according to the address on the back of the papyrus it should be delivered to her alone. The main part of the letter is also intended only for her, but in the letter opening Hilarion adds two more women to the common 44 Cf. P.Bour. 12.1–4 (1 Nov 88 BCE); since the external addresses on the back of P.Bad. 2.16 (ca. 88 BCE) and P.Bas. 2.10 (88 BCE?) are comparable, these letters, whose letter openings are not preserved, could also be from Plato (see W. G. Claytor in P.Bas. 2, pp. 67–69). The same form of address was also used by Plato’s son in P.Ross.Georg. 2.10.1–3 (27 Nov 88 BCE).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

101

greeting formula, Berous and Apollinarion. Berous is addressed as “my lady” which may indicate that she was the letter sender’s mother, and Apollonarion seems to be the couple’s daughter, because Alis is explicitly requested to care for “the little child” (lines 6–7). Also in this case, all the addressees lived most probably in one and the same household and were, therefore, greeted at the beginning of the letter. SB 12.10799 with BL 8:361 and 13:206–207 (14–41 CE) is a letter from the Roman soldier Heraklas to Horos and Tachonis, of which the left side of the lower part is lost. In the (only fragmentarily preserved) address on the back, Horos is mentioned in second place, but identified as “the son,” which suggests that Tachonis was probably the wife or companion of the letter sender. The exhortations in the letter body are formulated in the singular, so they are obviously addressed to Tachonis, because she must be the one who is told to “take a really good look at the child, like at a lamp,” for he, Heraklas, is worried about both of them (lines 5–7). Horos might have been sick at the time. If we look at a certain Dioskoros and his three correspondents, who lived in Mons Claudianus during the mid-second century CE and probably served in the Roman military, we meet a group of best friends who are explicitly addressed as such (see O.Claud. 2.225.1–3; 226.1–6; 227.1–3; 228.1–4; 229.1–3; 232.1–3; possibly also 233.1–5 and 234.1–3). As already mentioned above, the final greetings in 1 Tim 6:21, 2 Tim 4:22, and Titus 3:15 are addressed to a group, although the letters are each directed to an individual who is consistently the only one addressed in the respective letter itself. Even a feature like this is not unusual in papyrus letters. BGU 4.1078 [2.72] (20 Oct 38 CE), for example, is a letter from Sarapion to his sister (and wife?) Sarapias at home. In two instances he reveals that he has all his people at home in mind while writing. In lines 5–6 he tells his wife: “You know that I am worried about you” (“you” is plural), and in the letter closing he uses a common formula, but addressed to a group: “Otherwise, take care of yourself so that you stay healthy” (lines 11–12; “yourself” and “you” are plural forms). The concluding “farewell” is abbreviated, but presumably, in contrast to the final greetings in the Pastoral Letters, intended as a singular form. An even better comparable but later example is SB 14.11851 (late II/early III CE), a letter from Lucretianus to his father Lucretius, who—towards the end of the letter—is asked to forward his son’s greetings to Vettia and Valerianus and all members of the household, before Lucretianus turns to his final greeting, which reads: “Farewell, you (and) all” (in Greek, the form of “farewell” is here plural, “you” is singular). It seems that the author addresses only his father in the entire letter, but after sending greetings to an entire household, he formally also includes all of them in the final greeting. The opening of P.Oxy. 34.2725 (29 Apr 71 CE)

102

Chapter 5

is lost but according to the address on the back of the papyrus, this business letter45 was sent to Adrastos and Spartakos; the letter was probably written in Alexandria and sent to Oxyrhynchos where it was found. Throughout the letter, only one person is addressed in the singular, but the final greeting in line 22 is formulated in the plural: “I [care about] all of you.” The best analogies I could find refer to the administration of the Roman army, which is particularly illuminating for the Pastoral Letters, since in both cases the respective letter sender gives instructions and orders to the responsible personnel. O.Florida 2 [2.152] (second half II CE) is an ostracon letter sent by the decurio Herennius Antoninus to Amatius, possibly a curator, with two orders: to immediately have a boy in the watchtower exchanged for a young man and to transfer an arsonist to the decurio. Although both orders are formulated in the singular, the “farewell” at the end of the letter is in the plural, which can only mean that it includes all those involved in the two cases, not only the decanus, who is explicitly mentioned in the letter, but also all those to whom the letter might have had to be presented as proof of the orders. Something similar seems to apply to O.Amst. 22 and to the fragmentary letter O.Florida 6 which both probably originate from the same military camp. Similar examples from Mons Claudianus are O.Claud. 2.236 and 298 (both mid II CE).

Health Wish and Prayer Report

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 123–29; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 132–37, 149–50; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 88–90, 258–90, 389–94 (extended eBook 2008, locations 259–63, B1.1–26 nos. 138–163, B12.1–8 nos. 278–285); A. M. Bowden 2015, “Sincerely James: Reconsidering Frederick Francis’s Proposed Health Wish Formula,” JSNT 38:241–57; A. Bülow-Jacobsen 1997 in O.Claud. 2, pp. 65–68; A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2003, “Toponyms and proskynemata,” in *Cuvigny 2003, 51–59; R. Caldwell and L. Koenen 2000 (in P.Bingen, pp. 315–17); S. Daris 2017, “‘A vita’ nel galateo epistolare,” ZPE 202:253– 54; *Exler 1923, 101–13; G. Geraci 1971, “Ricerche sul Proskynema,” Aeg 51:3–211; F. Kayser 1993, “Nouveaux textes grecs du Ouadi Hammamat,” ZPE 98:111–56, Tafel III–X, here 113–26, Tafel III–VI; *Klauck 2006, 21–23, 31–32; *Koskenniemi 1956, 139–45; *Kotsifou 2012b, 65–66; *Kreinecker 2010, 74–75, 108–13; *Luttenberger 2012, 265; M. Matsumoto 2013, “Divine Intervention: Invocations of Deities in Personal Correspondence from Graeco-Roman Egypt,” CW 106:645–63; *Müller 1997, 58–64; D. Nachtergaele 2013, “The Asklepiades and Athenodoros Archives: A Case Study of a 45

An important detail of this letter is the mention of the “lord Caesar” Titus entering “on the 30th at the 2nd hour (i.e., between 6:37 and 7:42 am), first in the camp … to the Serapeum, from the Serapeum to the hippodrome (?) …” (lines 18–21). On his way home from the Jewish War, Titus passed through Egypt and embarked at Alexandria for Rome. Earlier calculations based on Josephus (B.J. 7.37, 96–117) suspected that Titus could not have reached Alexandria before 6 May 71 CE, but this original letter from an “eyewitness” suggests that he arrived there at about 7 am on 25 April 71 CE (on the details see P. J. Parsons in P.Oxy. 34, pp. 127–29).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

103

Linguistic Approach to Papyrus Letters,” GRBS 53:269–93, here 271–85; D. Nachtergaele 2014, “‘I Am Fine!’: Information about the Sender’s Health in the Greek Private Letters of the Roman Period,” JJP 44:155–62; D. Nachtergaele 2016, “Variation in Private Letters: The Papyri of the Apollonios Strategos Archive,” GRBS 56:140–63; *Nachtergaele 2023, 121–235; M. F. Petraccia and M. Tramunto 2009, “Gli uomini comunicano con gli dei: Proskynemata da Dakka (Nubia),” in Opinione pubblica e forme di comunicazione a Roma: Il linguaggio dell’epigrafia: Atti del colloquio AIEGL, Borghesi 2007, ed. M. G. Angeli Bertinelli and A. Donati, Epigrafia e Antichità 27 (Faenza: Fratelli Lega), 217–30; *Sarri 2018, 43–44, 49; *Schellenberg 2022b; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 59–61; *Steen 1938, 155–56; *Tibiletti 1979, 47–58; *Trapp 2003, 35–36; *White 1986, 194–97, 200–201; *Wolter 2015, 262–63; H. C. Youtie 1978a, “Grenfell’s Gift to Lumbroso,” Illinois Classical Studies 3:90–99; H. C. Youtie 1978b, “P.Mich.inv. 346: A Christian προσκύνημα,” ZPE 28:265–68 (= SB 14.12173); *Ziemann 1910, 302–13, 317–23, 332–33. New Testament Rom 1:9–10; Eph 1:16–19; Phil 1:4, 9; Col 1:3, 9–11; 1 Thess 1:2; 2 Thess 1:11–12; 2 Tim 1:3–4; Phlm 4; 3 John 2.

The health wish (or in Latin the formula valetudinis) is one of the earliest formulas of the Greek letter. In its simplest form it is a mere extension of the greeting χαίρειν (literally “to rejoice”) by the infinitive ὑγιαίνειν (literally “to stay healthy”) which is already attested for one of the earliest Greek private letters, the letter of Mnesiergos to his people at home (Syll.3 3.1259 [2.54]) which was written during the early fourth century BCE and found at Chaïdari near Daphni (Athens) in Greece. In this letter, the opening greeting is still explicitly formulated as a request which—among the letters published so far—is combined for the very first time with the infinitive χαίρειν as well as with the infinitive ὑγιαίνειν. Lines 1–3 of this letter therefore read: “Mnesiergos requests the people at home to rejoice and stay healthy.” As we can see, the concern for the health of the addressees or the intention to wish them health not only became important already in the earliest days of Greek letter-writing, but also a formula for it was already developed which, just as the basic greeting formula, remained unchanged and in use in the following centuries. In the mid-third century BCE, also letters with more complex forms of the health wish show up, and they immediately follow the opening greeting. One of several variants is attested by lines 1–2 of P.Cair.Zen. 1.59029, a papyrus letter written in the Arsinoite nome in Egypt between 8 November and 7 December 258 BCE: “If you are faring well, it would be well; and I am healthy too.” An almost identical version is preserved on a lead letter from the third century BCE found in the harbor of Marseille in France (SEG 54.983.1–2; cf. *Ceccarelli 2013, 349 no. 29). Being healthy and faring well can also be used in reverse order. P.Cair.Zen. 2.59161.1–2 (15 Jan 255 BCE), for example, reads: “It would be well if you are healthy; and we too are faring well.” In many letters

104

Chapter 5

the formula not only regards the addressee’s health but rather a general welfare and success as attested by P.Cair.Zen. 3.59416.1–3 (263–229 BCE): “If you are physically faring well and all your other affairs are according to your mind, it would be well; and I am healthy too.” Sometimes a synonym is used for one or the other word as, for example, in P.Lond. 7.1979.1–3 (2 Jan 252 BCE), but without changing the content or intention of the formula. In PSI 7.855.2–3 (7 Feb 257 BCE), the same formula was obviously intended but the scribe skipped one part of it without noticing; it is added here in parentheses: “If you are faring well and all your other affairs are according to your mind (it would be well); and we too are faring well.” An interesting variant is used by Philonides in P.Petr.Kleon 8 (260–249 BCE), a letter to his father Kleon, the chief architect of the Arsinoite nome in the mid-third century BCE; it preserves a health wish that reads: “You are doing well if you are healthy; and I myself am healthy too” (lines 1–2). The introduction “you are doing well” suggests at first glance that Philonides is already introducing the central request of his letter here, since such a request is often introduced with the same words. A similar health wish was formulated by Polykrates, the brother of Philonides, in P.Petr.Kleon 13.1–2 which was also sent to their father Kleon. Other variants reveal that the letter author tried to personalize the formula, such as a certain Philon in his letter to his brother Philon, P.Genova 4.161.2–5 (mid III BCE): “If you are doing well and Arsinoe and the kids, and everything else is according to your opinion, it would be good, as I and my brothers and all others wish.” If the dating of SB 28.16995 to the first or second century CE is correct, this version is still in use several centuries later; lines 2–5 of this papyrus, which was retrieved from mummy cartonnage, read: “If you as well as Protarchos and those, whom you have chosen, fare well, it would be as I wish.” In general, however, these variants of the health wish seem to have disappeared more and more after the second century BCE, and soon after, analogies show up in extended opening greetings. Several letters in the Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26) bear witness to this development, as they show a clear similarity to the variants just mentioned, especially through the clause “as I wish”: the basic greeting formula is extended by “and continual health as I wish” in BGU 16.2607.2 (27 Apr 15 BCE); 2625.2–3 (16 May 15 BCE); 2635.2–3 (ca. 21 BCE–5 CE). According to H. *Koskenniemi (1956, 138), this part of the letter had no practical purpose but merely served to express the author’s interest in the addressee, his sympathy for the latter’s fate and the things that concerned him. P.Col. 3.10 (30 Apr 257 BCE) shows, however, that in certain cases there can be more to the formula than just a general or abstract interest in the addressee: The purpose of this letter of a certain Mnasistratos is to inform Zenon that he had fallen into a serious illness and difficulty and therefore could not fulfill his obligations; in

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

105

this context, the health wish to Zenon, and in particular the added assurance that he himself is also healthy, serves as confirmation that he is now healthy again and ready to fulfill his obligations. A further example, this one from the end of the first century CE, is the letter of a certain Theon who was on military service and sent P.Oxy. 8.1154 to his “sister” (and wife?) Sarapous back home to Oxyrhynchos. Immediately after the usual opening greeting, Theon added the beginning of the formula typical for that time: “Above everything else …,” but then he continued with another formula of a health wish, mostly used in letter closings, and combined it syntactically with some comforting words about his own safety: “Above everything else, as I enjoined upon you when with you, take care of yourself so that I may have you healthy, and do not worry about me because I am in a strange place, for I know these places personally and I am not a stranger here” (lines 3–10). As for the New Testament, no letter writer used the formal health wish, neither its short form as a simple extension of the opening greeting nor the longer version. For the classification of the beginnings of the New Testament letters, however, another observation is of great importance. As already illustrated by some examples above, these wishes often extend beyond the health of the addressees to all areas that affect them, which makes it somewhat problematic to subsume all variants under the formula “health wish.” It is not the explicit health of the addressee(s) that is a common feature of all variants, but the wish expressed by the sender of the letter that the addressee may be generally well. This wish sometimes concerns physical health, but often enough a general well-being including all aspects of life (health, family, professional success). Furthermore, it is important to notice that this formula has, or at least can have, a religious connotation, which is already evident in some of the earliest examples. In P.Cair.Zen. 3.59426.1–3 (263–229 BCE), a certain Dromon wrote to Zenon, immediately after the opening greeting: “We give thanks to all the gods if you yourself are healthy and all your other affairs have been according to your mind; and I myself too, we are faring well.” And in P.Hib. 1.79.2–7 (ca. 260 BCE), one Ptolemaios assured his addressee Herakleides: “If you are faring well and the objects of your care and the other affairs are according to your mind, it would be as I wish, and (I give) many thanks to the gods; and I myself am healthy too.” Already in this early period it becomes apparent that the letter writers more or less regularly intend to assure their addressees that they and their well-being are part of their prayers. The earliest example to date that clearly testifies to this is P.Col. 4.64.1–2 (ca. 257–255 BCE?): “If you and your friends are well, and everything else is according to your mind, it would be as I pray to the gods.” An interesting example is P.Heid. 9.427.2–4 (13 Jun 158 BCE) where the scribe first wrote: “If you are faring well and everything else is

106

Chapter 5

according to your mind, it would be as I wish,” but afterwards he crossed out “I wish” and wrote “I pray” above the line instead. For these and later examples it is important to emphasize that we are not dealing here with a prayer but with a prayer report. The letter author does not pray to the gods while writing or dictating the letter but rather assures the addressee(s) to pray for them too whenever praying to the gods (*Arzt-Grabner 2003, 124– 25; *Koskenniemi 1956, 132–33). BGU 10.2006 (second half II BCE) is the private letter of an unknown writer to a certain Ptolemaios, that reads in lines 1–3: “If you are faring well together with Berenike and the children and everything else is according to your mind, it would be as we are continually praying to the gods.” In SB 22.15324.3–5 (II–I BCE), a dancer of the Egyptian cat goddess Boubastis writes to her master after the opening greeting, referring not only to physical health but also to fortune and success, particularly in negotiations with the Ptolemaic royal couple: “I pray to all the gods to give you health and good fortune and ever-increasing success with the kings.” In private letters of the first century BCE, the shorter form of the health wish is also syntactically combined with a prayer report; the first three lines of BGU 16.2610 [2.62] (13 or 23 Nov 9 BCE), for example, read: “Herakleides to Athenodoros his brother, many greetings and that you may continually be healthy, as I pray.” This letter is part of the archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26; cf. pp. 79, 229), and many more such examples are found in that correspondence.46 Interestingly, in some other letters of this archive the variant with “I wish” (instead of “I pray”) is found,47 which indicates a relative synonymity of the two terms. Or in other words: “I pray” may still be understood as a religiously influenced variant of “I wish” at the end of the first century BCE. From the first century CE onwards, the prayer report is attested as a very fixed formula that reads: “Above everything else I pray that you are healthy.” Variants contain, similar to previous ones, synonyms or broader terms for the well-being of the addressee(s), but “I pray” (or “we pray”) remains a fixed element of this formula. One of the earliest examples so far is SB 6.9165.2–4 (first half I CE): “Above everything else I pray that you are healthy; and I am healthy

46 BGU 16.2615.1–4; 2622.1–3; 2656.1–3; 2659.1–3 (all about 21 BCE–5 CE); 2650.1–2 (13/12 BCE); 2611.1–3 [2.60] (17 Dec 10 BCE); 2608.1–2 [2.66] (10–1 BCE); 2651.1–2 (22 Aug 9 BCE); 2643.1–2 (after 4 Feb 8 BCE); 2617.1–3 (11 Jul 7 BCE); 2649.1–2 (30 Oct 6 BCE?); 2644.1–3 (26 Jun 4 BCE); restored in 2620.2 (ca. 21 BCE–5 CE). See also BGU 8.1770.2–3 (7 Apr 63 BCE); 4.1203.1–2 with *Nachtergaele 2023, 329 (15 Oct 29 BCE); 1205.2–4 (26 Oct 28 BCE); 1206.1–3 (3 Nov 28 BCE). 47 Cf. BGU 16.2607.1–2 (27 Apr 15 BCE); 2625.1–3 (16 May 15 BCE); 2623.1–2 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE); 2635.1–3; 2642.1–3 (both ca. 21 BCE–5 CE); presumably also to be restored in BGU 16.2614.2–3 (cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 120).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

107

too.”48 Various synonyms can be used by one and the same author as demonstrated, for example, by Ischyras who uses the basic formula “above everything else I pray that you are healthy” in O.Krok. 2.281.2–5, 307.3–4, 309.3–4, and 322.2–4, but the variant “I pray that you fare well” in 289.2–4 and 291.2–3, and the variant “I pray that you are strong” in 286.2–3 and 320.3–4; the formula “I pray for your health” is used by him in 292.1–2, but in most cases where Ischyras uses any kind of a prayer report he introduces the proskynema phrase (see below pp. 109–11): O.Krok. 2.285.3–6; 288.2–4 [2.103]; 296.22–24 [2.104]; 298.2–5; 301.2–3; 302.2–3; 303.2–4; 304.2–3; 308.3–5; 310.2–4; 313.3–5; 314.4–5; 316.3–5; 318.1–3; 321.3–5; 324.2–4; 327.3–5. All these letters were written during the reign of Trajan (98–117 CE). Most letter writers use the formula simply to confirm their good relationship with the addressees and their concern about them within the context of their religion. This is still true for those examples where a letter author modifies the formula only slightly, as a certain Taus does in her letter to Apollonios, P.Giss. 1.17.3–4 (113–120 CE): “Above all I greet you, lord, and I always pray for your health.” A similar example is P.Mich. 8.466.3 (26 Mar 107 CE): “Above all I pray that you fare well, which is my wish since I revere you next to the gods.” O.Krok. 2.203.2–6 [2.115] (98–117 CE) is more personal and freely formulated: “Above everything else, night and day I pray for nothing else but your health.” The Latin equivalents to such formulas can be found, for instance, in O.Did. 326.3–5 (before ca. 75–85 CE), where the prayer is again explicitly addressed to the gods: “Above everything else I pray to the gods that you fare well as is my wish.” Other examples from Egypt are O.Did. 362.2–3 (before ca. 88–96 CE) and 429.3–4 [2.92] (before ca. 96 CE). The letter sender of C.Pap.Lat. 304 [2.100] (I–II CE), a certain Rustius Barbarus, assures his addressee Pompeius: “I pray to the gods that you fare well as are my wishes” (line 2). In the early second century CE, the soldier Terentianus uses the basic version in P.Mich. 8.468.3 (= C.Epist.Lat. 1.142),49 but in 467.3–4 (= C.Epist.Lat. 1.141) he tells his father: “Above everything else I pray that you are strong, and cheerful, and safe, together with our entire family.” In a place as far away from Egypt as Vindonissa in Switzerland, one Primigenius Camerius assured his “brother” Primigenius Oclatius in a letter written on a wax tablet between ca. 30 and 50 CE: “If you fare well, brother, it is well indeed; I fare well. I ask and pray to the gods that Other early examples are BGU 2.530.3–4 [2.74] (I CE); SB 3.6265.3–4 (late I CE); O.Krok. 2.216.3–4 (98–117 CE); P.Col. 8.215.3–4 [1.14]; 216.2 (both ca. 100 CE); SB 20.14132.4–8 [2.101] (late I/early II CE); BGU 3.843.2–3; SB 6.9017.9.2–3; 9017.13.4–5; 9017.38.2 (all I–II CE); O.Claud. 1.154.2; 161.2 (both ca. 100–120 CE); P.Giss. 1.14.2; 18.3–4 (both 113–120 CE); P.Mich. 3.203.1–2 [2.125] (114–116 CE); SB 10.10278.2 (ca. 114–119 CE); 22.15380.3–4 (first half II CE). 49 In his Greek letters, Terentianus uses the Greek version of the formula: P.Mich. 8.476.3 [2.121]; 477.2–3; 478.3; 479.3–4; 480.3; 481.3–5 (all early II CE).

48

108

Chapter 5

…” (T.Vindon. 52.2–3); the rest of the text is too fragmentary to understand but the formula “I pray to the gods” at this position of a letter possibly served as introduction to an even more extended health wish. As with the early forms of the health wish, we again find specific examples where the formula represents more than just a general or abstract interest in the addressee. The first three lines of the ostracon O.Did. 325 (before ca. 77–92 CE), a letter between two soldiers, read: “Sertorius to Iulius Bithynus, very many greetings. I heard that you have become sick; I pray that you are healthy.” Sertorius did not introduce the prayer report immediately after the opening greeting but after mentioning that he had received the news about his addressee’s illness. In this way the formulaic prayer report is elevated from its abstract meaning and becomes a personal confirmation of the letter sender that he is praying for the quick recovery of Iulius Bithynus. In a similar way, Marcus Longinus writes to Nilus in O.Did. 350.3–4 (again before ca. 77–92 CE): “I heard that you have been sick; I pray that you are healthy,” and he even adds: “You know that we do not have anyone/anything sweeter than each other in our cohort.” A prayer report extended by a personal note is expressed by the soldier Petronius Valens in his papyrus letter to his father Ptolemaios, written between 89 and 96 CE: “Above everything else I pray that you are healthy as I also prayed at Alexandria to Sarapis that you live for many years until I have grown older and pay thanks” (P.Turner 18.3–7 [2.90]). In addition to the common formula the author of this letter assures his father that he has prayed for him on a particular occasion and with a special intention. Even more extensive are the personal remarks of Gaius Iulius Apollinarios in a letter to his mother Tasoucharion, P.Mich. 8.465 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?); although the lines following the formal prayer report in lines 3–4 are only fragmentarily preserved, they indicate that Apollinarios is really interested to assure his mother how personally important it is to him to pray for her, and in lines 32–33, he once again refers to his prayers. Additional personal remarks like these go far beyond a mere habit or cliché, but the formula itself is still present (or in further examples at least visible). Some letter authors transform the formula itself into individual expressions, such as the highly educated Eudaimonis in a letter to her daughter-in-law Aline; P.Giss. 1.23.4–10 (113–120 CE) reads: “Of all my prayers, I consider the most necessary the one for your health and that of your brother Apollonios and your unenchanted50 [children].” P.Alex.Giss. 50 was written during the same time but its author’s name is not preserved; lines 3–6 read: 50

The Greek term ἀβάσκαντος is not easy to translate into English; it means that the person described as such may not be struck by the evil eye (i.e., may remain immune from any harm caused by spells etc.).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

109

“Above everything else I greet you, and I pray before the gods for your wellbeing. … because I heard of your present illness.” A certain Sabinianus writes to his brother Apollinarios in P.Mich. 8.499.4–7 [2.109] (ca. 117–147 CE): “Every day also I myself make prayers for your well-being before the gods here so that you stay well for many years.” In a Latin letter from Vindolanda/Britannia, T.Vindol. 2.248 [1.3] (97–103 CE), the prayer report in lines 3–9 reads: “We pray, brother, that in doing what you are about to do you’ll be most happy. It will be so indeed since it is both in accord with our wishes to make this prayer on your behalf and you yourself are most worthy.” Individual examples like these show “that the letter writer could personalize the convention in a manner appropriate to the occasion” (*White 1986, 201). A special and widely used form of the prayer report is the so-called proskynema phrase which, so far, is not attested earlier than in private letters of the first century CE and expresses obeisance or supplication before the god(s) on the recipient’s behalf. One of the earliest examples is already individually extended and designed, namely, P.Köln 6.278.5–8 (I CE) where we read: “Every day I make obeisance for you before the lord [Serapis?], so that he grants you (everything) according to the wishes of your heart.”51 In many letters it serves as an extension of the usual prayer report; P.Mich. 8.475.4–8 (early II CE), for example, reads: “Above everything else I pray that you are healthy, and I am healthy too. I make obeisance for you every day before the lord Sarapis.”52 A more elaborated version is attested in SB 24.16334.2–7 (II CE?): “Above all I pray that you are healthy, and I make obeisance for you before the gods here at our place, praying that the best things in life be yours.” Other letters preserve the proskynema phrase alone as, for instance, O.Krok. 2.288.2–4 [2.103] (98–117 CE), but all underline again that we are dealing here not just with a wish, but indeed with a prayer. The tradition itself—namely, to go to the temple and make obeisance for someone before the gods—is well attested by many graffiti or dipinti on temple walls, which are usually introduced by the term proskynema.53 A certain Nearchos explicitly refers to this tradition, when he reports in 51

Among the earliest examples are also SB 20.14249.2–3; 14250.4; 14253.2; 28.17097.4–5 (all I/early II CE); O.Krok. 2.285.3–6 (98–138 CE); P.Col. 8.216.2–3 (ca. 100 CE); O.Heid. 428.4–5 (cf. lines 8–9; I–II CE). 52 Some further examples of this combination are O.Claud. 2.225.4–9; 263.3–6; 274.2–6; 283.2–7 (all mid II CE); BGU 3.846.2–5 [2.134]; P.Mich. 8.491.2–4 [2.140]; P.Oxy. 3.528.3–6; SB 22.15453.2–4 (all II CE); P.Petaus 29.2–3 [2.156] (late II CE); BGU 1.276.3–7 (late II/ early III CE). 53 The tradition is already mentioned in UPZ 1.109.18–19 (98 BCE); the earliest graffiti are dated to the first century BCE or the first century CE: SB 18.13677 (108–95 BCE); 13674; 13676 (both before 26 Jul 87 BCE); 13675 (26 Jul 87 BCE); 13678 (11 Jun–10 Jul 87 BCE?); 16.12863; 18.13680; 13697 (all I BCE–I CE); 22.15639 (11–14 CE); 15640 (ca. 14–28 CE); 15653

110

Chapter 5

his travelogue P.Sarap. 101 (90–133 CE), among other things, that he visited the oracle of Ammon in the oasis of Siwah and engraved the names of his friends on the temple walls for perpetual memory (lines 8–12; cf. *Deismann 1927, 175).54 In BGU 2.451 [2.102] (late I–II CE), Heron and Horion inform their brother Chairemon immediately after the initial greeting: “As soon as we got to Alexandria, we made obeisance for you and your children and your sister before the lord Sarapis and for Neilos, the friend” (lines 3–7 with BL 1:46). That such references are meant seriously is also attested by a certain Herodes, who at the end of his letter to his most honored Herakleios writes in P.Brem. 48.29– 32 (30 Oct 118 CE?): “Above everything else, tomorrow I will make obeisance for you in the Sarapeion, for today I did not go up because of severe hardships and dangers.” Like Herodes, who refers to the temple of Sarapis in Alexandria, also other letter writers refer sometimes specifically to the god worshipped in the local temple. Some letter writers in Raima, in mid-second century CE, refer to “the lady Isis in Raima” (O.Claud. 2.255.3–5 and 256.3–5) or to “Tyche in Raima” (O.Claud. 2.278.3–4). And a certain Valerius Gemellus writes in P.Mich. 8.502.3–5 [2.141] (II CE): “Above all else I pray [that you are healthy] and I make obeisance for you unceasingly before the hair at Koptos,” by which he refers to his prayer before Isis, who—according to Plutarch, Is. Os. 14 (356D)—mourned at Koptos for her brother-husband Osiris and cut off a thick tuft of hair as an expression of her grief. No later than the early second century CE, the formula became a regularly used one in Greek epistolography, and this was the case through the fourth century CE. In many letters the proskynema phrase appears as a simple topos, which expresses in a rather abstract way that the letter writer is benevolently inclined towards the addressee. This is especially true for PSI 4.308 [2.130] (late I/early II CE), a letter which consists only of amiable formulas, including a prayer report followed by a separate proskynema phrase. But there are also many different individual examples which clearly confirm that the proskynema phrase has to be interpreted as the expression of an intentionally exercised religious practice. In addition to the examples already mentioned above, some more can be presented here. While many letter writers use the formula “to make obeisance every day” (see above), a certain Hermaios tries to assure his father Eudaimon that he does so every hour; in PSI 16.1624.3–6 (60–125

54

(14–37 CE); 15651; 15654; 15656 (all 14–68 CE); 15655 (23/24 CE); 15641 (17 Jul 28 CE); 15652 (28 May 32 CE); 15642 (25 Jun 32 CE); 15643; 15644 (both about 32 CE); 18.13703 (39/40 CE); 22.15647 (54–68 CE); 15645; 15646 (both 29 Aug 62 CE); 15648 (17 Sep 66 CE); 15650 (67/68 CE); 20.14838 (I–II CE). See Kayser 1993, 113–26, Tafel III–VI. It is noticeable that the said sentence is followed by the term proskynema; unfortunately, the two following lines are no longer legible.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

111

CE), he writes immediately after the opening greeting: “Above everything else I greet you and I make obeisance for you at every hour before the lord Sarapis.” Naturally, Hermaios did not go to the temple literally at every hour; perhaps he wanted to emphasize to his father that he certainly prayed for him in the temple more often than others. In a letter to his mother Selene, SB 8.9721 (2 May 108 CE?), Heliodoros son of Sarapion (cf. p. 305) did not simply use the usual formula, but he referred to a special reason (he was concerned about his mother’s health) and to a special occasion when he had performed his proskynema on his mother’s behalf: “We are in good health and worried about you, making obeisance for you and your children at the beautiful festivities of Sarapis” (lines 3–5). In O.Krok. 2.202.3–9 (98–117 CE), a certain Tiberia, who was also the author of O.Krok. 2.203 [2.115] (see p. 107), wrote to her “brother and master” Pompeius: “I make obeisance for you before the lady Athena. I pray to all the gods that sometime the day will come that I shall kiss your face.” The almost completely preserved letter P.Oxy. 55.3809 [2.158] (II–mid III CE) was written by the slave Agathangelos to Panares, a master hairdresser, to whom he had been apprenticed to learn the craft of a barber or hairdresser. In the beginning of the letter the proskynema phrase is used as the usual formula (lines 3–7), but later in the letter body Agathangelos assures Panares that even during his daily work he is performing the proskynema for him, thereby expressing his gratefulness to his instructor, to whom he owes his daily success. A comparable example is preserved on the ostracon O.Krok. 2.233 [2.119] (98–138 CE). The proskynema phrase is not found in New Testament letters, and the Christian character of some private letters of the first centuries CE may be doubted because of the use of this pagan formula. H. *Koskenniemi (1956, 142– 43) observed an absence of the formula in Christian letters, and the Christian origin of P.Oxy. 14.1775.3–4 (IV CE) or PSI 7.825.3 (ca. 325 CE) is still questioned because of this formula (cf. *Choat 2006, 95), which is also the case with P.Berl. Zill. 12.7 (III–IV CE; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 391; extended eBook 2008, B12.2 no. 279). Other forms of the prayer report, however, have influenced the New Testament letter writers and were adapted by them, and it is worth noticing that such a prayer is never mentioned outside the opening part of a New Testament letter. Apart from formulas for the conclusion of a letter, this also applies to Greek papyrus letters.55 Within the New Testament letters, 3 John 2 (“above everything else I pray that you prosper and are healthy”) 55 The formulation of the prayer report within the letter body of BGU 1.246 (II–III CE), which is probably not a Christian text, is completely different and serves a different purpose. Lines 11–13 with BL 6:11 read: “Or don’t you know that night and day I pray to god on

112

Chapter 5

comes closest to the basic form of a prayer report, and F. *Ziemann (1910, 319) and H. *Koskenniemi (1956, 135) consider this passage as proof that the formula was also used outside Egypt (cf. also *Wolter 2015, 263). Prayer reports in Paul’s letters can rather be classified as individually formulated examples and thus be compared with the corresponding more detailed examples presented above. A report of a prayer to God for the sake of his addressees is attested in Rom 1:10; Phil 1:4–6, 9–11; 1 Thess 1:2; Phlm 4–6. In 2 Cor 1:11, Paul is referring to the addressees’ prayer for him. Understandably, Paul does not refer to a prayer for the physical health of his addressees, but to one for their “welfare” in faith (Phlm 4–6), in their ever-increasing love (Phil 1:9), or that he himself might succeed in meeting his addressees (Rom 1:10). In other passages, the addressees are in a general sense the subject of the respective prayer (Phil 1:4; 1 Thess 1:2). Prayer reports in the pseudo-Pauline letters refer to prayers to God that he may give the addressees a spirit of wisdom (Eph 1:16–18; similar Col 1:3, 9) or make them worthy of his calling (2 Thess 1:11). The short prayer report in 2 Tim 1:3 does not mention a specific topic, but emphasizes that the respective prayers are performed night and day; the phrase is also used in O.Krok. 2.203.2–6 [2.115] (98–117 CE) and P.Tebt. 2.583.4–5 [2.165] (II–III CE).

Motif of Remembrance

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 129–35; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 137–43, 150–51; *Asquith 2023, 2–221, 312–27; G. Geraci 1971, “Ricerche sul Proskynema,” Aeg 51:3–211; *Koskenniemi 1956, 145–48; *Luttenberger 2012, 265–68; N. Vega Navarrete 2019, “Bemerkungen zu SB XVIII 13614: Die μνεία-Formel,” ZPE 209:208–10; *Wolter 2015, 254–55. New Testament Rom 1:9; Eph 1:16; Phil 1:3; 1 Thess 1:2–3; 2 Tim 1:3–6; Phlm 4.

Alongside the prayer report, many letter openings include a further formulaic part which can be defined as motif of remembrance (*Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 137) or motif of commemoration (*Wolter 2015, 254). It is attested especially in personal letters but in some business letters as well. The oldest example so far is found in the business letter of a certain Herakleitos to Zenon, P.Cair. Zen. 1.59093, which was written after 30 July 257 BCE in Syria and sent to Philadelphia in Egypt; the health wish and the following remembrance motif in lines 1–3 read: “If you are faring well and everything else is according to your mind, it would be as we wish; and we ourselves are healthy too, and we behalf of you?” Using this rhetorical question, the letter author blames his addressee for neglecting his needs.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

113

continuously make remembrance of you all the time.”56 The combination of the two formulas already suggests that this kind of remembrance must be understood as much more than a purely internal memory. SB 20.14729, a letter written at the end of 103 BCE, begins with an only fragmentarily preserved health wish but is followed by a report on performing an act of remembrance before the gods: “And we continuously make the best remembrance of you before the gods here” (lines 2–4). The middle form ποιέομαι (literally “to make in one’s own interest”), which is used throughout these phrases, can be interpreted as a reference to a deliberate act of the letter sender, and if this act relates to a prayer or is performed before the gods, we can indeed assume that this “remembrance” was part of a prayer performed regularly in the local temple. The act of remembrance reported in SB 24.16069.5–6 (17 Apr 102 BCE) had been performed as a prayer “before the gods of Pelousion,” which means, in the temple of the very place where the letter writer lived. In SB 18.13614.3–5 (with Vega-Navarrete 2019; I CE?), a certain Thonas assures his father, certainly also on behalf of his co-sender Kalalas: “And I [continuously make the] remembrance of you [together with your whole] household [before] all the gods.” At least in part, the remembrance motif is thus a tradition comparable to the prayer report, a tradition that is documented for several centuries. In the second century CE, the respective part in a letter of the soldier Antonius Maximus alias Apion to his sister Sabine reads: “Above everything else I pray that you are healthy, and I myself am healthy too, and I make remembrance of you before the gods here” (BGU 2.632.2–6 [1.45]).57 Besides the form with the noun (“I make remembrance of you”), a variant with the verb (“I am remembering you”) is also in use, again from the third century BCE onwards; and again, the formula is often combined with a health wish as in P.Cair.Zen. 1.59135.1–2 (10 May 256 BCE), or a prayer report as in BGU 10.2006.1–3 (second half II BCE) where we can read: “If you are well together with Berenike and the children and everything else is according to your mind, it would be as we are continually praying to the gods and remembering you all the time.” Several writers even refer to some kind of tradition when assuring their addressees to remember them all the time. A certain Toubias, for example, wrote in P.Cair.Zen. 1.59076.3 (13 May 257 BCE): “I always make remembrance of you as it is just.” In mid-third century BCE a letter sender, whose name is not preserved, wrote to Zenon: “And we remember you all the time, as 56 57

A less formulaic pre-form of the motif may be seen in BGU 14.2417.9–11 (258–257 BCE), where the sender begs his addressee in the middle of the letter body: “And remember us as also we do all the time.” See also the list in Vega Navarrete 2019, 209.

114

Chapter 5

it is also fitting” (P.Cair.Zen. 4.59575.4–5). A reference to such a tradition can still be found more than 500 years later in P.Lond. 6.1919.14–17 (ca. 330–340 CE) where it is characterized as a typical Christian one: “For indeed it is fitting that we remember each other in the Lord Christ for the health of both; and doing so, we will be called Christians in Christ.” As with the prayer report, letter writers sometimes liked to express the motif in their very own way as, for instance, Gaius Iulius Apollinarios in a letter to his mother Tasoucharion, P.Mich. 8.465 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?); after very personal remarks on his way to pray for his parents he writes: “For whenever I remember you, I do neither eat nor drink but I weep” (lines 9–10). A certain Lurius Kameinos wrote to Claudius Antoninus in P.Hamb. 1.37.3–6 (II CE): “As often as I find an opportunity, I write you. For it is necessary to remember your nobleness and your character as that of a true philosopher.” At the beginning of his letter to Apion, P.Oxy. 14.1664 [2.167] (ca. 200 CE), a certain Philosarapis assures his addressee that not only he himself but even the ancestral gods remember him (lines 4–5). A freely formulated and unique version of a remembrance motif is preserved on an ostracon letter from the time of Trajan or Hadrian; the names of the letter partners are not preserved, but lines 4–9 of O.Krok. 2.233 [2.119] read: “Since you went away, here, I haven’t yet not been unthinking of you, for I [make] obeisance [for you] every day.” A very special example is CPR 5.19 [2.114] (I–II CE), a private letter from a certain Herm… to his lord and patron Serapion. The author was obviously familiar with all the usual letter formulas and conventions of his time, and in fact the entire letter consists only of standard conventions (opening greeting, health wish, prayer report, remembrance motif, secondary greetings, and final greeting). Except for the secondary greetings and the final greeting, however, they are all designed and expanded in a unique way. It is particularly interesting and instructive how the author deals with the remembrance motif. In lines 8–17 we read: “As you also commemorate us by letter on every occasion, so I here too make obeisance for you before the lords Dioscuri and before the lord Serapis and I pray for you for safe-keeping during your entire life and for the health of your children and all your household.” The author does not introduce a remembrance motif himself, but he equates his addressee’s act of remembrance with the writing of letters; then he compares this equation with a proskynema which he himself performs before the Dioscuri and before Serapis for the addressee and his children and household. The idea that writing letters is synonymous with remembering the addressees is shared by many writers (e.g., by the author of P.Hamb. 1.37, which was already mentioned), but in the strict sense, writing letters has nothing to do with an act of remembrance in the form of a prayer. Only by comparing it to his proskynema does the author

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

115

reveal that he considers the way his lord Serapion remembers him and writes to him to be a special, even religious act. In three of his letters, Paul of Tarsus used the remembrance motif in the same form as many authors of private letters of his time did—namely, “I make remembrance of you” (Rom 1:9; 1 Thess 1:2; Phlm 4). Also in Phil 1:3 he used the noun “remembrance,” but combined it syntactically with an expression of thanks: “I thank my God in all my remembrance of you.” In 1  Thess 1:3, following a thanksgiving and the remembrance motif in v. 2, Paul also used a form with the verb “remember” so that the whole passage reads: “(constantly) remembering before our God and father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our lord Jesus Christ.” Like private letter writers, Paul reports a religious act: He has performed prayers and remembrances before God for the entire Christ group of Thessalonike (and elsewhere). The version of the motif with the noun appears also in Eph 1:16 and in 2 Tim 1:3, the variant with the verb in 2 Tim 1:4. All these references prove that the motif was a common Greek convention (*Koskenniemi 1956, 147). It is noteworthy that the only New Testament passage outside of a letter opening in which the noun “remembrance” is used is 1 Thess 3:6, where Paul writes that Timothy had just come and told him that the Thessalonians “always have good remembrance of us” (i.e., Paul). It is not impossible that Paul here refers not only to oral news but also to a letter from the Thessalonian Christ group, in the opening of which Paul could read something like “we always make good remembrance of you before God.” A later parallel may be seen in P.Oxy. 12.1592 (late III/early IV CE), a fragmentarily preserved Christian letter in which we read: “I received your letter, my lord father, and I really got exalted and rejoiced exceedingly that my father makes the remembrance” (lines 1–6).

Transitions from Letter Opening to Letter Body

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 135–42; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b; *Kreinecker 2010, 108–11; J. T. Sanders 1962, “The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus,” JBL 81:348–62. Transitions from opening to body of New Testament letters Rom 1:8–10; Eph 1:3–23; Phil 1:3–11; Col 1:3–23; 1 Thess 1:2–5; 2 Tim 1:3–7; Phlm 4–6.

Letter writers using an individual and educated style sometimes liked to merge the opening section of a letter and the letter body smoothly into one another. Such letter writers always show a high level of skill in dealing with the Greek

116

Chapter 5

language and the conventions of letter writing, but without explicitly changing the general letter form (*Kreinecker 2010, 108). In one of his letters to his dearest Apollonios, BGU 2.531 [2.84] (ca. 76–84 CE), the gymnasiarch Chairemon confirms immediately after the opening greeting that he has received the letter from his friend; he writes: “I received your letter on the […] of the present month, (tied) by a slip-knot, which I read and rejoiced that you are faring well together with all your people, for this is what I pray for” (col. 1.3–6). The personal form of a prayer report in lines 5–6 which would usually be part of the letter opening, is preceded by two motifs that already belong to the introductory part of the letter corpus, namely, the confirmation of having received a letter and the expression of joy over good news. A similar situation is attested by a letter which was sent to Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (see p. 329), by another Apollonios; immediately after the opening greeting he writes in P.Brem. 20.3–7 [2.128] (second half 116–120 CE?): “When I arrived at Lycopolis on the 2nd and received your letter, I rejoiced, brother, that you are faring well together with your people, for this is what I am praying for.” A shorter, but in principle similar phrase has been preserved in P.Sarap. 85.3–4 [2.111] (90–133 CE). In BGU 4.1080.2–6 [2.180] (III CE?), a father congratulates his son on his marriage and dictates to his scribe: “Before all, I greet you and rejoice with you in your good, pious and fortunate marriage, which was granted to you according to our common wishes and prayers, to which the gods have listened and granted fulfillment.” With these words immediately after the opening greeting, the father introduces the body of the letter, since by congratulating his son on the wedding, he is already addressing the current situation and concern of the letter. With this the father has connected a prayer report, which should be part of the letter opening. Among the New Testament letters, this is comparable to 2  Thess 1:3–10, where the situation of the assembly is already addressed and the key words for the rest of the letter are also mentioned before a prayer report is added in v. 11. The same is true for Eph, where the prayer report and the motif of remembrance do not appear until 1:16. Due to a remembrance motif and a prayer report in Phlm 4, this verse still belongs to the letter opening, but at the same time forms a transition to the letter body because of the syntactical connection with the preceding report of Paul’s gratitude for the good news about Philemon (cf. vv. 5–6). Without the prayer report and the remembrance motif, the beginning of v. 4 would have been clearly recognizable to Paul’s addressees as the beginning of the letter body. For similar reasons, Rom 1:8–10, Phil 1:3–11, and 1 Thess 1:2–5 can also be regarded as transitions from the letter opening to the introductory part of the

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

117

letter body, and this is also the case with Col 1:3–23. All these passages begin with a report that the author of the letter has received good news about the spiritual welfare of the particular Christ group, and that he has reacted to it with deep gratitude or expresses his thanks to God on a regular basis. A prayer report and a remembrance motif, which are usually part of the letter opening, only follow this thanksgiving report and do not precede it. Transitions like these result from the individual interest of the letter writers, who handled the sequence of prayer report, remembrance motif, and report of thanksgiving for or of joy over good news very freely, sometimes even more freely than Paul or other New Testament letter writers. In Eph 1:3–23 and Col 1:3–23, this part is exceptionally long and thus fails to fit into the usual pattern. Since a prayer report and a motif of remembrance do not appear until Eph 1:16, and because there is no other formula typical of letter openings in this section except for the opening greeting in 1:1–2, this long passage can only be described as a transition from letter opening to the letter body.58 Col 1:3–23 is to be interpreted similarly. The two passages thus clearly fall outside the scheme of both the authentic Pauline letters and the private Greek papyrus and ostracon letters. The formulas and clichés, which already belong to the introductory part of the letter body, are discussed in the corresponding section (on the report of joy see pp. 119–23; on thanksgiving reports see pp. 123–28).

The Letter Body and Its Parts

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 187–95; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 143–49, 151–58; *Chapa 1998, 26–43; T. W. Martin 2010, “Investigating the Pauline Letter Body: Issues, Methods, and Approaches,” in *Porter and Adams 2010, 185–212; *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 168–81; *Steen 1938; *White 1972; *White 1978, 299–312.

According to J.  L. *White (1984, 1736) the letter corpus serves primarily two functions: “(1) to disclose or seek information, and (2) to make requests or commands.” Certain formulas and conventions with introductory, transitional, or concluding character serve to better fulfill these tasks, but they are more or less open to free design by the writer, and—in contrast to the beginning and end of a letter—these formulas and conventions are not constitutive but 58

It should also be noted that the eulogy in Eph 1:3 is not a formula or cliché of Greco-Roman epistolography (which is also true for 2 Cor 1:3–5 and 1 Pet 1:3–9). According to *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 179–80, its origin is Jewish.

118

Chapter 5

serve to emphasize both the central concerns of the letter and certain details. Especially in longer letters, they are also used as structuring elements. Whether formulas and conventions are used at all thus depends first on the need or taste of the letter’s author and only secondarily on its content. The letter body can often be divided into three parts: 1) an introductory part in which the basic motivation of the sender is clarified, 2) a middle part where either the relevant details of the central content or further information are disclosed, and finally 3) a concluding part which serves to address the reason for the current letter once again and to lay the foundation for future correspondence. The following chapters focus on the formulas and conventions used in the letter corpus. Parallels to papyrus and ostracon letters regarding contents are therefore only addressed where they are directly related to corresponding formulas. The content of requests and commands, for example, will not be dealt with in this volume, however, but in future volumes of PNT (e.g., the topic of Paul’s collection for the assemblies in Judea in volume 3, topics of slavery in volume 4).

Formulas and Clichés of the Introductory Part of the Letter Body

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 187–90; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 188–89; *Mullins 1972; *Steen 1938; *White 1971; *White 1978; J. H. Roberts 1986a, “Pauline Transitions to the Letter Body,” in L’Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère, ed. A. Vanhoye, BETL 73 (Leuven: University Press), 93–99; J. H. Roberts 1986b, “Transitional Techniques to the Letter Body in the Corpus Paulinum,” in A South African Perspective on the New Testament: Essays by South African New Testament Scholars Presented to Bruce Manning Metzger During His Visit to South Africa in 1985, ed. J. H. Petzer and P. J. Hartin (Leiden: E. J. Brill), 187–201; J. T. Sanders 1962, “The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus,” JBL 81:348–62. – Special bibliography on particular formulas and conventions is also listed at the beginning of the subchapters. Introductory parts of the body of New Testament letters Rom 1:11–16; 1 Cor 1:4–9; 2 Cor 1:3–2:13; Gal 1:6–10; Col 1:24–29; 1 Thess 1:6–10; 2 Thess 1:3– 12; Phlm 7; 1 Pet 1:3–12; 2 Pet 1:3–4; 2 John 4; 3 John 3–4; Jude 3.

After the opening section, the authors of Greek letters often immediately turn to the central concern of the letter. Not infrequently, however, the writer emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the letter partners in an introductory part of the letter body. In the most basic form, this is done by the author simply expressing to greet the addressee first and foremost, but this

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

119

can also be done in combination with a health wish or prayer report as part of the letter opening such as in SB 14.11644.2–4 [2.99] (I–II CE). Passages like P.Sarap. 96.2–7 (90–33 CE), however, can already be seen as an introductory part of the letter corpus, since a certain Eutychides writes there: “Above everything else I greet you and Sarapion and Selene and Eudaimonis; next, I ask you not to forget me in my absence, but to take care of everything as though it were your own.” Sometimes, the same cliché is expressed by the phrase “I thought/ considered it necessary to greet you” such as in BGU 16.2619.4–5 [2.63] (ca. 21 BCE–5 CE), P.Ryl. 2.235.3–5 [2.147], and O.Claud. 1.147.2–5 [2.149] (both II CE).59 Or the senders inform their addressees that they have found it necessary to write the current letter, as for example in O.Berenike 2.129.1–2 [2.79]; 198.3–4 (both ca. 50–75 CE); P.Oxy. 47.3356.3–9 [2.82] (28 Jan 76 CE); O.Did. 330.3–5 (before ca. 88–96 CE); SB 12.11127.3–4 (2 Dec 88 CE). More freely formulated versions of the formula are preserved in BGU 8.1874.3–6 (19 May 69 or 12 May 40 CE?) as well as in Jude 3. In addition to such simple formulas, more complex conventions are also used, which, depending on the situation, express either joy or gratitude about the correspondence maintained by both sides or disappointment about the lack of letters and thus the one-sidedness of the relationship. The explanation of a postponed visit also serves the purpose of emphasizing the importance of the relationship. All these conventions will be discussed in more detail in the following subchapters.

Report of Joy

Literature *Arzt 1994; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 188–90; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 143–49; *Exler 1923, *Klauck 2006, 32–33; *Koskenniemi 1956, 75–77; *Mullins 1972, 384–85; *Schellenberg 2021, 157–59; *Schellenberg 2022b; *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 175–77; *White 1971, 95–96; *White 1972, 39–40; *White 1986, 197, 201. New Testament Rom 16:19; Phil 1:4–5; Phlm 7; 2 John 4; 3 John 3–4.

Expressions of joy in the introductory part of the letter corpus are usually caused by the receipt of news about the recipient’s well-being. This is already evident in the earliest example, P.Eleph. 13 (30 Sep 222 BCE), a letter from a certain Andron who writes after the opening greeting and a health wish: “When Sanos had arrived I received the letter from you about which I, after reading it, 59

Some other examples from the first century CE are P.Oxy. 55.3806.3–5 (21 May 15 CE); 14.1756.3–4 (I CE); BGU 3.811.3–5 (98–102 CE); 824.3–5 (97/98 CE). On the formula see also p. 58.

120

Chapter 5

rejoiced because I sensed how things are with you.” The convention remains the same over the following centuries, but the letter writers use their own formulations and adapt them to the particular situation. In P.Mert. 1.12.3–6 [2.78] (26 Apr 59 CE), for example, a certain Chairas assures his addressee, the physician Dionysios: “When I received your letter, I was as exceedingly joyous as if I had actually been to my home town, because without it there is nothing.” As we learn from the first lines of SB 3.6823 [2.73] (41–54 CE), the friend of a certain Capito had returned home safely from a journey (perhaps from visiting this same Capito) and had written a letter to his friend about his happy family reunion, which led Capito, as he now writes, to rejoice greatly (lines 3–7). According to *Koskenniemi (1956, 77), such expressions appropriately emphasize two motives, on the one hand, sympathy with the correspondent’s condition and circumstances, and on the other hand, the importance of the correspondence and of the letter for the recipient himself. *White (1971, 35) added that such expressions “appear to be veiled requests for further correspondence.” Neither comment entirely covers the overall nature of this convention and all of its significance. In a strict sense, these expressions of joy refer to an emotional reaction that had already taken place before the current letter writer began writing or dictating his response to the good news he had received. Therefore, these passages must be labeled as reports of joy. That in any case the prior receipt of good news is the precondition for such reports and that this convention is far from being applicable to any letter is clearly demonstrated by two letters of the soldier Apion alias Antonius Maximus: In his first letter, BGU 2.423 [1.44] (after 105 CE), which he wrote after his arrival in Italy to his father at home in Philadelphia/Egypt, he appends a detailed prayer report to the opening greeting, but there is no reason for a report of joy, because naturally he has not yet received a letter from home. However, in another letter, BGU 2.632 [1.45], written several years later to his sister Sabine, Antonius Maximus mentions at the beginning of the letter body (following the opening greeting, a prayer report, and a remembrance motif) that her letter had been delivered to him by their fellow-citizen Antoninus, informing him about her well-being. Now, in his own letter, Antonius Maximus reports not only the delivery of the sister’s letter, but also his joyful reaction, and furthermore he promises to use every opportunity to write to her about his own wellbeing and that of his new family (lines 7–14).60 60

Some further examples of reports of joy from the first or second century CE are P.Sarap. 85.3–4 [2.111]; 95.3–4 (both 90–133 CE); P.Oxy. 85.5523.2–4 (I–II CE); P.Giss. 1.21.3–4 (ca. 113–115 CE); P.Brem. 20.3–6 [2.128] (second half 116–120 CE?); P.Cair.Preis. (2nd ed.) 48.4–5; BGU 2.615.3–5, 20–23; P.Mich. 8.495.9–13 (all II CE); P.Stras. 5.322.4–7 (with

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

121

In two of his letters, both written between 90 and 133 CE, Heliodoros son of Sarapion uses the motif in his own unique way. In a letter to his father, P.Sarap. 85.3–4 [2.111], he writes: “I have just received your letter, and I rejoiced that you are well according to our prayers,” and he adds in lines 5–7: “And I am always glad to send you greetings by anyone I find sailing up-river, even when there is nothing new to tell you.” In this way, Heliodoros confirms that he is not only rejoicing when receiving a letter from his father but that he is also glad to write to him as often as possible. In another letter, this time sent to his brother Phibas, Heliodoros only refers to this motif but skillfully uses it to underline his intimate relationship with his brother: “More than you, when you receive these letters, I rejoice whenever I write them and greet you” (P.Sarap. 89.3–12 [2.112]). The contents of the second part are similar to 85.5–7, but the wording is completely different which is typical for this experienced letter author (cf. p. 305). A very extensive and elaborate report of joy is preserved in a mother’s letter to her children, P.Münch. 3.57 (II BCE); in lines 5–12 she writes, especially referring to one of her daughters: “We received the letter from you in which you made clear that you have given birth. I was praying to the gods daily on your behalf. Now that you have escaped (from danger), I shall pass my time in the greatest joy.” A rather short equivalent is preserved on the ostracon O.Did. 402 [2.123] (before ca. 110–115 CE) which was sent by a certain Veturius to the couple Panisneus and Theanous but mainly concerns Theanous, for Veturius writes: “The moment I heard that you had given birth, I rejoiced greatly and lit lamps for Aphrodite” (lines 4–6). Certainly, the good news concerned not only the birth of the child, but also the well-being of the mother while giving birth and afterwards. A letter from a certain Harpokras to his father Thrakidas, P.Oxy. 47.3356 [2.82], written on 28 January 76 CE and thus only a short time after Paul’s death, preserves a special example: In well-chosen words, the son not only expresses his own joy at the news he has received about his father’s excellent health (lines 10–18), but before that he describes what actually triggers a report of joy when he explains to his father: “Knowing that you will rejoice, I necessarily write you that there is nothing the matter with me” (lines 3–5, and continuing to line 9). Another special example is preserved in P.Wisc. 2.73 [2.131] (122/123 CE), the letter from Didymos to his lord brother Hephaistion. Immediately after the opening greeting Didymos wrote: “As our very good brother Phabanon writes to you we very much rejoiced and had a party when we received your letter. *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 189 n. 6; II CE); P.Petaus 29.4–6 [2.156] (late II CE); BGU 1.332.6–7 (II–III CE). Cf. also lines 3–6 of the ostracon O.Krok. 2.172 (98–117 CE) which is, however, poorly preserved. One of the later examples is P.Oxy. 42.3069.3–4 [2.183] (III–IV CE).

122

Chapter 5

All our people are well and even more so after they received your letter” (lines 3–9). Didymos is not the first one to report his own and his family’s rejoicing after receiving Hephaistion’s letter, since their “very good brother” Phabanon had already done so on his behalf. But for emphasis, he refers to Phabanon’s report and adds in his own words that after receiving the letter, everyone is now even in better shape than before. Sometimes letter writers report that they had at first received bad news and that they heard only afterwards about the addressee’s improved situation which made them rejoice. In P.Col. 8.215 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE), a daughter reports to her mother: “I want you to know that I heard from those who have come to me that you have been ill, but I rejoiced when I heard that you have gotten better” (lines 4–8). From P.Oxy. 77.5113 [2.178] (III CE) we learn only in an indirect way that the addressee was obviously ill, but in the meantime was restored to health by the god Sarapis; in lines 3–4, a certain Dorion writes: “I was pleased to learn that you have returned cured,” and he adds: “and I give thanks to Polieus Sarapis that he restored you to welfare” (lines 4–6). In P.Hamb. 1.88.3–5 with BL 5:40 (mid II CE), a certain Antas tells her brother, a soldier named Capito: “I rejoiced when I received your letter with the good news that you had married and that, after being ill, you were cured.” Antas rejoiced not only upon hearing of her brother’s recovery, but also of his recent wedding.61 It is only natural that the good news received concerned not only the health of the correspondent but also various other issues. P.Mich. 8.474.2 (early II CE),62 for instance, refers to the addressee’s good arrival in Alexandria, whereas in SB 12.11125.3–4 (3 Sep 51 or 2 Sep 65 CE) a certain Nilos writes to Nemesion: “I exceedingly rejoiced upon hearing that you were freed,” but the letter does not clarify what the addressee was released from. Among the few relevant passages in New Testament letters, Phlm 7 may be considered the best example of this convention as Paul’s report of joy is here explicitly combined with the confirmation of receiving good news (cf. v. 5). His joy in Phil 1:4–5 is probably not just a general expression of his way of praying but related to the good news Epaphroditus had delivered to him earlier (cf. 4:18). Similar to Phlm 7, the joy reported in 3 John 3–4 is explicitly linked to the previous reception of good news, whereas in 2 John 4 this connection may exist at least indirectly, for how else but through some received news could the letter sender know that some of his addressees walk in truth. The report of joy

61 A report of joy about the good news regarding a wedding is also preserved in P.Oxy. 46.3313.3–4 (II CE). 62 Cf. P.Oxy. 14.1663.3–4 (II–III CE).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

123

in Rom 16:19 meets all formal requirements as such, but as part of the letter closing it probably qualifies as an addendum.

Thanksgiving Report

Literature P. Arzt 1991, “‘Ich danke meinem Gott allezeit …’: Zur sogenannten ‘Danksagung’ bei Paulus auf dem Hintergrund griechischer Papyrusbriefe,” in Ein Gott – eine Offenbarung: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualität. Festschrift für Notker Füglister OSB zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. F. V. Reiterer (Würzburg: Echter), 417–37; *Arzt 1994; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 135–40; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 143–49, 151–58; R. F. Collins 2010, “A Significant Decade: The Trajectory of the Hellenistic Epistolary Thanksgiving,” in *Porter and Adams 2010, 159–84; R. Jewett 1970, “The Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians,” NT 12:40–53; *Klauck 2006, 22–23; *Kreinecker 2010, 108–13; J. Lambrecht 1990, “Thanksgiving in 1 Thessalonians 1–3,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. R. F. Collins, BETL 87 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 183–205; J. Lambrecht 2012, “Paul and Epistolary Thanksgiving,” ETL 88:167–71; W. Linke 2021, “Jesus Christ, Glory and Cognition: Is Eph 1:15–23 a Judaistic and/or Hellenistic Christian Text?,” Verbum Vitae 39:807–29, here 808–12; *Mullins 1972, 381– 82; T. Y. Mullins 1984, “The Thanksgivings of Philemon and Colossians,” NTS 30:288–93; P. T. O’Brien 1977, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, NovTSup 49 (Leiden: Brill); P. T. O’Brien 1980, “Thanksgiving within the Structure of Pauline Theology,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F.F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday, ed. D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris (Exeter: Paternoster Press), 50–66; D. W. Pao 2010, “Gospel within the Constraints of an Epistolary Form: Pauline Introductory Thanksgivings and Paul’s Theology of Thanksgiving,” in *Porter and Adams 2010, 101–27; J. T. Reed 1996a, “Are Paul’s Thanksgivings ‘Epistolary’?,” JSNT 61:87–99; *Richards 2004, 129–32; J. T. Sanders 1962, “The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus,” JBL 81:348–62; *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 42–49; P. Schubert 1939, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings, BZNW 20 (Berlin: Töpelmann); T. R. Shepherd 2014, “‘We Thank God for You’ – How Thanksgiving Transforms Our Walk: A Study in the Theology of Colossians,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 25:29–42; R. E. van Voorst 2010, “Why Is There No Thanksgiving Period in Galatians?,” JBL 121:153–72; *Wolter 2015. New Testament Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4–8; Eph 1:15–16; Phil 1:3–5; Col 1:3–6, 11–12; 1 Thess 1:2–5; 2 Thess 1:3–10; 2 Tim 1:3–5; Phlm 4–6.

By analogy with many papyrus letters, but contrary to the long exegetical tradition (based primarily on Schubert 1939), the thanksgiving passages in most of the authentic Pauline letters (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4–8; Phil 1:3–5; 1 Thess 1:2–5; Phlm 4–6) and elsewhere in the New Testament (Eph 1:15–16; Col 1:3–6, 11–12; 2 Thess 1:3–10; 2 Tim 1:3–5) should not be interpreted as a formulaic part of the letter opening or even a separate section of a letter (labeled as “introductory thanksgiving” or similar), but they can be recognized as a widespread convention introduced by letter writers on certain occasions and usually found in the

124

Chapter 5

introductory part of the letter body (*Arzt 1994; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 135–40; 2010b; *Klauck 2006, 22–23; *Kreinecker 2010, 108–13). Only the earliest examples of thanksgivings from the third century BCE are combined with an extended version of the health wish and can, therefore, be identified as a formula of the letter opening. P.Cair.Zen. 1.59032.1–2 (16 Jan 257 BCE), for example, reads: “If you yourself fare well and Apollonios, we pay many thanks to all the gods; and we too are healthy.” The more common variant of the health wish of this time is “if …, it would be well; …” (cf. p. 103). It is important to notice that—contrary to later thanksgivings, including Paul’s— the writer does not state that he is paying thanks to the god(s) because the addressee is actually healthy and well but if this is the case. For this special type of the health wish there are no references more recent than the third century BCE.63 To compare this type of thanksgiving with the Pauline thanksgiving therefore fails because of the lack of contemporary references. Only one other letter which was, however, written two centuries after Paul, preserves a formulaic combination of a prayer report with a proskynema phrase and a thanksgiving; lines 2–5 of SB 24.16338 (III CE) read: “Above everything else I pray that you are healthy and make obeisance for you and confess thanks before the lord Sarapis.” Perhaps the expression is derived from petitions where it is often used as a closing formula.64 The thanksgiving phrases comparable with those in letters of the New Testament introduce the letter body and report the letter author’s reaction to receiving good news which is otherwise met with an expression of joy (see pp. 119–23). Therefore, such a passage is not a thanksgiving in the proper sense, but a report of a thanksgiving that had already been performed before writing the letter. The examples preserved in letters from the second century BCE to the third century CE show a great variety of forms. A very typical example concerning the convention, albeit extensive in its form and information, is found in a letter from Dioskourides to his father, P.Diosk. 17 (3 Nov 151 or 31 Oct 140 BCE); at the beginning of the letter body, he informs his father in every detail how he had heard about his visit to Memphis and his intention to visit his son’s family, but—while waiting day after day for his father’s arrival—finally received the news that the father had fallen ill, which caused him and his people to worry; but afterwards they received good news, as Dioskourides writes in

63 64

For further examples see *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 135–36 n. 109. Cf., e.g., P.Turner 34.23–24 (25 Dec 216 CE); P.Oxy. 12.1467.25–26 (15–23 Jul 263 CE); P.Rein. 2.113.26–28 (ca. 263 CE); P.Oxy. 63.4364.5–6 (III–IV CE); but cf. also within the letter body of the letter of condolence PSI 12.1248.13 (after 14 Dec 235 CE).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

125

lines 21–24: “On hearing afterwards that you were doing well, we paid thanks to Herakles and to the gods in Alexandria.” A comparable example is preserved in a letter written about four hundred years later, in P.Oxy. 77.5113 [2.178] (III CE); a certain Dorion reports to his “child” Phanias that he rejoiced and thanked Polieus Sarapis after learning that the god had restored him to health (cf. lines 3–6). In SB 16.12589.4–5 (II CE), a certain Plousia writes to her brother: “When I learned that you fare well, I thanked all the gods.” Aline, the wife of the strategos Apollonios, writes in one of her letters to her husband, P.Giss. 1.20.3–4 [4.#] (ca. 117–118 CE): “We thank all [the gods for the health] of you that …”; the context is fragmentary, but probably “your letter” in the following line refers to Aline’s source of good news about her husband. A rather long and very personal thanksgiving is reported in a letter written by Aurelius Apollonios during the reign of Caracalla (212–217 CE), to whose divine Fortune the account refers; confirming that he had received a message delivered to him by a certain Gorgias, Apollonios reports to Aurelius Diogenes in PSI 12.1261.3–13 [2.169]: “We rejoiced greatly and in many ways when Gorgias came to us and informed us that you are well and live, according to our prayers, safely and in reputation, as it is befitting you; very many thanks therefore to the gods and to the Fortune of our lord, the invincible Severus Antoninus, which preserved you, and of which we, in our longing for you, wish to benefit with our own eyes and no longer only by letters—since we already have seen you once in your home staying well.” Sometimes a received message is not explicitly mentioned, but the writer must have in mind an oral message or a letter that sparked the respective thanksgiving. The female servant Taus, for example, explicitly mentions in a letter to the strategos Apollonios that she had heard bad news; in d.5–7 (113–120 CE), she writes: “I was very anxious, my lord, as I heard that you were indisposed, but thanks to all the gods that they guard you carefully, free from harm.” So, after having received bad news about her addressee’s health, Taus must have been informed about his improved condition which prompted her thanksgiving. Another interesting example is preserved in O.Did. 402.4–6 [2.123] (before ca. 110–115 CE), a letter from Veturius to the couple Panisneus and Theanous, but first the ostracon refers to the good news that the woman had given birth in good health. Although the ostracon does not explicitly refer to a thanksgiving or a prayer of thanks offered before a deity, the author of the letter describes a non-verbal expression of it: he lit a few lamps for the goddess Aphrodite, which he certainly did so not only out of gratitude for the birth of a hopefully healthy child, but also for the well-being of the mother while giving birth and afterwards.

126

Chapter 5

Occasionally, a letter author does not report an act of thanksgiving before the god(s) but expresses gratitude to the addressee for conveying the good news. Most probably in the first century CE, a certain Alexandros, for example, wrote a letter to his daughter Thaibais, P.Bad. 2.34; immediately after the opening greeting, he confirms that he received a message from her on the 6th of the current month: “When, on the 6th of this month, I heard that your brother is feeling better, I fell asleep in that very night, whereas I could not find any sleep after arriving in the village. I greatly thank you for this, my child, and I will return the favor …” (lines 2–8 with BL 9:10; after that the papyrus breaks off).65 In a letter from one Apollos (?), O.Krok. 2.246 (118–130 CE), the addressee, a certain Priscus, is told: “After receiving your letter I also thank the physician” (lines 3–4). Presumably, the letter of Priscus contained the information that he had been successfully cured of an illness by the doctor which is why Apollos himself—as he now writes—was grateful not only to his letter partner for conveying the news but “also” to the physician. The convention is clearly in mind of a certain Chairas when he tells his addressee in P.Mert. 1.12.3–9 [2.78] (26 Apr 59 CE): “When I received your letter, I was as exceedingly joyous as if I had actually been to my home town, because without this there is nothing. I may dispense with writing to you great thanksgivings, because it is only necessary to give thanks in words to those who are not friends” (cf. P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 457). In the following lines, Chairas expresses his confidence in having at least the possibility of “showing some small return for your affection towards me” (cf. lines 9–12). In a smart way, Chairas here refers to the tradition of paying due thanks to a pen pal for a letter with good news, but at the same time he emphasizes that this would be insufficient towards his dearest Dionysios; both are obviously much more than medical colleagues, namely, also close friends, which Chairas indirectly alludes to. As the examples show, thanksgiving reports are related to the present situation of the letter sender who has received good news about the well-being of his correspondent. In many cases, the health of the latter is credited to the god(s), before whom an act of thanksgiving was subsequently performed and afterwards reported in the relevant passage in the introductory part of the letter body. As a result, thanksgiving clauses arise from the spontaneous and reasonable desire of the letter sender, and it is only logical that the letters testify to a great variety of formulations. Nevertheless, most thanksgiving reports are

65

Cf. also P.Lips. 1.104.14–15 [2.56] (30 Jun 95 or 22 Jun 62 BCE): “I am grateful to you for what you write in the letters.”

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

127

brief and mention a religious act performed before the god(s) after hearing or reading that a relative or acquaintance is healthy or has recovered from illness. More sophisticated letter writers show a tendency to shape this convention into individual and personal forms that best serve their purposes, namely, to testify to the true quality of their relationship with the addressee. Paul of Tarsus was certainly one of these more sophisticated letter writers. As the relevant passages in his letters confirm, his thanksgivings are also prompted by the receipt of written or oral messages about the “well-being” of his addressees. Yet Paul did not perform a thanksgiving for the health or physical well-being of his followers, but for their spiritual prosperity, their good faith in God, their fellowship in Jesus Christ, and their imitation of the apostle in daily life. In 1 Thess 1:2–5, the thanksgiving report is combined with a remembrance motif and a prayer report, and prompted by Paul’s recollection of the Christ group’s practice of faith, hard work of love, and endurance of hope (v. 3). After accepting the gospel during Paul’s first visit, the members of the group became an example to all believers in Macedonia and Achaia, and news of their faith in God spread everywhere (vv. 7–8). In v. 9 we read that all these people speak of how the Thessalonians received Paul when he visited them, and how they turned away from idols to the true and living God. Yet Paul’s thanksgiving is not only prompted by his own recollection or the general good news heard everywhere but also by the particular good news delivered to him by Timothy (cf. 3:6–10). In 1 Cor 1:4–9, Paul opens the letter body by reporting his thanksgiving for the Corinthian Christ group’s spiritual welfare. From the context we learn that Paul has received news about the community by the people from Chloe (v. 11), that he has heard about sexual immorality (5:1), and that members of the group have recently written to Paul for clarification of certain issues (7:1; 8:1; 12:1). Some of these messages were bad (at least the ones about sexual immorality and disputes), but probably not all. In Phil 1:3–5, the thanksgiving is again combined with a remembrance motif and a prayer report. In 4:18, we are informed that Epaphroditus has come to Paul delivering “that from you” which may refer to some gifts (as often translated) but also to a letter or both. However, even if Epaphroditus did not bring any written news, we may assume that as a representative of the group he at least brought oral news and was asked for it by Paul. According to Phlm 4–5 Paul paid thanks to God after hearing about Philemon’s love and faithfulness to the lord Jesus and to all the saints. No doubt, this news had been brought to Paul’s ears by Onesimus when he visited Paul in prison.

128

Chapter 5

The most amazing form of taking up the convention of a thanksgiving report appears in Rom 1:8, where Paul again combines it with a remembrance motif (v. 9) and a prayer report (v. 10). At the time of writing, Paul had not yet been to Rome, and there is nothing to indicate that he had received a letter or other news from any of the Roman Christ groups. Nevertheless, he insinuates to have heard good news about the spiritual welfare of the Roman communities, testifying that “your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (v. 8), which was reason enough for him to perform an act of thanksgiving before God and to tell his addressees about it. What all these passages have in common is that they refer to received good news about the spiritual welfare of Paul’s addressees, providing proof that Paul’s relationship with them is intact, or at least that Paul appeals to the strong and good foundations of their relationship even when its actual appearance is partly in question (as in 1 Cor). In two of his letters, 2 Cor and Gal, the letter corpus does not begin with a report of thanksgiving, and it would be wrong to consider it as “missing,” for as long as the relationship between Paul and his addressees is in real trouble, there is no reason at all for Paul—as for any other letter author—to express gratitude and report it at the beginning of the letter body (cf. van Voorst 2010; Lambrecht 2012). Passages similar to those mentioned are found in Eph 1:15–16; Col 1:3–6, 11–12; 2 Tim 1:3–5. The thanksgivings in 2 Thess 1:3–10 and 2:13 are, however, an exception in several respects. As *Kreinecker (2010, 75) has observed, the wording “we must give thanks” is not attested in documentary papyri, and in the entire New Testament it is found only here. The combination of a thanksgiving with “always” also seems odd, since at this point in a letter this adverb is normally joined to a prayer report or a motif of remembrance, but these do not occur in 2 Thess. Moreover, the extensive syntactical connection that in the first passage extends to v. 10 goes far beyond a description of the spiritual well-being of the group and, strictly speaking, even lacks reference to a specific situation of the addressees (*Kreinecker 2010, 110–13).66 The strange form of thanksgiving in 2  Thess can therefore be seen, according to *Kreinecker (2010, 75–76; cf. 38–99), as one indication (of many) of the non-Pauline authorship of this letter, for while Paul uses this epistolary convention with great knowledge, the form in 2 Thess differs significantly from both Pauline and papyrus letters.

66

An oral message is mentioned only in 3:11, but exclusively as bad news.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés



129

Explanation for a Postponed Visit

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2009; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 158–66; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 371–72 (extended eBook 2008, locations 244–47, B8.7 no. 263); *Luttenberger 2012, 268–72; *Reinard 2016, 402–10. New Testament Rom 1:10–15; 2 Cor 1:15–2:3; 1 Thess 2:17–18 (cf. 3:6).

Since it is generally one of the typical characteristics of a letter to serve as a substitute for a personal visit (see pp. 57–60), it is not surprising that letter senders sometimes explain in the introductory part of a letter corpus why it was not possible to come in person. Understandably, the reasons given are of various kinds. A typical case is attested by P.Freib. 4.56.2–9 with BL 9:90 (I–II CE): Due to a sudden illness, a certain Herakleides is unable to come to Helene and perform the necessary tasks of the joint enterprise as agreed. A similar example is P.Lips. 1.108.4–6 [2.160] (II–III CE). In P.Fay. 123.3–9 (ca. 100 or after 110 CE), one Harpokration refers to unexpected inconveniences that prevented him from visiting the brother Bellenos Sabinos in order to settle pending matters in person.67 In P.Oxy. 14.1678.3–13 (III CE), a certain Theon explains his absence with business matters he must attend to. The sender of the ostracon letter SB 28.17110 (late II/early III CE?) could not afford the travel expenses to visit his “brother” Calpurnius. Particularly dramatic reasons are presented in P.Oxy. 42.3065.4–9 (III CE): A certain Arius has not been able to travel to his parents until now because meanwhile “such things have happened that have not happened in all ages. Now it is cannibalism and not war.” To which historical event Arius alludes is unclear. Presumably he is writing from Alexandria, where repeated atrocities occurred in the third century CE (see P. J. Parsons in P.Oxy. 42, pp. 156–57). A particularly detailed example is preserved in P.Mich. 3.203 [2.125] (114–116 CE). In this papyrus letter, the soldier Saturnilus, who is stationed more than 900 km south from his hometown Karanis, informs his mother Aphrodous that for three months he has not found a chance for a visit, although he prays every day to get a suitable opportunity. His plan to be dispatched as an official letter carrier to the prefect in Alexandria so that he could make a detour to his own people in Karanis, proved too risky at the moment (for details see 67

Similar examples are P.Mich. 8.478.6–13; 479.15–17 (both early II CE); P.Oxy. 10.1345 (late II–III CE); P.Flor. 2.156.2–10 with BL 1:150 (249–268 CE); 3.365.6–9; P.Oxy. 42.3082.8–11 (both III CE); PSI 8.971.3–14 (III–IV CE).

130

Chapter 5

p. 322). In SB 24.16268.3–6 (II CE), the gods and Fate are blamed for not permitting the sender to be with the addressee at this moment. In some analogy, Paul explicitly identifies Satan as the one who blocked his visit to the Christ group in Thessalonike (1 Thess 2:17–18). The unknown sender of P.Mil.Vogl. 1.24 (7 Dec 117 CE), whose name is in fact nowhere mentioned in the completely preserved papyrus letter, writes to one Paulos, partly in poetic eloquence, that he could not accept his invitation because he is again besieged by others with their worries and treated insolently (lines 12–32 with BL 6:84). The Christ groups of Rome may have been thinking of similar reasons when they read Paul’s explanations as reported in Rom 1:10–15. Letters with such passages clearly indicate right from the start that they are intended to serve as a substitute for a personal visit, which is currently not possible. In return, the letter sender expects that the addressee believes him and accepts the reasoning as sufficient. More differentiated examples have the additional function of contributing what is currently necessary and possible to settle a particular matter that cannot simply be postponed without comment. In P.Oxy. 14.1773.5–16 (III CE), the female letter sender informs her mother that she is stuck with a considerable load of goods at an unknown place in the Thebaid because the camel drivers have refused to transport them to the Oxyrhynchite nome and attempts to get a boat have so far been unsuccessful. There seems to be an urgent need to pay a sum of two and a half talents to certain people in an unspecified matter, which is why the daughter is sending them with the letter.68 This results in an essential requirement for the letter compared to the personal visit: The sender must try to achieve persuasion with a single letter, because he does not have the opportunity to write back and forth several times until he can be sure that the addressee acknowledges the reason for his nonvisit in order to present his important request only on this basis. This is exactly Paul’s situation in 2 Cor 1:15–2:3. The reasons Paul gives here for the failed visit are related neither to his job nor to his health but are directly connected to his current relationship with the Corinthian Christ group (note esp. 1:23), which obviously has not yet proven to be sufficiently reliable. The papyri provide at least one vivid example for comparison. P.Oxy.Hels. 48 [2.163] (II–III CE) is the letter of one Ammon to his business partner Dionysios, who is criticized for having never thought of Ammon (lines 3–7); in lines 7–11, Ammon writes that he would have joined Dionysios now, but the latter’s negligent behavior 68 For an English translation of the whole letter see *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 371 (extended eBook 2008, B8.7 no. 263). For some further examples of postponed visits see *Arzt-Grabner 2009, 224–29.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

131

had prevented him from doing so. The intended meeting is postponed here69 due to a disturbance in the relationship between the letter partners, which is obviously important to the letter sender not only for business but also for personal reasons, illustrated by the forwarding of greetings in the letter closing (lines 20–24) as well as by the fact that Ammon sees himself metaphorically as a “brother” (line 1) and as a “father” (line 29) of the addressee. Similar to Paul, Ammon’s postponed visit serves his intentions regarding the disturbed relationship with his pen pal. The letter is not only a substitute for the visit, but it is also meant to accomplish something that the visit itself could not. It is intended to lead to an improvement in the relationship before a personal visit takes place. On the one hand, the letter maintains contact at about the time when the visit should originally have taken place; on the other hand, it creates a stimulus through which the addressee is expected to take a certain action or behave in a certain way—namely, to send a signal demonstrating a renewed interest in a good personal relationship between the letter partners. In 2 Cor 1:15–2:3, Paul emphasizes that he has not (yet) come to Corinth because he wants to spare the members of the local Christ group. The communication of this request is only possible through the present letter, which is still to be seen as a substitute for the failed personal visit, but at the same time serves as the most personal instrument available to Paul to win back the community so that a subsequent personal visit can have an even greater chance of success. From this point of view, 2 Cor is precisely the one letter of Paul that has an irreplaceable value, because this letter could not have been replaced by a personal visit.

Complaint about Astonishing Behavior

Literature *Clarysse 2017, 65–69; N. A. Dahl 2002, “Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: Epistolary Genre, Content, and Structure,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. M. D. Nanos (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), 117–42, here 117– 34; *Koskenniemi 1956, 64–67; *Kremendahl 2000, 99–106; *Mullins 1972, 385–86; M. D. Nanos 2002, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress), 39–49; M. Pawlak 2023, Sarcasm in Paul’s Letters, SNTSMS 182 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 114–121; *Reinard 2016, 366–71; *Reinard 2018, 193–94, 962; J. H. Roberts 1991, “Θαυμάζω: An Expression of Perplexity in Some Examples from Papyri Letters,” Neot 25:109–22; J. H. Roberts 1992, “Paul’s Expression of Perplexity in Galatians 1:6: The Force of Emotive Argumentation,” Neot 26:329–38; *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 173–75; *Stowers 1986, 133–41; *Tibiletti 1979, 77–80; *White 1971, 96;

69

In fact, Ammon offers to come to Dionysios if he succeeds in providing the necessary conditions for the purchase of wool.

132

Chapter 5

*White 1972, 35–36, 40–41; *White 1986, 208, 210; *Winter 1933, 83–84; *Zerbini 2014, 310–13. New Testament Gal 1:6–10; 2 Pet 3:1.

Complaints in the introductory part of the letter corpus often address the recipient’s negligence in maintaining an ongoing correspondence. BGU 4.1078 [2.72] (20 Oct 38 CE), for example, is the letter of a certain Sarapion to his sister (and wife?) Sarapias at home. Immediately after a brief update about a successful purchase, he rebukes her with the following words: “You did not do well, because although many friends traveled out here, you did not send me a single message, even though you know that I am worried about you” (lines 3–6). Some letter writers even mention the exact number of letters they have already written without receiving a reply, like the scribe of O.Krok. 2.203 [2.115] (98–117 CE); this letter is already the fifth in a row. In P.Oxy. 14.1757.4–5 [2.133] (after 138 CE), a certain Horeis mentions that the present letter is already the second one he is writing, and he even accuses his addressee of treating him as someone worthless (lines 8–9). The author of 2 Pet also mentions in 3:1 that this letter is already his second, but this note is not connected with any complaint or accusation. In particular, letters that consist largely or even entirely of such complaints and express them in various emotional ways indicate that we are dealing here “with something more than a simple literary cliché” (*Zerbini 2014, 310). The Egyptian recruit Aurelius Polion wrote the papyrus letter P.Tebt. 2.583 [2.165] (II–III CE), which is probably the most extensive and vivid example, to his family back home in Egypt while he was stationed in Pannonia and obviously suffering from homesickness. Some other examples of very personal complaints about not receiving any letters can be found in O.Berenike 2.129.2–5 [2.79] (ca. 50–75 CE), BGU 2.530.8–14 [2.74] (I CE), P.Oxy. 85.5522.6–11 [2.97] (I–II CE), P.Mich. 8.496.6–11 [2.108] (ca. 100–147 CE), P.Oxy.Hels. 48.7–11 [2.163] (II–III CE), and P.Flor. 3.367 [2.174] (III CE). The ostracon letter O.Krok. 2.193.5–9 [2.118] (98–138 CE), on the other hand, illustrates that correspondents did not always accept the accusation of not having written and tried to explain the situation from their perspective. In P.Mich. 8.499.12–14 [2.109] (ca. 117–147 CE), Sabinianus assures his brother Apollinarios that he had written to him often, and that it was the carelessness of his letter carriers that made him seem negligent. A certain Nike also blames the letter carriers when she writes to her sister Berenike in P.Mert. 2.82.7–13 (with BL 5:67; late II CE): “I wrote to you, lady sister, two other times besides this one, and perhaps they were not delivered to you. And you wrote to me, ‘You did not write to me even once.’ Was I so rude

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

133

as not to write to you? For we write each time, and perhaps they do not deliver it to you.” When the accusation of being a negligent correspondent is introduced with a formula, it is usually done with the Greek verb θαυμάζω (“I wonder”), which immediately brings to mind Paul’s expression of astonishment in Gal 1:6 (see pp. 133–34). The unknown author of P.Ryl. 2.235 [2.147] (II CE) reports that he wondered why a certain Philon, although he had a letter carrier at hand, did not inform him of his good health. The sender of SB 14.11900 [2.148] (II CE), despite expressing astonishment that his father did not send an oral message or a letter, is primarily concerned about his father’s health and not about accusing him of negligence (cf. lines 6–13 with BL 11:214–15).70 The Latin equivalent (miror quod …) is attested by T.Vindol. 2.310.4–6 (Vindolanda/Britannia, ca. 97–103 CE): “I am surprised that you have written nothing back to me for such a long time.” The fact that this convention is not a formula of the letter opening is also confirmed by its appearance even far inside the letter corpus, such as in BGU 4.1041.12–14, P.Oxy. 1.113.19–22 [2.142] (both II CE), and CPR 7.57.14–18 (III–IV CE). The epistolary counterpart, in a sense, is the convention of asking the addressee not to worry about one’s own welfare, for which there is also no set place within the letter body. Some examples are P.Oxy. 8.1154.6–10 (late I CE), 3.530.21–23 (II CE), and P.Meyer 20.39–40 (first half III CE).

A Closer Look #3: Paul’s Complaint in Gal 1:6–7

Literature See pp. 131–32.

With regard to Gal 1:6, it has to be noted that all examples presented above, whether formulated with the expression of astonishment or not, are comparable with the Pauline passage only insofar as all of them express a disturbed relationship between sender and addressee. This is done albeit with different intensity, which is revealed only by the particular degree of rebuke or by the choice of words. In Gal 1:6–7, Paul is not complaining about the unwillingness of the addressees to maintain mutual correspondence but is expressing his astonishment that they have so quickly turned away from God and toward 70

Similar examples are P.Mich. 8.479.4–10 (early II CE); P.Mich. 3.209.6–11 [2.154]; 15.751.4– 10; P.Phil. 35.4–16 (all late II CE); PSI 14.1445.3–7; SB 18.13591.6–10 (both III CE); P.Oxy. 14.1770.8–11; P.Mert. 1.28.4–13 (both late III CE); P.Oxy. 1.123.5–9; 59.3997.3–8 (both III–IV CE).

134

Chapter 5

another gospel. By this, he more specifically means that there are some who want to confuse them and pervert the gospel of Christ. Better analogies to Gal 1:6–7 must therefore be sought in other contexts. Some lack of coordination is addressed at the beginning of the fragmentary letter BGU 3.850 (ca. 76–84 CE), where the gymnasiarch Chairemon writes to his “dearest” Apollonios: “I am surprised at your disorder, although I have asked you many times” (lines 3–5 with BL 13:27). What exactly Chairemon wishes to complain about or what he has often asked his addressee is not explained any further. Since Chairemon immediately afterwards extends an invitation to visit him for at least one day, the criticism may relate to the fact that a visit from Apollonios is long overdue. Such a case is certainly at issue in P.Flor. 2.195*.2–9 (26 Sep 249 or 253 or 260 CE) and in P.Oxy. 67.4627.3–11 (late III CE). Some letter writers are wondering why their addressees are not doing what they have been asked for; examples of this are P.Mert. 2.80.3–6 [2.137], P.Mil. 2.75.3–6 (both II CE), P.Prag. 1.109.r.3–8 (249–269 CE), and perhaps also P.Mil.Vogl. 4.256.3–5 (II–III CE). However, the closest analogy to Gal 1:6–7 is preserved by SB 14.11644 [2.99] (late I–II CE). The unknown sender of this letter, probably a woman and possibly the (former?) wife of the letter’s recipient, wonders why the man had left her, pretending to go to the village for her. She had expected him back on three separate occasions but had been disappointed. Moreover, he had informed her that he, and probably his family, despised her (lines 4–10). Right afterwards, the woman assures him that “the god knows how I love you in my soul and honor you like my brother” (lines 10–12). Another noteworthy and more or less contemporary example is preserved in P.Bad. 2.35 [2.87] (16 Dec 87 CE), a letter from a certain Ioanne who seems to be very annoyed with Epagathos. Immediately after the opening greeting, she reproaches him and writes: “I wonder why you have changed your faithfulness” (i.e., became faithless, lines 6–7).

Formulas and Clichés of the Middle Part of the Letter Body

Literature *Buzón 1984, 19–22, 54–69, 108–12, 166–71; *Steen 1938; *Stowers 1986, 23–26; *White 1972, 51–66, 88–97, 125–39; *White 1978, 299–308; *White 1981, 95–102; *White 1984, 1736–38; *White 1986, 203–13. – Special bibliography on particular formulas and conventions is also listed at the beginning of the subchapters. Middle parts of the body of New Testament letters Rom 1:18–15:13; 1 Cor 1:10–16:4; 2 Cor 2:14–12:13; Gal 1:11–6:10; Eph 2:1–6:17; Phil 1:12–4:20; Col 2:1–4:1; 1 Thess 2:1–5:24; 2 Thess 2:1–3:13; 1 Tim 1:3–6:19; 2 Tim 1:8–4:18; Titus 1:5–3:14; Phlm 8–20; Jas 1:2–5:18; 1 Pet 1:13–5:11; 2 Pet 1:5–3:16; 2 John 5–11; 3 John 5–12; Jude 3–23.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

135

As already mentioned (pp. 68–72), graphic markings were frequently used only for the separation of letter openings and letter closings, while hardly any structuring signs are to be found in the letter corpus. This is true for both short and long letters and even for the longest Greek papyrus letter preserved so far, P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] (324–330 CE?). To structure the body of letters, the scribes did not use paragraphs, headings, punctuation, or italics as we do today; rather, the Greco-Roman authors relied on verbal expressions to order or emphasize certain points, which means that the structuring and highlighting of particular messages or requests was accomplished not through graphic means, but through a variety of formulas or phrases. One of the first to examine the formulas and phrases of the middle (and central) part of the letter corpus was H. A. *Steen (1938), who made a rough distinction between expressions that attenuate a demand and those that intensify it. J. L. *White (1972; 1978, 299–308; 1981, 95–102; 1984, 1736–38; 1986, 203–13), on the other hand, distinguished between formulas that could be introductory, transitional, disclosing, or concluding. Furthermore, he distinguished between “formulas” and “phrases” (or “clichés”), arguing that “stock request phrases” should be considered “formulas,” while ornamentations or nuances should rather be classified as “clichés” (*White 1981, 102). In this context, it is difficult, for example, to classify the phrase “please be so good as to …” (literally “you will do well to …” or similar) in private letters, with which the sender introduces a request. *White (1981, 102), therefore, concludes: “the distinction between formula and cliché is sometimes difficult to determine. Nonetheless, it does seem important to work at clarifying the distinction if … in only a preliminary manner.” In the following subchapters, I will not simply repeat and extend Steen’s and White’s lists, but present only those formulas and clichés that are also evidenced in New Testament letters, and, in addition, group them according to their thematic contexts. A good example with several of the following categories in one letter is BGU 2.417 [2.83] (second half I CE).

Disclosure Formulas

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 251; 2014, 196; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 76–77, 362; *Asquith 2023, 222–327; *Drecoll 2006, 41–42; *Mullins 1972, 382–83; S. N. Olson 1985, “Pauline Expressions of Confidence in His Addressees,” CBQ 47:282–95; S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts 2013, “The Disclosure Formula in the Epistolary Papyri and in the New Testament: Development, Form, Function, and Syntax,” in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. idem and idem, Early Christianity in its Hellenistic Context 3; Linguistic Biblical Studies 6 (Leiden: Brill), 421–38; *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 171–72; D. I. Starling 2014, “‘We Do Not Want You to Be Unaware …’: Disclosure, Concealment and Suffering in 2 Cor 1–7,” NTS 60:266– 79; *White 1971, 93, 97; *White 1972, 11–15; *White 1981, 97–100; *White 1986, 204–7.

136

Chapter 5

New Testament Rom 1:13; 2:2; 3:19; 5:3; 6:3, 6, 9, 16; 7:1, 14, 18; 8:22, 28; 11:2, 22, 25; 14:14; 15:29; 1 Cor 3:16; 4:9; 5:6, 11; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 7:26, 40; 8:1, 4; 9:13, 24; 10:1; 11:3; 12:1, 2; 15:51, 58; 2 Cor 1:7, 8; 4:14; 5:1, 17; 6:2, 9; 7:11; 8:9; 9:5; 12:14; Gal 1:20; 2:16; 3:7; 4:13; Eph 5:5; 6:8, 9; Phil 1:12, 16, 19, 25; 2:22, 25; 4:15; Col 2:1; 3:24; 4:1; 1 Thess 1:5; 2:1, 2, 5, 11; 3:3, 4; 4:13; 5:2; 2 Thess 3:7; 1 Tim 1:8, 9; 2 Tim 1:15; 2:23; 3:1; Titus 3:11; Jas 1:3, 19; 2:20; 3:1, 4, 5; 4:4, 5; 5:4, 7, 9, 11; 1 Pet 1:18; 2 Pet 1:12, 13, 14, 20; 3:1, 3; 1 John 2:29; 3:1, 2, 5, 14, 15; 5:18–20; 3 John 12; Jude 5, 14.

As *White (1972, 11) observed, the “verb meaning ‘to know’ appears frequently in stereotyped phrases throughout the body and seems to be employed generally for transitional purposes.” Besides simple phrases with the indicative (“you know,”71 “I know”72), the imperative (“know”),73 or the participle (“knowing that,” which in some cases refers to the sender, in others to the recipient of the letter),74 there are also more sophisticated constructions in use such as the question “don’t you know that …?”,75 the clause “as you know”,76 or the phrase “I want you to know/understand that …”77 Examples of all these variants in papyrus or ostracon letters are numerous. Three selected examples for the indicative are BGU 1.37.6 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE), 2.417.25 [2.83] (second half I CE), and SB 20.14132.17–19 [2.101] (late I/early II CE), one for the imperative is BGU 4.1078.2 [2.72] (20 Oct 38 CE), and variants with the participle are preserved, for example, in line 5 of the same letter as well as in 2.417.11 [2.83], while the question “don’t you know that …?” is attested, for instance, in O.Krok. 2.296.25–26 [2.104] (98–117 CE), and the formula “I want you to know” in P.Turner 18.7–8 [2.90] (89–96 CE).78 Only the variant “I do not want you to be unaware that …” (used by Paul in Rom 1:13; 11:25; 1 Cor 10:1; 12:1; 2 Cor 1:8; 1 Thess 4:13) is not attested in the papyri so far,79 and analogies for “as you know” are rather late. Basically, the point of all variants is to draw the addressee’s attention in a special way to what 71 Examples in letters of the New Testament are 1  Cor 12:2; 2  Cor 8:9; Gal 4:13; Eph 5:5; Phil 2:22; 4:15; 1 Thess 2:1; 3:3; 5:2; 2 Thess 3:7; 2 Tim 1:15; Jas 1:19; 1 John 3:5, 15; 3 John 12. 72 Cf. Rom 2:2; 3:19; 7:14, 18; 8:22, 28; 14:14; 15:29; 1 Cor 8:1, 4; 2 Cor 5:1; Phil 1:19, 25; 1 Tim 1:8; 1 John 3:2, 14; 5:18–20. 73 Cf. Gal 3:7; 2 Tim 3:1; 1 John 2:29. 74 Cf. Rom 5:3; 6:9; 1  Cor 15:58; 2  Cor 1:7; 4:14; Gal 2:16; Eph 6:8–9; Phil 1:16; Col 3:24; 4:1; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:11; Phlm 21; Jas 3:1; 1 Pet 1:18; 2 Pet 1:14. 75 Cf. Rom 6:3, 16; 7:1; 11:2; 1 Cor 3:16; 5:6; 6:2–3, 9, 15–16, 19; 9:13, 24; Jas 4:4. 76 1 Thess 1:5; 2:2, 5, 11; 3:4. 77 Cf. 1 Cor 11:3; Phil 1:12; Col 2:1; Jas 2:20. 78 For some further examples see *White 1972, 11–15; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 251; 2014, 196; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 76–77. 79 Not as a question, but as a statement with a similar function, P.Brem. 6.3 (117–119 CE?) preserves the phrase: “I do not believe that you are unaware of the fact that …”; cf. P.Tebt. 2.314.3 (II CE): “I believe that you are not unaware.”

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

137

follows, whereby the variant with the question “Don’t you know that …?” will certainly have had the strongest effect and will often have been perceived as an implicit rebuke, which the author of O.Krok. 2.296.25–26 [2.104] even explicitly intends that way (note line 24 there). In addition to this general basis, which is common to both the authors of papyrus and ostracon letters and those of the New Testament letters, more profound parallels can also be found for many specific messages or concerns. Two examples are worth discussing in more detail here. In Phil 1:12–14, Paul addresses (“I want you to know, brothers and sisters”) his imprisonment and its consequences. At least in a remote way this can be compared with P.David 14 [2.157] (II CE?), since in both cases, adverse circumstances are strongly downplayed, in P.David 14 even to the extent that we do not learn anything concrete about them. Both letter writers, Paul and Dios in P.David 14, emphasize that their respective situations have become known to a wide circle of people, but without in any way jeopardizing the existing good relations between the correspondents. Paul, moreover, even emphasizes that his imprisonment had worked “for the greater progress of the gospel,” while Dios in P.David 14 hopes for the support of his letter partner to be freed from his miserable situation. In Phlm 21, Paul uses the disclosure formula in a polite way to express his demand to Philemon to go beyond what is required. He assures Philemon that he “knows” that the latter will do even more than what he is explicitly told in the letter. Some interesting parallels for such diplomacy can be found in several papyrus letters. In P.Oslo 3.148.6–13 (II–I BCE), for example, the unknown sender addresses his letter partner with the following words: “Knowing that you do not need any exhortation because you are of a different opinion and have considered the matter fully—and on the whole I should not attempt to state my opinion at greater length to one who is himself able to exhort others—I still adjure you not to reject this supplication.” An unknown letter sender concludes his letter to a certain Gaius Rustius, P.Oxy. 4.745 (ca. 1 CE), with the request “not to do otherwise,” and he adds: “But I know that you will do everything well; I do not want to have any dispute with you as you are my friend” (lines 7–9). P.Lond. 3.897 (pp. 206–7) was written not long after the Letter to Philemon—namely, on 29 March 84 CE; in col. 2.19–22 we read: “And about other necessary pending matters I wanted to write to you, by the gods, but I do not write this through the letter, because I know myself that you already excel in the matter.” All these letter senders thus confirm to their addressees that they “know” that the latter already excel positively, just as Paul “knows” that Philemon will be active beyond what Paul wants him to do. On the pragmatic level, however, the expression is far from genuine politeness because there the respective disclosure formula serves to increase the pressure on the addressee,

138

Chapter 5

who will hardly be able to refuse the request of a letter partner, when the latter emphasizes that he already “knows” that one will still do more than what is demanded. Only rarely do disclosure formulas consist of “I think” (δοκῶ) or “I believe” (νομίζω). The sender of BGU 8.1881 (80–30 BCE) informs a certain Apion about the conditions he noticed in the latter’s house, especially about the apparently criminal career of the female doorkeeper; in lines 6–7 he writes: “for it seems to me (or: I think, δοκῶ) that I am no longer in a house, but in a penitentiary.” The frustrated author of the draft letter BGU 4.1141 [2.58] (after 9 Apr 13 BCE) introduces the negated formula when he writes to his patron: “I do not think that you have me in the position of a showman” (line 9); and in lines 14–17 he emphasizes: “I do not think that I deserve to be insulted, for I have not wronged you in any way, and also to your friends it will not appear right that I am being insulted, as I am doing what is befitting to you.”80 From a somewhat similar perspective, Paul writes in 1 Cor 7:40: “I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” And also in the only other place where Paul uses the δοκῶ-formula (1 Cor 4:9), the context is quite dramatic: “For I think, God has exhibited us, the apostles, last of all as men condemned to death.” A parallel to Jas 4:5, where a rhetorical question is introduced with “or do you think (δοκεῖτε),” has not yet been attested in papyrus letters. In the New Testament letters, the formula with νομίζω (“I believe”) is found only in 1 Cor 7:26, where Paul writes in connection with marriage: “I believe, then, … that it is good for a person to remain as he is.” Significantly, it is also more frequently attested in the papyrus letters from the first century CE onwards. In P.Michael. 15.6 [2.85] (ca. 76–84 CE), for instance, the letter sender assures his addressee that a certain Dios will fulfill his orders. The author of BGU 1.248 (ca. 76–84 CE) expresses a similar opinion directly to his addressee when he writes in line 29 (with BL 3:10): “And I believe that you will not grieve (perhaps: disappoint) me in this.” One further example is preserved in P.Oxy. Hels. 48.15–17 [2.163] (II–III CE). The formula “I remind you” clearly refers to something that has already been communicated to the addressees. In 2 Pet 1:12 and Jude 5 this is expressed by the remark that the addressees already know about the matter in question anyway. A selected example from papyrus letters is PSI 14.1414.4–9 (II CE?): “As I have already asked you face to face for the repair of the water wheel, I remind you also now through this my letter.”81 80 Some further examples are P.Ryl. 2.229.15–16 (20 Feb 38 CE), P.Brem. 9.9 (113–120 CE), P.Mil.Vogl. 1.24.24 (7 Dec 117 CE), and P.Giss. 1.79.4.5–6 (ca. 117 CE). 81 Another selected, but rather late example is P.Ammon 1.3.5.18 [2.188] (324–330 CE?).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

139

A very rare disclosure formula is the imperative of ὁράω (“see, look”) which is more often used to introduce a request (cf. p. 148). An illustrative example is P.Hamb. 4.257.17–18 (II–III CE): “Look, how many orders and how often I write to you.” P.Tebt. 2.583.26–27 [2.165] (II–III CE) might also have evidence for the formula, but it is fragmentary. A reference from the first century CE is P.Erl. 117.6–7 (I CE): “If you want something, look, it is there.” The author of P.Hamb. 1.86 (II CE) informs her brother of the important fact that the Roman prefect is about to arrive at his place: “Look, the prefect went upriver.” As in Rom 11:22 and 1 John 3:1, the imperative “look” introduces and emphasizes information of great importance. Much more frequently used is the form ἰδού, an adverbial proclitic particle that can be translated as “lo!” or “behold!” or again as “look!” Some examples from papyrus and ostracon letters of the first century CE are P.Oxy. 10.1291.7 (25 Nov 30 CE), P.Yale 1.78.4 (first half I CE),82 O.Berenike 2.195.6 (third quarter I CE), SB 22.15661.9 (I CE), and PSI 16.1645.5 (late I CE), two from later centuries are P.Mich. 3.203.9 [2.125] (114–116 CE) and P.Tebt. 2.583.26 [2.165] (II–III CE). In New Testament letters, the form shows up in 1 Cor 15:51; 2 Cor 5:17; 6:2, 9; 7:11; 12:14; Gal 1:20; Jas 3:4, 5; 5:4, 7, 9, 11; Jude 14. The formula “I think/consider it necessary” serves to emphasize the importance of a message. In the introductory part of the letter body, it underlines the priority of writing the present letter (see p. 118). In the middle part of the corpus of letters, the messages emphasized with this formula are of a more individual nature. For example, the need for official publication is the subject of P.Lond. 6.1912.6–11 [1.39] (10 Nov 41 CE) and SB 14.12144.1–4 (198/199 CE), whereas the author of P.Oxy. 18.2191.4–10 (II CE) considers it necessary to inform his letter partner of his and his family’s safe arrival at Puteoli in Italy. According to O.Krok. 2.333.6–9 (98–138 CE), the letter sender found it necessary to go to a bakery (?) himself and check something. Regarding 2 Cor 9:5 and Phil 2:25, Paul explains in both cases that he felt it necessary to send someone to his addressees, which is somehow similar to BGU 16.2619.3–10 [2.63] (ca. 21 BCE–5 CE), although here the account is somewhat reversed: since a certain Ammon is traveling to the addressee anyway, Erasistratos, the sender of the letter, considers it necessary to remind his addressee of his previously communicated wishes; but ultimately, Ammon is also used here to urge the addressee to finally comply with the letter sender’s wishes. The phrase “I consider it right,” attested in 2 Pet 1:13, cannot be regarded as a formula, since it is so far not preserved in any papyrus or ostracon letter; the nearest parallel is perhaps P.Giss. 1.79.4.5–6 (ca. 117 CE), but with a different verb. 82

See the new edition by A. Maravela and J. Stolk from 2018, BASP 55:275–80 (TM 25118).

140

Chapter 5

Requests and Commands

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 190–91; P. Arzt-Grabner 2004, “Onesimus erro: Zur Vorgeschichte des Philemonbriefes,” ZNW 95:131–43; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 58–59; C. L. Bjerkelund 1967, Parakalô: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen, Bibliotheca Theologica Norvegica 1 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget); W. Clarysse 2018, “Letters from High to Low in the Greco-Roman Period,” in *Cromwell and Grossman 2018, 240–50; *Di Bartolo 2021, 12–52; E. Dickey 2010, “Latin Influence and Greek Request Formulae,” in *Evans and Obbink 2010, 208–20; E. Dickey 2016, “Emotional Language and Formulae of Persuasion in Greek Papyrus Letters,” in Emotion and Persuasion in Classical Antiquity, ed. E. Sanders and M. Johncock (Stuttgart: Steiner), 237–62; C. J. Haddad 2019, “Phraseological Borrowing and Interference in Two Formulaic Expressions Found in Roman Letters in Greek,” ZPE 212:147–57; H. Halla-aho 2010, “Requesting in a Letter: Context, Syntax and the Choice between Complements in the Letters of Cicero and Pliny the Younger,” Transactions of the Philological Society 108:232–47; J. Knox 1935, Philemon among the Letters of Paul: A New View of Its Place and Importance, rev. ed. New York: Abingdon 1959 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), esp. 17–18; *Kreinecker 2010, 76–95; *Kreinecker 2013; J. A. L. Lee 2010, “Auxiliary θέλω,” in *Evans and Obbink 2010, 15–34; M. Leiwo 2010, “Imperatives and Other Directives in the Greek Letters from the Mons Claudianus,” in *Evans and Obbink 2010, 97–119; J. T. Reed 1996b, “Philippians 3:1 and the Epistolary Hesitation Formulas: The Literary Integrity of Philippians, Again,” JBL 115:63–90; U. Roth 2014, “Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus: A Christian Design for Mastery,” ZNW 105:102–30, here 113–14; *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 172–73; *Steen 1938; *Stowers 1986, 23–26, 90–132; *Tibiletti 1979, 70–74, 82–84; *White 1971, 93, 96; *White 1986, 194–95, 204–11; S. C. Winter 1987, “Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” NTS 33:1–15; *Zerbini 2014, 313–16. New Testament Rom 12:1, 18; 15:30; 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; 4:16; 7:37–38; 16:15–16; 2 Cor 1:23; 2:8; 5:20–6:1; 10:1–2; Gal 4:12; Eph 3:13; 4:1; Phil 4:2–3; 1 Thess 4:1, 10; 5:12, 14, 15; 2 Thess 2:1–2; 3:12; 1 Tim 2:1–2; 2 Tim 2:15; 4:9; Titus 3:12; Phlm 9–10; Jas 2:8, 19; 1 Pet 2:11; 5:1–3; 2 Pet 1:10, 19; 3:14; 2 John 5; 3 John 6; Jude 3.

As Clarysse (2018) has observed, letters from superiors to their inferiors are usually filled with imperatives and contain hardly any philophronetic formulas. They express urgency in the form of rebukes, orders, and prohibitions, and are almost completely devoid of politeness. Although New Testament letters in general might also fall into this category, which means that they are in a sense addressed from superiors to inferiors, it seems that their authors rarely demand anything in a purely authoritarian way, but rather struggle for the consent of their addressees. Moreover, they certainly contain many philophronetic formulas and conventions, as the corresponding letter openings and introductory parts of the letter corpus show. What papyrus and ostracon letters certainly have in common with the letters of the New Testament is the fact that their authors repeatedly resort to a large repertoire of expressions and

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

141

formulas with which commands can be attenuated or modified on the one hand, but also intensified or reinforced on the other. In Rom 12:18, the appeal to “be at peace with all people” is modified by “if possible.” In P.Col. 8.215.21–23 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE), a certain Apollonous is asking and begging her mother to see her little girl three times a day, if possible. In a letter of invitation, BGU 1.333 (II–III CE), the unknown addressee is asked to do everything, if it is possible, to come—presumably together with his wife or family—to the birthday party of “our son Sarapion” (lines 3–6; cf. *Steen (1938, 126–27). Another attenuating clause, but not used in New Testament letters, is “if it seems right to you” (sometimes translated as “if it pleases you”). In BGU 16.2631 [2.61] (2 Mar 9 BCE), three commands are softened by this formula (lines 7, 13, and 17), in 2608.5 [2.66] (14 Mar 7 or 4 BCE?) the first request is introduced by it. According to *Steen (1938, 131–38), also verbal forms such as “I beg,” “I ask,” or “I entreat” serve to attenuate the harshness of an imperative or a demand. Perhaps the overall most frequently used forms of introduction to a request in letters preserved on papyri or ostraca, as well as in the letters of the New Testament, are παρακαλῶ and παρακαλοῦμεν (“I/we appeal to, beg”). All of the constructions attested in the papyri and ostraca also occur in the New Testament with the exception of the passive aorist participle, meaning simply “please” and followed by an imperative as in P.Fay. 109.3, 10 [2.70] (19 Jun 10 BCE or 34 CE). The constructions with an infinitive (used in Rom 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 2 Cor 2:8; 6:1; Eph 4:1; Phil 4:2; 1 Tim 2:1–2; 1 Pet 5:1–3) or a subordinate clause introduced with a final “(so) that” (1 Cor 1:10; 16:15–16; 1 Thess 4:1, 10; 2 Thess 3:12) are the most frequent ones. In 2 Cor 10:1, “I beg” is used in a quasiabsolute position; the actual request follows only after “I entreat” in v. 2 (similarly in Phlm 9, after which Paul repeats “I beg” in v. 10).83 The following selection of examples may suffice here to illustrate the use of the verb παρακαλέω (“I beg”) in the papyrus and ostracon letters. In P.Haun. 2.28.6–7 (31 Aug 31 CE), an unknown letter sender asks a woman (possibly his wife): “I beg you earnestly to take care of yourself so that you stay healthy.” The sender of P.Giss. 1.85 (ca. 117 CE) begs his addressee to turn to a guardian who should provide him with some school supplies (lines 12–15 with BL 3:68). The author of BGU 2.665 (I CE) begs his father to go to the pregnant wife of a friend and assist her during childbirth (col. 2.12–15). In P.Giss. 1.12.4–7 (ca. 113–120 CE), 83

Actually, the whole passage Phlm 9–16 introduces the letter’s main request in v. 17 which is formulated with an imperative. – On Jude 3 see below.

142

Chapter 5

the clerk Chairemon begs the strategos Apollonios, who is still in charge of the family’s weaving workshop during his time in office, to send him a certain pattern. And in O.Krok. 2.155.4–9 [2.117] (98–138 CE), the businessman and pimp Philokles writes to his business partner Kapparis and the latter’s companion Didyme: “I beg you to look after my child and her mother and everything in the house as always.” In P.Oxy. 42.3057.11–13 [2.96] (I–II CE) and BGU 2.531.1.21 [2.84] (ca. 76–84 CE), the appeal is emphasized by the metaphorical address “brother” used in its context.84 By analogy with line 14 of col. 2 of the latter papyrus and with other texts, Paul’s formulation in Phlm 10 clearly suggests the meaning “I ask you on behalf of/concerning Onesimus.” The interpretation “I ask you for …” (suggested by Knox 1935, esp. 17–18; Winter 1987; Roth 2014, 113–14) neglects that the actual request with the imperative in v. 17 is precisely not that Philemon should leave his slave to Paul, but that he should receive him back as if he were Paul himself (*Arzt-Grabner 2003, 101–2). In comparison with Paul’s appeal to Philemon, it is also noteworthy that “I beg” introduces the main request of several letters of recommendation, such as in P.Oxy. 2.292.5–7 [2.71] (ca. 25 CE), BGU 16.2623.7–10 [2.59] (17 Apr 10 BCE), and P.Oslo 2.51.6–8 (II CE). In the undisputed Pauline letters, requests introduced with “I/we beg” are not only found at the beginning (as in 2 Cor 2:8) or toward the end of a letter (as in Phil 4:2), yet it can be observed that the verb frequently introduces a new thought or line of thoughts (cf. Rom 12:1; 15:30; 16:17; 1  Cor 1:10; 16:15; 2 Cor 6:1; 10:1; 1 Thess 4:1; 5:14; Phlm 9, 10) or summarizes the previous concern (cf. 1 Cor 4:16; 1 Thess 4:10). The use of the verb in other New Testament letters is similar (Eph 4:1; 1 Tim 2:1; 1 Pet 2:11; 5:1). In 1 Thess 4:10–11 and 2 Thess 3:12,“we beg” is found in the similarly phrased appeal to live a peaceful life and work for one’s own sustenance, but the combination of “we command and beg” in 2  Thess 3:12 is not attested in authentic Pauline letters or in papyrus letters, which *Kreinecker (2010, 92–99; 2013, 212–19) takes as an indication of the pseudepigraphic origin of 2 Thess. A request introduced only with “I command” alone cannot be attested in a letter before the third century CE, and 84

Some further examples from the first century CE are: P.Oxy. 12.1480.18–21 (14 Feb 32 CE); SB 10.10240.24 (16 Nov 41 CE); BGU 4.1095.22 (6 Jul 57 CE); SB 6.9122.9–10 (ca. 57 CE); P.Oslo 2.48.4–5 (9 Jan 61 CE); P.Lond. 3.897.2.22–23 (pp. 206–7; 29 Mar 84 CE). Later examples in letters presented in full in this volume are: P.Brem. 20.11–14 [2.128] (second half 116–120 CE?); P.Mich. 8.499.15–16 [2.109] (117–147 CE); P.Oxy. 1.119.13–14 [1.1] (II–III CE); see also SB 14.11900.8–9 [2.148] (II CE).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

143

also for this comparatively late time so far only in P.Oxy. 6.937.8–9 (III CE) and PSI Com. 6.18.5 (III–IV CE). For more emphasis, the expression “I/we beg” is sometimes repeated. Examples in New Testament letters are Phil 4:2 and Phlm 9–10, which may be compared with BGU 3.846 [2.134] (II CE; cf. lines 10, 19, 21), and especially with P.Lond. 2.144.3–13 (p. 253) [2.161] (II–III CE). Another appeal introduced with “I beg” from the New Testament letters is attested in Jude 3, where, however, the participle is used, which is also preceded by a modifying phrase: “I felt the necessity to write to you, begging that you contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints.” An analogy for the whole construction, including the modifying clause, may be seen in P.Oxy. 7.1061.2–10 [2.57] (25 Jun–24 Jul 22 BCE). In both cases, the urgency of the appeal is emphasized by the modifying clause. For a similar purpose, an adverb is used in P.Oxy. 8.1153.11–12 (I CE): “I thought it necessary to notify you about what I said.” In rare cases, the phrase “I beg you” may be intensified by an adverb. P.Haun. 2.28.6–7 (31 Aug 31 CE) reads: “I beg you seriously to look after yourself so that you stay healthy.” BGU 8.1874.8–9 (19 May 69 or 12 May 40 BCE) has: “But most of all, I beg that you take care of your body,” which is very similar to 1 Tim 2:1. The fact that in BGU 8.1874 such a formulation is articulated only before the final greeting indicates that it is not a matter of temporal priority, but of special urgency. The forms ἐρωτῶ and ἐρωτῶμεν (“I/we ask”) are used much less frequently to introduce requests than “I/we beg.” A unique example is preserved in P.Mich. 8.502.5–6 [2.141] (II CE), where the letter author asks his addressee to write to him and adds: “The gods ask you for the same thing.” A similar reference is P.Mich. 8.465.35–37 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?). Numerous requests from everyday life concern the sending of items of various kinds, for example, “a strong caustic which can safely be used to cauterize the soles (of the feet)” as requested by a physician in P.Mert. 1.12.17–21 [2.78] (26 Apr 59 CE). A series of four requests, all introduced by “I ask,” is preserved in P.Col. 8.215 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE), the letter from Apollonous to her mother Thermouthas: After reporting her joy at receiving good news about the mother’s health, Apollonous asks her earnestly and begs her to take care of herself and “the little girl” so that they may get safely through the winter (lines 8–11). In a second request, Apollonous asks her mother to send her word as soon as she has heard about a certain Thermouthas (lines 15–16). Through the third request in lines 17–20 the mother is asked to write about her own and “the little girl’s” health.

144

Chapter 5

The immediately following fourth request, introduced by “I ask and beg you,” concerns the little girl in an additional way: the mother should see her three times a day, if possible (lines 21–23). A similar series of requests is preserved in P.Mich. 8.465.22–24, 29–31, 35–38 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?).85 At the beginning of the letter P.Mich. 3.202 (5 May 105 CE), a certain Valeria reminds her addressee Thermouthion that she had asked her earlier to come to her to take a freeborn child and rear it for a higher wage than a slave child (see also p. 95); at the end of the letter (in lines 26–29), she summarizes her request and underscores her main argument with the following words: “I ask you to sail down so that you may prosper, for a freeborn child is entirely different from a slave child.” In P.Mich. 8.491.9–11 [2.140] (II CE), the soldier Apollinarios asks his mother Taesis to take care of herself and not to worry about him, because after his arrival in Rome he has come to a beautiful place. A rather general but sharply formulated request is preserved in O.Krok. 2.288.6–8 [2.103] (98–117 CE): “I ask you, lady: obey my orders which I have ordered you.” Two other illustrative examples are P.Turner 18.10–14 [2.90] (89–96 CE) and O.Did. 451.5–6 [1.36] (before ca. 176–210 CE). In the letters of the New Testament, “I/we ask” is attested only five times. Suitable parallels in papyrus letters can be found especially to Phil 4:3 where Paul asks a “true companion” to help the two women Euodia and Syntyche whom he has begged in v. 1 to live in harmony in the lord.86 Requests to support others are, indeed, often introduced by “I ask” in papyrus letters, especially in letters of recommendation. TM 10546.9–13 (P.Lond. inv. 2553 + P.Col. 8.211; 16 Feb 6 CE) and TM 130712.10–14 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69] (spring 6 CE) were both written in support of Isidoros son of Isidoros from Psophthis in the Memphite nome (see pp. 39–41). The author of the Latin letter of recommendation T.Vindol. 2.250 [2.95] from Vindolanda/Britannia, written between ca. 97 and 103 CE, used the Latin equivalent rogo (lines 5–11).87 Pleas to support or help others are also attested in some private letters, such as P.Mich. 8.487 [2.107] (ca. 100–147 CE), a letter from Apollinarios to his brother Sempronius, who is asked to assist a certain Eros so that he may reach his home safely (lines 10–12). The best parallel to Phil 4:3, however, is provided by the ostracon letter O.Claud. 1.152 (ca. 100–120 CE). The beginning of the letter is fragmentary, but it was obviously addressed to several people. Similar to the Pauline passage, a 85

Some other examples of asking the addressees to send a message about their health condition are: O.Claud. 1.168.5–6 (ca. 100–120 CE); P.Wisc. 2.72.23–26 (II CE); BGU 2.423.11–14 [1.44] (II CE, after 105 CE). 86 The other passages in New Testament letters are 1 Thess 4:1; 5:12; 2 Thess 2:1–2; 2 John 5. On the combination “we ask and beg you” in 1 Thess 4:1 see further below. 87 Further examples are: SB 6.9564.4–8 (I BCE); P.Oxy. 4.787 (6 Apr 16 CE); P.Herm. 1.3–5 with BL 8:149 (I CE); SB 6.9636 (135/136 CE).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

145

request in lines 8–11 is addressed to only one of them, who is explicitly called out by name, and all the other addressees are asked to assist him; the passage reads: “And I ask Hermogenes and all of you to help him so that he may do whatever my sister asks of him.” It is clear from the context that the unknown sender of the letter will send his sister to the addressees the following day, requesting with this letter to receive her accordingly and to support her in everything she needs. As in Phil 4:3, the request is directed to an individual member of a group, and in a similar way, it concerns the assistance of women or a woman respectively. In summary, “I/we ask you” introduces a personal, sometimes urgent, but always specific request that can be expressed with emotional emphasis. The form is found almost exclusively in private letters to address a variety of pleas relating to a personal, business, or legal concern (*Kreinecker 2010, 77–84; 2013, 199–204). As *Kreinecker (2010, 84–86; 2013, 204–6) has observed, the use of “we ask” in 2 Thess 2:1–2 differs formally and in content from both the papyrological usage and that occurring in the undisputed Pauline letters and in 2 John 5. Although “we ask you” in 2 Thess 2:1 also introduces an urgent, personal request, this request is not to be situated on the relational level between the correspondents, but it is about “theoretical” questions of the doctrine of faith, which (can) have practical consequences, but on a meta-level. For Kreinecker, this fact is one of several indications that the author of 2  Thess differs from both the Pauline letters and the papyrus letters in the sense of an “imitation hypothesis” and therefore cannot be identified with Paul. In addition to the aforementioned observations and analogies, it is worth noting that the sequence “I/we beg you” followed by “I/we ask you” is found not only in two passages in Paul’s letters (Phil 4:2–3 as well as 1 Thess 5:12 and 14) but also in two private letters, one preserved on papyrus and the other one on a wooden tablet. In P.Mich. 8.487 [2.107] (ca. 100–147 CE), the request for news about the addressee’s welfare (lines 6–8), introduced with “I beg,” is followed in lines 11–12 by a request that is introduced with “I ask” and concerns a certain Eros who should be assisted to reach his home safely. In a letter accompanying a mummy, Short Texts 2.437 (II–III CE), the mother of the deceased addresses her two brothers with a plea, which she first introduces with “I beg you,” but then interrupts by inserting her own name and that of her co-sender before continuing the request with “I ask you”: “I beg you, I Tatriphous as well as Kephalas, when Didymos, my son, arrives, I ask you to send a letter that you have received him, so that I too may regain my peace” (lines 16–26). The reverse sequence “I/we ask you” followed by “I/we beg you” as in 1 Thess 4:1 is found in lines 18–19 of the private letter P.Würzb. 21 (II CE): “I ask you now, my lord father, and beg you, if you will, not to persuade me further again.” In both cases, this form of plea refers to a similar request introduced

146

Chapter 5

earlier in the letter with “I beg” (1 Thess 4:1 refers to 2:12, lines 18–19 of P.Würzb. 21 refer to lines 11–12). Some further examples of “I ask and beg you” are P.Oxy. 2.294.28–30 (11 Dec 22 CE); 4.744.6–7 [2.67] (17 Jun 1 BCE), SB 5.7600.4–8 [1.38] (12 Apr 16 CE), O.Berenike 2.129.7–10, 14–15 [2.79] (ca. 50–75 CE), and P.Col. 8.215.8–10, 21–23 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE). The combination “I ask and beg” may be explained as reflecting the influence from Latin rogo et oro or rogo atque oro (Dickey 2010, 217–18; Haddad 2019, 151–52) or as a broader phenomenon, since it is attested often enough in the Greek papyri (*Di Bartolo 2021, 27). As another formula of request, δέομαι (“I ask, entreat”) is well attested from the third century BCE onwards. Contrary to its use in the Classical period, the term does no longer seem “to put pressure on the addressee to fulfill the request” or convey “emotional force,” but has become “an element of formulaic politeness” (Dickey 2016, 246). Nonetheless, the concerns raised are of great urgency, best evidenced by the regular use of the term in petitions, where it is used more frequently than in letters. A good example of the latter genre which is also comparable to 2 Cor 10:1–2, is found in P.Lond. 2.144 (p. 253) [2.161] (II– III CE): The servant Alexandros at first urgently “begs” a certain Athenodoros to provide a donkey so that the necessary provisions can be delivered to him (lines 10–13), before he “entreats” his master not to leave him uncared for in a foreign land (lines 13–15). The same order of terms is used by Paul in 2 Cor 10:1– 2 where he first “begs” (v. 1) and then “entreats” the members of the assembly not (to force him) to be bold when he is back among them (v. 2).88 The reverse sequence is attested in 2 Cor 5:20–6:1, to which SB 14.12026.3–9 [2.166] (II–III CE) is well comparable; the letter author, facing an unspecified emergency, introduces his plea for help with the rather intense “I entreat,” but continues with the more personal “I beg you.” In PSI 16.1624.6–7 (60–125 CE), one Hermaios introduces his request to his father Eudaimon by the following combination: “I entreat and beg you to make haste to …” (after that the papyrus fragment breaks off). In 2 Cor 5:20 the formula “I entreat you” is followed by an imperative, and in Gal 4:12 it is preceded by one, but its function is always the same. An introduction to a letter’s request that is used excessively in papyrus and ostracon letters is “you will/would do well” followed by a participle, an infinitive, an imperative, or a conditional clause. Its function corresponds to our

88

Some other examples of constructing “I entreat” with an infinitive are BGU 16.2614.6–8 (21 BCE–5 CE); 2.530.5–7 [2.74] (I CE); 3.747.2.16–18 (before 30 Mar 139 CE); P.Oxy. 34.2726.5–11; 75.5055.5–11 (both II CE); PSI 13.1359.6–9 (II–III CE).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

147

simple “please,” which is why I chose the translation “please be so good as to.”89 In the New Testament letters, however, this phrase is found extremely rarely and even then mostly in a syntactical position that is not directly comparable (Jas 2:8, 19; 2 Pet 1:19). The closest parallel is 3 John 6.90 The form βούλομαι (“I wish”) occurs in private letters to introduce the sender’s own intentions (e.g., the wish to visit the addressee) or in the final greeting (“I wish you farewell” as a variant of “I pray that you fare well”). Otherwise, the form is found in coined usage in petitions, contracts, or offers (e.g., leases), as well as in a few official letters, such as P.Oxy. 45.3240.14–16 (ca. 88/89 CE). This may well be seen as significant for the character of the Pastorals, since within the New Testament letters the form “I wish” is used only there to introduce an appeal to the addressee (1 Tim 2:8; 5:14; Titus 3:8). The form θέλω (“I want”) is used mainly as part of the disclosure formula “I want you to know” (see p. 136), but rarely to introduce a request to the recipient of a letter. One example is P.IFAO 2.8.4–5 (I CE): “I want you to receive the letter quickly,” another one BGU 2.531.2.12–13 [2.84] (ca. 76–84 CE): “I want you to obey me in everything so that nothing escapes my notice.” Within the New Testament letters, the clause is used only by Paul, once in Romans (16:19) and four times in 1 Cor (7:7, 32; 10:20; 14:5). With so few examples, it is of course difficult to establish any pattern or tendency, but at least three out of five examples involve the wish for the addressees to exhibit a certain way of being: Rom 16:19 “to be wise in what is good, and innocent in what is evil”; 1 Cor 7:7 to be like Paul himself; v. 32 “to be free from concern.” To the latter example, SB 14.11901.5–8 (III CE) represents a later and distant parallel: “I want you to be quite free from concern knowing that, upon your return, you will see how diligently your accounts (?) had been managed.” The middle form αἰτέομαι (“I ask for myself” or “I claim”) is used in many petitions, orders, and similar documents, but rarely in letters, and when it is used there, it is for monetary or similar demands,91 as in many of the other documents. Its use in Eph 3:13 can be seen as an emphasis, but still seems odd in a letter. An occasionally used cliché to intensify a request is the imperative form of σπουδάζω (“to be eager or diligent, to make every effort”) followed by an infinitive. In papyrus or ostracon letters, it is often used to urge the addressee to send 89 Some early examples from letters presented in full in this volume are: BGU 16.2618.17 [2.64] (10 May 7 BCE); 2654.4–5 [2.65] (14 Jul 6 BCE); BGU 3.830.4–5 [2.75] (I CE); P.Fouad 75.3 [2.81] (15 Oct 64 CE); P.Oxy. 2.300.5 [2.88] (late I CE); P.Mich. 3.201.4–5 [2.93] (11 Feb 99 CE); O.Krok. 2.193.23 [2.118] (98–138 CE). 90 In 1 Cor 7:37–38 the phrase is used twice for third parties. 91 Examples are SB 10.10529b.14 (I–II CE?) and 14.12155.6–22 (30 Apr 232 CE).

148

Chapter 5

something.92 In BGU 4.1080.14–16 [2.180] (III CE?) and SB 22.15603.9–12 (late III CE), the addressee is seriously asked to write back. In P.Warr. 15.v.29–30 (second half II CE), the clause is used as letter closing and thus emphasizes all orders expressed in the letter: “And hurry up, brother.” Calls for morally impeccable behavior as in 2 Tim (2:15) and 2 Pet (1:10; 3:14), however, are not found in the papyrus letters in such a context; even O.Deiss. 65 (III CE), an ostracon letter in which the addressee is ordered to “absolutely make an effort with Eudaimon until he fills the two Colophonian wine jars with pickled fish” (lines 2–4), is not really comparable to these passages. Yet the expression still occurs relatively often in the request to make every effort to come soon for a visit, which is also attested for two New Testament letters (2 Tim 4:9, 21; Titus 3:12); some examples are O.Did. 329.4–10 (before ca. 77–92 CE); BGU 13.2349.5; SB 14.12083.6–8 (both II CE); P.Iand. 6.115.10–11 (III CE); P.Mich. 8.516.5–9 (late III CE). Another verbal expression of intensification is formed by the negated verb “to hesitate” (ὀκνέω) or the adverb “without hesitation” (ἀόκνως). Both variants are often used to emphasize the request to write back. In P.Corn. 49.7–12 (I CE), for example, a certain Diogenes urges his mother to write to him about the things she needs, and he adds: “Do not hesitate to write to me, knowing that I will act without delay.” Some other evidence includes P.Mich. 8.465.35–38 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?), 482.22–23 [2.110] (23 Aug 133 CE), 490.12–14 [2.139] (II CE), and SB 3.6263.8–10 [2.153] (late II CE; see also Reed 1996b, 66–70). Contrary to Reed (1996b, 65–66, 70–72), notifications containing the verb or adverb are too diverse to allow a specific epistolary formula to be discerned in them, which is why Phil 3:1 cannot be explained in terms of such a formula either. Finally, one way of intensifying a request that is used both in private letters and in letters of the New Testament is with the imperative “look, see” (in Greek ὅρα or ὁρᾶτε). As analogies to 1 Thess 5:15, the following passages from letters written in the first century CE can be mentioned: P.Oslo 2.47.8–10 [2.68] (23 Aug 1 CE); BGU 1.37.5–6 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE); 2.417.10–11 [2.83] (second half I CE). One further selected example is P.Oxy. 3.531.9–10 (II CE): “See that you do not offend any of the persons at home.”

92 Some examples are: BGU 16.2637.10–12 (3/2 BCE); P.Bagnall 12.4–5 (ca. 115–130 CE); P.Yadin 2.52.5–7 [1.41] (Judea, Sep–Oct 135 CE); O.Claud. 2.271.12–13 (mid II CE); P.Mil. Vogl. 3.201.7–10; P.Oxy. 1.113.24–26 [2.142]; TM 140652.4–10 (P.Cairo Museum SR 3065/2) (all II CE).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés



149

References to Previous Messages and Current Letters

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 194–95; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 218–19; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 154–58, 167–69; E.-M. Becker 2012a, “Paulus als weinender Briefeschreiber (2Kor 2,4): Epistolare parousia im Zeichen visualisierter Emotionalität,” in Der zweite Korintherbrief: Literarische Gestalt – historische Situation – theologische Argumentation. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Dietrich-Alex Koch, ed. D. Sänger, FRLANT 250 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 11–26; E.-M. Becker 2012b, “Die Tränen des Paulus (2Kor 2:4; Phil 3:18): Emotion oder Topos?,” in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, ed. R. Egger-Wenzel and J. Corley, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2011 (Berlin: De Gruyter), 361–78; F. Eakin 1916, “Aorists and Perfects in First-Century Papyri,” AmJT 20:266–73; *Koskenniemi 1956,189–200; K. L. McKay 1995, “Observations on the Epistolary Aorist in 2 Corinthians,” NovT 37:154–58; *Trapp 2003, 36. New Testament 1 Cor 5:9, 11; 2 Cor 2:3–4, 9; 7:8–12; 13:2; Phil 3:18; 1 Thess 3:4–8; 1 Tim 1:3–5; 2 Pet 3:1.

Today, when we refer to our own current letter, we generally use a present tense (e.g., “I am writing” or “I am sending”). The ancient letter writers, however, used phrases like “I wrote” or “I sent” in comparable situations, because they did not describe such things from their own perspective, but from that of the recipient, for whom the writing or sending of the letter was—at the time of its reception—already an event in the past (see also p. 212). Since in Greek the tense used for this form of expression is usually the aorist, it is called epistolary aorist, which is already attested in Syll.3 3.1259.2 [2.54] (early IV BCE). In P.Lips. 1.108.3–9 [2.160] (II–III CE), not only the writing of the current letter is formulated in the epistolary aorist, but also the present inability of the author to visit the addressee and the sending of the letter. The writer of O.Did. 343 [2.86] (before ca. 77–92 CE) even uses the present tense (“you write” in lines 5–6) to refer to his correspondent’s earlier letter (preserved in O.Did. 342), but epistolary aorists when his own current letter is referred to (O.Did. 343.7, 8). Examples like these are quite easy to recognize, but since the literal expression “I wrote to you” can refer to both the current letter (as an epistolary aorist) and a previous one (as a real aorist), it is sometimes not easy to know immediately what the writer of the letter really means. Therefore, a letter writer sometimes explicitly refers to a letter as the “previous” or the “other” or “that” letter to emphasize that he now wishes to recall the contents of a letter written earlier and already received by the recipient. In P.Oxy. 42.3057.24–25 [2.96] (I–II CE), for example, the letter author refers to his “previous letter” in which he wrote ridiculous things; now he asks his addressee to ignore it. A certain Isidoros reminds his sons in O.Claud. 1.174.3–5 [2.122] (early II CE) that he wrote to

150

Chapter 5

them through “another ostracon” that they should send him a small pillow for his elbow because he suffers pain while sleeping; since he has not received it so far, he now asks them again to send it. And in O.Claud. 1.158.7–12 [2.105] (ca. 110 CE), Domitius Capito reminds his brother Ballion that he wrote “another letter” to him that he should send five staters to the eranarch. As these selected examples already demonstrate, references to earlier letters serve to repeat an appeal, to emphasize its importance, or to modify or even withdraw an earlier statement. The letter to which Paul refers in 2 Cor 7:8–12 is clearly identifiable as an earlier letter by its characterization as “that letter” in v. 8. In the case of 2 Cor 2:3–4 and 9, however, it is not easy to decide whether the aorist forms “I wrote” refer to a previous letter or, as epistolary aorists, to the present one. Traditionally, biblical scholars assume the first possibility, but from the context, also the second option is possible, for writing “out of much affliction and anguish of heart” (2:4) is more reminiscent of the description of Paul’s present situation (cf. 1:8, where he refers to the affliction which occurred in Asia).93 A good parallel to Phil 3:18 is provided, for example, by P.Brem. 17 (ca. 113–120 CE), a letter to Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (see p. 329), to whom the central concern of the letter is introduced with the following words: “Often I have written begging you …, and now I ask …” (lines 3–6). Other adverbs that, in combination with the verb “to write,” refer to an earlier letter are “previously,” such as in BGU 1.248.7 (ca. 76–84 CE) and SB 22.15708.11–12 [1.30] (ca. 100 CE), or “at another (i.e., earlier) time,” as in O.Claud. 1.174.12 [2.122] (early II CE) and BGU 2.530.8 [2.74] (I CE). As already explained (p. 132), some letter writers mention the exact number of letters they have already written, which is also the case with 2 Pet 3:1, but this passage may be referring only loosely to 1 Pet 1:13 and 1:10. As for 1 Cor 5:9, according to what I have already explained, it is not immediately clear whether the phrase “I wrote to you in the letter” is referring here to an earlier letter (real aorist) or to the present one (epistolary aorist), whereas his addressees will already have recognized from the content that Paul is referring here to an earlier letter which must have been known to them. V. 11 provides clarity, because with “but now” Paul clearly refers to the present letter, which is why the subsequent aorist (literally “I wrote”) is to be understood as an epistolary aorist. Something similar is found in papyrus letters, when a reference to an earlier letter is followed by the phrase “now I write,” thus taking up again the subject already known from the previous letter. But unlike the epistolary aorist used by Paul in 1 Cor 5:11, only the present tense of “write” is used in 93

For further details of this argumentation, see *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 167–69; Becker 2012a, 20–21; 2012b, 364.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

151

the papyrus letters in connection with “now,”94 such as in P.Tebt. 2.315.3–10 (II CE) and SB 12.10772.20–21 (second half III CE). With the same intention, “I write now” (again in present tense) can also take up a topic that was previously conveyed orally and that the addressee of the present letter has yet to be reminded of; examples are P.Oxy. 55.3808.4–6 (late I/early II CE) and PSI 12.1241.13–17 [2.151] (14 Jul 159 CE). Corresponding parallels in Paul’s letters are 2 Cor 13:2 and 1 Thess 3:4–8. An additional example is 1 Tim 1:3–5.

Responses to Letters and Messages

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 137–39; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 59–64, 243–45. New Testament 1 Cor 1:11–4:21; 7:1–14:40; Col 1:7–12; 1 Thess 4:9–10; 5:1–11; 2 Thess 3:11–12.

In 1  Cor 7:1, Paul turns to the topics on which the Corinthian assembly had written to him. Nothing more precise can be said about the nature, scope, and details of the letter from Corinth, but this is quite consistent with what also the private letters from Greco-Roman times preserved on papyrus or ostraca demonstrate, because usually we have access to only one side of a communication process between two letter partners (for the two exceptions so far, see p. 10). In P.Phil. 34 [2.76] (I CE), a certain Aristandros informs his brother that he has arrived in the Arsinoite nome, and in lines 9–11, just before the final greeting, he adds: “About what you wrote to me, I will face to face consort with you.” Unlike Paul, however, Aristandros does not respond to his brother’s concerns in this letter, but he will do so in person. In SB 6.9120 (ca. 31–64 CE), the letter of a certain Charitous to her brother Lucius Pompeius Niger, we read immediately after the opening greeting: “I wish you to know that I have attended to the matter about which you wrote me” (lines 3–5). In the following lines, she reports the way in which she followed his instructions. A similar context is evident in BGU 2.417.2 [2.83] (second half I CE) and Pap.Lugd.Bat. 23, p. 7–8 (second half II CE). We learn nothing about the details or even the wording of the preceding letters, to whose concerns or inquiries the response is now made. To repeat them was as unnecessary for the letter partners as it was for Paul towards the Corinthian Christ group. For they had the entire correspondence 94

Nevertheless, it is more consistent to take the aorist “I wrote” in 1 Cor 5:11 as a typical epistolary aorist than to interpret the “now” not temporally but in an abstract sense (e.g., as “actually”), which is not the case in any papyrus letter.

152

Chapter 5

at their disposal, which is why many details did not have to be mentioned again. To see this as a deficiency is understandable from the perspective of today’s exegetes, but in fact it is a proof that 1 Cor is a real letter. The entire section 1 Cor 7:1–14:40 can be divided into the following subsections, each one introduced by “concerning” (in Greek περὶ δέ): 7:1–40 concerning marriage and celibacy, 8:1–11:34 concerning food sacrificed to idols, 12:1–14:40 concerning spiritual gifts (cf. 16:1–4 concerning the collection for the saints). Also in some papyrus letters, “concerning” is used multiple times to introduce subsections of the letter corpus. In BGU 4.1141 [2.58] (after 9 Apr 13 BCE), the phrase is used twice, in line 31 concerning a certain Xystos, and in line 40 concerning the embroidered patch (for a robe). Similarly, the author of BGU 4.1097 [2.77] (41–67 CE) is concerned with her son Sarapas in line 5, while in line 11 she is referring to one Epaphroditos. In P.Amh. 2.130 (10 Dec 70 CE), a certain Gloutas writes to the gymnasiarch Eutychides, among other things, “concerning the 15 artabas” (line 9) and afterwards “concerning the payments to Thaesis” (lines 12–13). In the fragmentary letter P.Oxy. 34.2725 (29 Apr 71 CE), the phrase is used three times to introduce subsections (in lines 2, 9, 17). Two later examples are P.Oxy. 8.1159.10, 14 (late III CE) and PSI 3.236.15, 34, 35 (III–IV CE). 1  Thess 4:9–10 and 5:1–11 can also be compared with these examples. However, whether the treatment of the topics introduced with “but concerning” had been requested by Paul’s addressees, cannot be determined. Greco-Roman letter writers sometimes use the form “I hear” or “I heard” to recount the news that had come to their ears before responding (on good news that prompted recipients of letters to rejoice or give thanks to the gods, see pp. 119–28). In O.Claud. 1.143.1–3 (ca. 100–120 CE), for example, Firmus mentions to have heard that his addressee is going to Porphyrites, which makes him instruct his letter partner to take care of some business there. The whole letter of Antonius Longus to his mother, BGU 3.846 [2.134] (II CE), was prompted by the fact that Longus had heard that a certain person had told her about his miserable situation; through the letter, Longus now tries to make his mother understand that he had avoided her seeing him like this. In a letter to a landowner, BGU 3.892.v.3–14 [2.135] (II CE), a certain Perousis writes that he has learned of his addressee’s arrival in Pake (TM Geo 6201) through others; therefore, he now asks his “lord” and “brother” to communicate some organizational details about an upcoming wedding so that he himself could come up and see him.95 Corresponding examples in New Testament letters are Col 1:7–12 95

Some further examples are BGU 3.830.11–24 [2.75] (I CE); O.Krok. 1.98.6–10 (ca. early 109 CE); P.Mich. 8.475.12–16 (early II CE); O.Claud. 2.271.5–9 (mid II CE); BGU 1.246.17–19 with BL 6:11; P.Fay. 126.3–8 with BL 3:54 and 4:29; P.Oxy. 9.1215.4–6 (all II–III CE).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

153

(response to message delivered to the letter author by Epaphroditos) and 2 Thess 3:11–12 (response to a hearsay). In 1 Cor 11:18, Paul writes he “hears” that there are “divisions” among the members of the Corinthian Christ group. This clearly refers back to the “divisions” of 1:10, to which he also alludes in v. 11 where he writes that he was notified by the people of Chloe that there are quarrels among his addressees. The Greek expression describing the nature of the communication is δηλόω (“to make known, reveal, narrate”). What in the history of interpretation has sometimes been understood as rumors or as a denunciation of the community by Chloe’s people, in the light of official and private papyrus letters turns out to be an official report. In the Greek copy of the letter of the Emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians which was preserved as attachment to the edict of the Roman governor L. Aemilius Rectus, P.Lond. 6.1912 [1.39] (10 Nov 41 CE), Claudius writes: “I have written to Aemilius Rectus to make an investigation and report to me” (lines 70–71). P.Oxy. 12.1422 (16 Jan 128 CE?) is the official letter from Demetrios, the strategos of the Gynaikopolite nome (?), to Agathos Daimon, strategos of the Oxyrhynchites, concerning a certain Achilleus; in lines 6–11, Demetrios writes: “Achilleus, whom you reported to [have been accused] of harboring a slave …, was reported by both the [village] scribes of the nome [and the] scribes [of the] metropolis to be [missing].” In lines 8–15 of the private letter SB 14.11644 [2.99] (I–II CE), the term δηλόω shows up three times (italicized in the following translation): “You informed me through the letter sent to me by you that you despised me. The god knows how I love you in my soul and honor (you) like my brother. You informed me that you had sent a flask of oil and money, but you did not inform me by whom you sent (it), nor have I received it.” Again, these are pieces of information that are in no way comparable to mere hearsay; the author of the letter is referring to serious messages communicated by his addressee through an earlier letter. An example from another private letter, PSI 9.1080 (III CE?), concerns the little boy Theon; a certain Diogenis sends together with this letter some toys to her brother and writes in the lines before the papyrus breaks off (lines 12–14): “Eight toys were brought for him by the lady you notified me to greet, and I am sending them over to you.” All these examples suggest that Paul had received a letter96 from the people of Chloe in which there was nothing secret. Indeed, the papyrus letters show clearly that messages of that kind were important, reliable, and at least in 96 Papyrological evidence for clearly oral messages described by the Greek term δηλόω is extremely sparse, and examples using the passive form, as here with Paul, are lacking. A clear example with the active form is P.Mich. 8.477.11–12 (early II CE). P.Oxy. 7.1070.46 [2.168] (after 212 CE) is presumably referring to an oral message.

154

Chapter 5

some cases even highly official. For sure, we are dealing here with messages for which the senders could openly take responsibility. It fits into this context that Paul explicitly mentions these messages in his letter and names the people of Chloe as his source. Paul introduces his answer with “now I say this.” Of course, the verb “to say” refers here to writing. As the following two examples from papyrus letters demonstrate, the phrase includes an extremely strong emphasis on what the sender of the letter wants to communicate. In P.Oxy. 42.3063.7–9 (II CE), a certain Diogenes writes to an Apollogenes that he has already written him a thousand times to cut out the vines, but that on this day he has received another letter from Apollogenes asking what should be done. Now Diogenes obviously runs out of patience, and he replies: “Cut out, cut out, cut out, cut out, cut out; look, so many times I say it.” In SB 14.12178.17–21 (III CE), a father writes to his Sisenxis: “But I swear to you, and I say this too, that as I send you the letter, I am of two minds lest it still not reach you in Alexandria.” And the father adds: “Accordingly, when you receive my letter write to me about your plans so that I can send something over to you” (lines 21–24).

Moral Instructions

Literature P. Arzt-Grabner 2011, “Formen ethischer Weisungen in dokumentarischen Papyri unter besonderer Ausrichtung auf 1Tim und Tit,” in *Deines et al. 2011, 301–17; J. Herzer 2011, “Die Pastoralbriefe im Licht der dokumentarischen Papyri des hellenistischen Judentums,” in *Deines et al. 2011, 319–46; A. B. Huizenga 2009, “Advice to the Bride: Moral Exhortation for Young Wives in Two Ancient Letter Collections,” in *Evans and Zacharias 2009, 232–47; W. Huss 1980, “Staat und Ethos nach den Vorstellungen eines ptolemäischen Dioiketes des 3. Jh.: Bemerkungen zu P.Tebt. III/1 703,” APF 27:67–77; L. Kidson 2014, “1 Timothy: An Administrative Letter,” Early Christianity 5:97– 116; M. M. Mitchell 2002, “PTebt 703 and the Genre of 1 Timothy: The Curious Career of a Ptolemaic Papyrus in Pauline Scholarship,” NovT 44:344–70; M. Thoma 2018, “Obsequium et reverentia. Moral and Legal Obligations of Children to Care for Their Parents in Roman Egypt: The Case of Wills, Letters and Contracts,” CdE 93/185:149–62. New Testament Especially Rom 12–13; 1 Cor 13; 1 Tim; Titus.

Moral exhortations to the addressees are a recurring feature in the corpus of New Testament letters,97 while even individual instructions in the private letters are rather rare. For extensive sections such as Rom 12–13 or 1 Cor 13, the papyri and ostraca do not provide any real parallels at all. 97 On moral instructions in the parenesis of the concluding part of the letter body see pp. 154–57.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

155

Especially for comparison with the moral instructions in 1 Tim and Titus, New Testament exegesis has already referred to hypomnemata or memoranda, especially to P.Tebt. 3.1.703 (with BL 3:243–44; 8:495; ca. 210 BCE; see Mitchell 2002). In 280 lines, a dioiketes instructs a subordinate on how he should best fulfill his responsibilities concerning agriculture, transportation, royal revenues, and monopolies, as well as in his official correspondence, in the treatment of deserters and, more generally, as a civil servant. However obvious it may be to compare the guidelines on the general behavior and attitude of the official (see most of all lines 40–49, 161–164, 222–234, 261–280) with the Pastorals, the uniqueness of the document and its dating do not allow it to be considered an example of a general tradition. Or, as M. Mitchell (2002, 366) concluded: The “Ptolemaic papyrus actually provides very little textual material […] to be concretely parallel to or illuminating for the language and composition of 1 Timothy.” Ethical instructions in the narrower sense are also rarely found in private, business, and official letters. Examples such as the papyrus letter P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96] (I–II CE) are very much the exception. Based on a problem with the key to a room, the sender of the letter gives some advice on how the fraternal community to which the addressee belongs should behave in general (see especially lines 13–22). In addition, there are isolated examples in which members of a group are asked to behave in a certain way among themselves. In SB 3.6263 [2.153] (second half II CE), for example, a certain Sempronius sternly urges his brother to assist the mother in quarrels, and adds: “We ought to worship the one, who gave birth to us, like a goddess, especially one who is so good” (lines 27–28). P.Fay. 124 (II CE) “suggests that parents’ financial support by their children may have been based on legal grounds” (Thoma 2018, 153); a certain Theogiton reproaches his friend or relative for being unfair in his conduct towards his mother and threatens him to take further steps (lines 8–11), if he does not pay his mother her allowance in a fair manner (lines 20–22). In P.Oxy. 42.3082.3–7 (III CE), one Agathos writes to a certain Phanias: “You did well to notify me about the mother, but you will do even better to stay with her until she is no longer troubled.” In the other direction, a worried mother writes in P.Mert. 2.81.36–37 (II CE) to her son, who is about to travel to Rome, to be vigilant about those with whom he eats and drinks. In SB 12.10799.5–7 (14–41 CE), the soldier Heraklas appeals to a certain Tachonis: “Take a really good look at the child, like at a lamp, because I am worried about both of you” (see also p. 101). A certain Apollos may be alluding to the general behavior of his sister Mikkalous when he instructs her in O.Claud. 1.147.6–7 [2.149] (II CE) not to quarrel with anyone. The instructions in PSI 12.1241.12–21 [2.151] (14 Jul 159 CE) to tolerate and love one another and to take care of a certain Thermoutharion

156

Chapter 5

are certainly occasion-related and probably addressed to siblings; in any case, the sender of the letter wants to be informed about their tranquility upon his return. In a similar way, the sender of BGU 1.246.17–19 with BL 6:11 (II–III CE) urges his addressees to take care of a certain Hermione “that she is not suffering grief, for it is not good that she suffers grief for nothing.” The reason for his appeal is that he has heard that Hermione is suffering. In a few other letters we find simple statements that someone is behaving well or badly; three selected examples are BGU 16.2629.2–3 (6 Jun 4 BCE), P.Sarap. 80.11 (90–133 CE), and P.Michael. 20.2.5 (17 Jun 277 CE). The warning that bad behavior will not be without consequences is attested not only in P.Fay. 124 (see above), but also in P.Brem. 53.35–36 (12 Jun 114 CE), where the letter sender warns his business partner: “Know that if you behave like this in all things toward me, you will not escape me.” The letter of condolence from a certain Eirene to Taonnophris and Philo, P.Oxy. 1.115 [2.143] (II CE), ends with the plea: “Comfort one another” (line 11; see *Chapa 1998, 64). In another letter of condolence, in P.Ross.Georg. 3.2.26– 29 (ca. 270 CE), the sender’s mother is asked to act as a sensible woman and turn her mind to her children. In accordance with the situational nature of a genuine letter, appeals for good behavior arise from special situations. In comparison, this also applies to the Pauline letters and there at least to a greater extent than in the Pastorals. Even longer passages like 1 Cor 13 are related to specific occasions. On the other hand, the private letters show that philanthropic and noble behavior was expected not only from high-ranking personalities. A certain Quintus, for example, writes in his letter to a strategos, P.Harr. 2.179 (I CE): “I am grateful for your noble philanthropy and your benevolence towards me” (lines 5–7). At the end of a letter, in P.Oxy. 14.1664.15–16 [2.167] (ca. 200 CE), the obviously very popular gymnasiarch Apion is addressed as “my kind and noblest lord.” As P.Oxy. 1.119 [1.1] (II–III CE) shows, even children could become extremely upset when adults, in this case the boy’s father, proved to be unreliable. For the extensive ethical instructions and catalogs of virtues and vices in 1  Tim and Titus, the comparative value of the papyrus letters is low overall. However, private, business, and official letters are generally not to be expected to contain treatise-like exhortations. This is also true of administrative letters with which Kidson (2014, 102–16) has compared 1  Tim (in addition to Ptolemaic letters, she discusses P.Oxy. 3.533 with BL 1:325 and 7:130 from late II/early III CE). Hence, we should ask why these extensive instructions, which are rather similar to bylaws of associations, appear in letters that pretend to be occasional letters of Paul of Tarsus to two of his closest co-workers. That the epistolary form here serves to pass off such extensive instructions as those of

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

157

the great letter writer Paul seems plausible. The conspicuously few references to a current situation (Timothy’s stomach ailment in 1 Tim 5:23; the mention of companions who have left or are still with the addressee, and the request for a cloak, papyrus scrolls, and parchments in 2 Tim 4:9–17, 20; cf. also 2 Tim 1:15–18; 2:17–18; Titus 3:12–13) could be fictitious and serve precisely this purpose. In any case, from a papyrological point of view, the question seems obvious why the Pastorals are in epistolary form at all.

A Closer Look #4: Denial of Permission in 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 14:34

Literature *Di Bartolo 2021, 46–47, 51–52. New Testament 1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:12.

People who make the success of a journey (see p. 160) or a business dependent on the permission of the gods98 usually appeal to a supernatural power and thus to the highest authority. It is therefore not surprising that the form ἐπιτρέπω (“I allow, permit”) occurs mainly in official letters from a higher authority to subordinates. In P.Lond. 6.1912.29–43 [1.39] (10 Nov 41 CE), the emperor Claudius grants the Alexandrians various ways to honor his person and his family, which they had requested to exercise. According to P.Oxy. 43.3088.10–13 (21 Mar 128 CE?), the prefect of Egypt, Flavius Titianus, grants permission to the city of Oxyrhynchos to build (or expand and refurbish) the city’s Roman baths. In a positive sense, ἐπιτρέπω refers to permission as a grant, which may even involve a kind of commission that the recipient regards as an honor or benevolent obligation. For example, the unknown author of a very fragmentary letter of recommendation to the strategos Apollonios, P.Brem. 9 (113–120 CE), adds to his request: “And you also, my brother, command me what you want” (lines 20–21).99 In P.Mich. 8.476 [2.121] (early II CE), the legionary Claudius Terentianus asks his father for approval to take a wife into his home; the whole letter reveals the son’s anxiety about not receiving his father’s permission. The unknown sender of the fragmentarily preserved letter P.Lond. 3.951.v (p. 213) (late III CE) informs his son-in-law of having heard that he is forcing his daughter to breastfeed her 98 99

Cf., e.g., O.Did. 411.6–7; 412.6 (both before ca. 140 CE). See also SB 16.12835.9 (16 Feb 6 CE); P.Sarap. 103ter.5–6 (90–133 CE); SB 3.7268.17 (98–117 CE); P.Brem. 21.9–11 (113–120 CE); SB 16.13058.8–11 (117–138 CE?); P.Oslo 3.156.4–5 (II CE).

158

Chapter 5

child; the father’s reaction is very strict: “If she (i.e., his daughter) wants, let the infant have a nurse, for I do not permit my daughter to nurse.” All these examples demonstrate that the verb in question is always used in the context of a clearly authoritative relationship that extends even into very personal matters. It is therefore precisely this aspect that is to be underlined when the author of 1 Tim 2:12 writes that he does not “allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” Something similar applies to 1 Cor 14:34, yet it is disputed whether this statement can be attributed to Paul himself. For 1 Tim, however, the verse mentioned does not offer the only indication that this letter is—also from a papyrological point of view—to be regarded as fundamentally different from the authentic Pauline letters (cf. pp. 155–57).

Formulas and Clichés of the Concluding Part of the Letter Body

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 518; *Müller 1997, 77–234; *Steen 1938; *White 1972, 42–51, 98–111, 140–51, 160–63; *White 1978, 305–6. – Special bibliography on particular formulas and conventions is also listed at the beginning of the subchapters. Concluding parts of New Testament letter bodies Rom 15:14–32; 1  Cor 16:5–18; 2  Cor 12:14–13:11; Gal 6:11–17; Eph 6:18–22; Col 4:2–9; 1  Thess 5:25; 2  Thess 3:13–16a; 1  Tim 6:20–21a; Phlm 21–22; Jas 5:19–20; 1  Pet 5:12; 2 Pet 3:17–18; 2 John 12; 3 John 13–14; Jude 24–25.

The concluding part of the letter body serves to re-address the reason for the current letter and to provide the basis for future correspondence. It is therefore understandable that in this part many aspects that were already addressed in the introductory part of the letter corpus can be taken up again. In this case, the introductory and concluding parts of the letter body correspond to each other. For example, the explanation that a visit was not possible (see pp. 129– 31) may find its counterpart in the announcement of a visit in the near future (e.g., SB 28.17110; see below). Sometimes, however, such aspects are raised in this part for the first time. More common concerns in this section include a request for further correspondence, an announcement of a visit or an invitation to visit the letter sender, a final request or reminder of the main request, final complaints, and a note about the letter carrier. Final complaints and a request for further correspondence are not attested in the concluding parts of New Testament letter bodies. On letter carriers see pp. 191–99. The other two topics are presented in more detail below.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés



159

Announcement of Visit or Invitation to Visit the Letter Sender

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2009; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 158–66; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 81–83, 364–73 (extended eBook 2008, locations 244–47, B8.1–9 nos. 257–265); *White 1986, 197. New Testament Rom 15:22–32; 1 Cor 16:5–7 (cf. 4:18–21; 11:34; 14:6; 16:2); 2 Cor 12:14, 20–13:2, 10 (cf. 9:4); Phil 2:24 (cf. 1:27); 1 Thess 3:10–11 (cf. v. 6); 1 Tim 4:13 (cf. 3:14–15); 2 Tim 4:9, 21; Titus 3:12; Phlm 22; 2 John 12; 3 John 14 (cf. v. 10); Rev 2:5, 16, 25; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20.

The desire to see the addressee in person is an essential motive of many letters, simply because the letter, from its original function, is perceived as an imperfect substitute for personal presence (see pp. 57–60). The expression of this concern is not a priori tied to a particular place in the letter, as both papyrus letters and several Pauline letters attest (see especially 1 Cor 4:18–21; 11:34; 14:6; 16:2, 5–9; 2 Cor 9:4; 12:14, 20–13:2, 10; Phil 1:27; 2:24). The letter sender’s forthcoming visit may even be the main subject of a letter, as in the case of P.Oxy. 14.1681 [2.177] (III CE), written a short time before the letter sender left to visit the addressees after not seeing them for a whole year; his desire to leave before winter parallels 1 Cor 16:5–6. Not infrequently a forthcoming visit is announced in the concluding part of the letter body. For example, the unknown sender of the fragmentary letter SB 16.12578 (11 Nov 86 CE) sends along some goods and asks for several items and some money to be sent; regarding an upcoming visit, the exact day is communicated towards the end of the letter corpus: “Expect me by the 10th of next month together with the animals” (lines 10–11). An exact date for his visit is also given by the gymnasiarch Chairemon in BGU 1.249.14 (ca. 76–84 CE); the letter is dated April 17, and Chairemon hopes to visit his best friend Apollonios on June 19. Similar expressions of hope, namely, to visit the addressee are preserved in P.Sarap. 80.5–8 (90–133 CE); P.Mich. 8.476.25 [2.121]; 481.14–15 (both early II CE); O.Claud. 1.157.4–5 (II CE); P.Mich. 3.211.5–7 (II–III CE); P.Oxy. 14.1681.20–24 [2.177] (III CE). New Testament parallels are Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:7; 1 Tim 3:14; Phlm 22; 2 John 12; 3 John 14. Papyrus letters and the letters of the New Testament are thus very similar in this respect, and both prove that letter authors write of hope in particular while longing to see the addressee again soon. This is well understandable from one of the basic intentions of the letter itself, namely, to function as a substitute for the personal presence that is not possible at the moment. Sometimes letter senders ask the recipient to carry out this or that until they themselves come to visit. A few examples of this feature are P.Wash.Univ.

160

Chapter 5

2.106.11–12 (13 Jan 18 BCE); O.Claud. 1.141.12 (ca. 109/110 CE); P.Oxy. 14.1757.13–16, 22–24 [2.133] (after 138 CE); 42.3058.10–15 with BL 7:156 (II CE); P.Warr. 15.v.21– 24 (second half II CE); TM 107277.4–14 (P.CtYBR inv. 642; first half III CE); P.Bad. 2.43.21–25; SB 16.12982.17 (both III CE). These references can be seen as clear analogies to 1 Tim 4:13 and at least as vague ones to 2 Cor 12:20–21; 13:10; 1 Tim 3:15. A special expression for his hoped-for visit is used by Paul in Phlm 22: “I am hoping to be restored to you through your prayers.” The same phrase is preserved in P.Mich. 8.485.14–15 (105  CE?), where a certain Ammonios asks his addressee for support in restoring a son to his father—a similarity already noted by the editors of the papyrus letter (J.  G. Winter and H.  C. Youtie in P.Mich 8, p. 83). Invitations to visit the letter sender, on the other hand, are attested in 2 Tim 4:9, 21 as well as in Titus 3:12. The formulation used there (“make every effort to come to me”) is also well known to senders of papyrus letters (see p. 148). Such invitations often exhibit a high degree of urgency, as illustrated, for example, by BGU 2.417.28–29 [2.83] (second half I CE). They are clearly to be distinguished from invitations to private or religious festivities (cf. PNT 1, p. 197–202). In their letters, the authors may refer to their own upcoming journey or to the journey of an addressee or that of a third party. In any case, the formulas “if the gods will” and “if the gods permit” are often used in connection with a journey, and they are more or less interchangeable, since both basically indicate that a journey is fraught with many obstacles and dangers. Specifically in the context of a forthcoming visit by the letter sender, the first formula is used, for example, in P.Michael. 15.7–8 [2.85] (ca. 76–84 CE) and P.Mich. 3.203.7–8 [2.125] (114–116 CE),100 the second in BGU 2.451.10–12 [2.102] (late I–II CE).101 A clear parallel to the second formula is 1 Cor 16:7. A quite freely formulated application of the topos is attested by Rom 15:32, where Paul hopes to come to his addressees “through God’s will.” Even more individually, Paul uses the topos in 1 Thess 3:11: “Now may our God and father himself, and our lord Jesus, direct our way to you.” 100 See also BGU 1.248.11–12; 249.13–14 (both ca. 76–84 CE); P.Sarap. 80.5–8 (90–133 CE); O.Krok. 2.189.6–9 (98–117 CE); 269.4–5 (100–117 CE); P.Brem. 13.15–17 (114–115 CE); P.Oxy. 9.1216.19–21 (II–III CE); P.Oxy. 14.1666.15–17 (III CE); P.Ammon 1.3.3.13–14 [2.188] (324– 330 CE?; cf. col. 4.9–10); regarding a visit by the addressee BGU 20.2871.7–8 (1 Sep 85 CE) and P.Mich. 8.464.21–22 [1.29] (16 Mar 99 CE?); by another person P.Giss. 1.18.10–13 (113–120 CE). 101 See also O.Did. 424.13–14 (before ca. 125–140 CE); regarding the visit of a representative P.Sarap. 103bis.7 (90–133 CE).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés



161

Final Requests or Reminder of Main Concern

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 536–37; *Exler 1923, 114, 136; *Kreinecker 2010, 210–14; A. Maravela and J. V. Stolk 2018, “Bringing Together the Family for a Daughter’s Wedding: P.Yale 1.78 Reconsidered,” BASP 55:275–80; *White 1986, 206–7. New Testament Rom 15:30–32; 1  Cor 16:15–18; 2  Cor 13:11; Gal 6:17; Eph 6:10–20; 1  Thess 5:25, 27; 2 Thess 3:13–15; 1 Tim 6:20–21a; Jas 5:19–20; 2 Pet 3:17–18; 1 John 5:13–20, 21.

The identification of a phrase or a small passage as a final request or as a reminder of the main concern is possible through special formulas. These are not limited to the concluding part of the letter body, but sometimes occur in the middle part as well. If, however, no further concerns are raised thereafter, they are to be understood in the described sense. The formula “do not do otherwise,” for example, once again summarizes the concern of the letter and at the same time refers to its preceding more detailed exposition. Two selected examples from the first century CE are P.Yale 1.78.10 (with Maravela and Stolk 2018; first half I CE) and O.Did. 339.10–11 (before ca. 77–92 CE). Another formula with similar function is “see that you don’t neglect that,” preserved, for example, in P.Oxy. 42.3061.12–13 (I CE) and SB 6.9531.9–10 (I–II CE). Neither formula is attested in New Testament letters. If used near the letter closing, the brief statement “therefore, I am writing to you so that you know (it)”102 serves as a reminder of the letter’s main purpose; it is preserved, for instance, in O.Krok. 2.284.11–12 (98–117 CE), O.Claud. 2.362.11–12, and P.Mert. 2.80.11–12 [2.137] (both II CE). A similar reminder is addressed to the recipients of 1 John in 5:13: “I am writing (epistolary aorist, cf. p. 149) this to you so that you know that you, who believe in the name of the son of God, have eternal life.” In this way, the author recalls the topic of (eternal) life, which is essential to the entire letter, and then brings it to a conclusion in the following verses (vv. 14–20). The final requests of 2 Cor 13:11, Gal 6:17, and Eph 6:10–20 are introduced by “finally” (Greek λοιπόν, in Eph 6:10 τοῦ λοιποῦ), similar to O.Did. 317.6–9 (before ca. 77–92 CE), O.Claud. 1.141.10–12 (ca. 109/110 CE), 164.4–6 (II CE), and P.Oxy. 1.119.13–14 [1.1] (II–III CE). In other New Testament letters, concluding exhortations are not introduced by formulas, but for Rom 15:30–32, 1 Cor 16:15–18, 1 Thess 5:25, 1 Tim 6:20–21a, Jas 5:19–20, 2 Pet 3:17–18, and 1 John 5:21, the most that can be considered is whether a vocative at the beginning of each of these passages serves a corresponding function. In this case, it is important to note 102 In BGU 1.249.12 (ca. 76–84 CE), e.g., it is used in the middle part of the letter corpus.

162

Chapter 5

that vocatives can of course be used in all sections of a letter; as an introduction to the concluding part of the letter body, it may function only when no new appeals or topics are addressed thereafter. Some examples from papyrus or ostracon letters are O.Did. 339.10–11 (before ca. 77–92 CE); P.Haun. 2.24.8–10 (I–II CE); O.Claud. 1.141.10–12 (ca. 109/110 CE); P.Brem. 9.20–21 (113–120 CE); P.Giss. 1.69.15–17 (29 Dec 118 CE?); P.Warr. 14.40–44; SB 14.11900.17–18 [2.148] (both II CE); BGU 1.164.24–27 with BL 1:23; SB 16.12570.25–27 (both II–III CE); BGU 3.816.21–22 (III CE).

Offer to Meet the Addressee’s Needs

Literature *White 1986, 204–7. New Testament Phil 4:19–20.

It is not uncommon for senders to conclude the letter body by expressing their esteem for the recipient, which is especially, yet not exclusively, the case when they want to give emphasis to an urgent request. A typical way of doing this is to state that one would be “favored” by the recipient’s assistance, and to offer to return the favor if the recipient needs anything. In combination with previously mentioned requests, these formulas also serve to politely or subtly persuade the recipient to comply with the request. *White (1986, 204) assumed that the formulaic phrases used originated in letters of recommendation such as P.Oxy. 2.292.9–10 [2.71] (ca. 25 CE). However, the formula “and by doing this you will do us a favor” already appears in a lead letter from Torone (Chalkidike, Greece), SEG 43.488.5 [2.55], which was written during the third quarter of the fourth century BCE and is certainly not a letter of recommendation. An early example of this formula from Ptolemaic Egypt is P.Cair.Zen. 4.59578.4 (263–229 BCE). This rather suggests that the convention originated independently of a particular letter type and at a very early stage of ancient Greek letter writing. An extended and individually styled version of the formula is preserved in P.Oxy. 7.1061.17–22 [2.57] (25 Jun–24 Jul 22 BCE). The author of P.Oxy. 47.3356.21–23 [2.82] (28 Jan 76 CE) asks his father to notify him quickly of what needs he might have, adding, “for I still have a few days here,” which presumably means that the conditions for fulfilling his father’s wishes were better at the place where he was at the time of writing the letter than elsewhere. Another good example of the fact that the assurance to satisfy the possible needs of an addressee is not necessarily connected with one’s own urgent request is SB 6.9017.10 [2.98] (I–II CE); after a short note to have some olive oil sent along

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

163

with the ostracon letter, the rest of the text is only concerned with inquiring from a certain Silvanus whether he and other people near to him would have need of anything. That the author of the letter is serious with his concern is evident from two details, the repetition of the inquiry at the end of the letter, addressed there to the people around a certain Sartorius, and the mention of the possibility that Silvanus could send his reply to Koptos, because the letter author would have someone available to fetch it from there. A certain Iulius Clemens, the author of P.Mich. 8.483 (118–138 CE), on the other hand, expresses his gratitude to his addressee Sokration for his kindness in having sent some olive oil, to which he adds: “And you yourself write to me about any need you may have, knowing that I will gladly do everything for you” (lines 5–6). Almost identical affirmations are preserved, for example, in TM 832384.6–8 (O.Claud. inv. 7436; ca. 150 CE) and P.Oxy. 14.1664.9–12 [2.167] (ca. 200 CE), the latter in elegant style. Phil 4:19–20 may be interpreted against the background of this affirmative formula in the following sense: Paul’s assurance that God will fully satisfy every need of the Christ group of Philippi is found right before the secondary greetings which open the closing section of the letter, that is, exactly at the point where in some papyrus and ostracon letters the formula discussed here is to be found. However, since Paul is in prison while writing (or dictating) the letter, he cannot make a corresponding promise himself and hence refers to God. We can see here once again how well Paul was acquainted with all the epistolary formulas and conventions of his time and how well he knew to creatively use them as well as the intentions associated with them, even if he had to deviate from their original form and application.

The Letter Closing

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 538–39; *Chapa 1998, 43; *Exler 1923, 115; *Head 2019; *Hubing 2015; *Klauck 2006, 24–25, 37–40; *Koskenniemi 1956, 148–51; T. Y. Mullins 1968, “Greeting as a New Testament Form,” JBL 87:418–26; *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 108–35; *Weima 1994, 39–45; J. A. D. Weima 2010, “Sincerely, Paul: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings,” in *Porter and Adams 2010, 307–45; *White 1978, 289–99; *White 1981, 94–95; *White 1986, 193–96, 202. – Special bibliography on particular formulas is also listed at the beginning of the subchapters. Closing sections of New Testament letters Rom 15:33; 16:1–23; [16:25–27]; 1  Cor 16:19–24; 2  Cor 13:12–13; Gal 6:18; Eph 6:23–24; Phil 4:21–23; Col 4:10–18; 1 Thess 5:26–28; 2 Thess 3:16b–18; 1 Tim 6:21b; 2 Tim 4:19–22; Titus 3:15; Phlm 23–25; 1 Pet 5:13–14; 2 John 13; 3 John 15.

164

Chapter 5

The letter closing is—like the letter opening—again strongly formulaic. Its formulas can be used at the end of any letter independently of the contents dealt with before. The beginning of the letter closing of an ancient Greek letter is, therefore, best determined on the basis of a formulaic health wish, secondary greetings, or the final greeting. A clear procedure for determining the beginning of the letter closing was proposed by *Hubing (2015, 18): [T]he letter closing begins no earlier than the appearance of the secondary greetings. In the absence of secondary greetings, the closing would begin with the health wish. In the absence of the health wish, the closing begins with the farewell wish. In the absence of all three of the above, the closing would begin when the first of the following appears […]: date, illiteracy formula,103 postscript.

This procedure works for documentary letters as well as for the letters of the New Testament. Regarding the letter closing of Gal, for example, the discussion about where it begins (in Gal 6:11 or 6:18) can be clearly decided: the letter closing of Gal consists only of 6:18.

Secondary Greetings

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 264–67; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 521–22; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 539; H. D. Betz 2002, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. M. D. Nanos (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), 3–28, here 26; A. H. Cadwallader 2022, “Greetings in Stone: Shifting the Accent from Papyri to Epigraphy in Colossians 4:15–17,” in God’s Grace Inscribed on the Human Heart: Essays in Honour of James R. Harrison, ed. P. G. Bolt and S. Kim, Early Christian Studies 23 (Sydney: SCD Press), 441–65; W. Clarysse 1990, “An Epistolary Formula,” CdE 65/129:103–6; *Exler 1923, 114–16, 136; *Head 2019; *Koskenniemi 1956, 148–51; *Luiselli 2008, 700–701; *Luttenberger 2012, 280–83; *Meecham 1923, 116–17; T. Y. Mullins 1968, “Greeting as a New Testament Form,” JBL 87:418–26; *Nachtergaele 2023, 61–117; *Roller 1933, 67–68, 472–74; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 61–62; A. Standhartinger 2021, “Greetings from Prison and Greetings from Caesar’s House (Philippians 4.22): A Reconsideration of an Enigmatic Greek Expression in the Light of the Context and Setting of Philippians,” JSNT 43:468–84; *Steen 1938, 125–26; *Tibiletti 1979, 59–61; *Weima 1994, 39–45; *White 1978, 298–99; *White 1986, 202; *Ziemann 1910, 326–32. New Testament Rom 16:3–16, 21–23; 1  Cor 16:19–20; 2  Cor 13:12; Gal 6:10; Phil 4:21–22; Col 4:10–15; 1 Thess 5:26; 2 Tim 4:19, 21; Titus 3:15a–b; Phlm 23–24; 1 Pet 5:13–14a; 2 Joh 13; 3 John 15b–c. 103 The illiteracy formula, a note stating that the letter sender is illiterate, is rarely found at the end of letters but often at the end of all sorts of documents that are of a legal or administrative nature.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

165

Before the author of a letter concluded the entire text with a final greeting, it was quite common to forward greetings to relatives or acquaintances who were presumably at the recipient’s place, or to greet the addressee(s) from others currently staying with the letter sender. In this way, the circle of potential contacts is expanded and the function of the letter as a means of cultivating relationships is reinforced. Formally, three types can be distinguished. (1) The letter sender greets relatives or acquaintances who are with or near the addressee. The conveyance of these greetings shall be performed by the addressee without being expressly requested to do so. Some selected examples are: P.Haun. 2.30.10–12 (I CE): “I greet your son Ischyras and mother Diodora and Dios and Dionysia … the little one and the children”; SB 14.11644.16–17 [2.99] (I–II CE): “I greet all those in the house by name”; P.Col. 8.215.32 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE): “We greet Apollonarion”; SB 20.14132.21–23 [2.101] (late I/early II CE): “I greet Nemessas and Kottara.” There is no parallel to this type in New Testament letters. In Rom 16:22 the first person is used (“I greet”), but it does not refer to the author of the letter, that is to Paul, but to the scribe Tertius; moreover, Tertius greets the addressees and not other persons who stay with the addressees. (2) The same wish can be expressed even more clearly by asking the letter’s recipient to greet other people, such as in P.Oslo 2.47.15–16 [2.68] (23 Aug 1 CE): “Greet all your people (and) Herakles son of Petalos”; P.Oslo 2.48.14–15 with BL 3:122 (9 Jan 61 CE): “Greet my father and my mother and all those in the house”; BGU 4.1097.23–26 [2.77] (41–67 CE): “ [Greet] now your mother and Demetrios and his children. Greet […] and etc.”; SB 20.14132.36–40 [2.101] (late I/early II CE): “Greet your sister-in-law and your husband and your brotherin-law.” The Latin version is not only attested for Egypt such as in O.Did. 419.6 (before ca. 115–120 CE), but also Vindolanda/Britannia such as in T.Vindol. 2.247.1 (ca. 97–103 CE): “Greet from me your Lepidina” (i.e., the addressee’s wife); T.Vindol. 2.291.9 [1.49] (ca. 97–103 CE): “Greet your Cerialis” (i.e., the addressee’s husband).104 This version is also attested for several of Paul’s letters (Rom 16:3–16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; Phil 4:21; 1 Thess 5:26) as well as some other letters of the New Testament (Col 4:15; 2 Tim 4:19; Titus 3:15; 3 John 15). Also 1 Pet 5:14 (“greet one another with a kiss of love”) can be formally added to this group. (3) Conversely, the letter senders themselves can act as transmitters by forwarding the greetings of individuals or a group in their vicinity to the addressee (and other people). The persons who are mentioned to forward their greetings 104 Some further examples are T.Vindol. 1.38.2.2 (ca. 95–105 CE); 2.260.6; 274.3; 281.1.3 (all ca. 97–103 CE); 353,2.1–2 (ca. 120–130 CE).

166

Chapter 5

are identified either by name or collectively (e.g., “all those in the house” or “the children”). Examples are numerous; two from letters which are presented in full in this volume are: BGU 16.2618.22–24 [2.64] (10 May 7 BCE): “Nardos and Nikas and all in the house greet you”; P.Fouad 75.15–16 [2.81] (15 Oct 64 CE): “Alexandros and the children greet you.” The Latin equivalent to this version is found in letters from Egypt such as O.Did. 429.9–16 [2.92] (before ca. 96 CE) or 326.9–10 (before ca. 75–85 CE), but also on several tablets from Vindolanda such as T.Vindol. 2.291.9–10 [1.49] (ca. 97–103 CE): “My Aelius and my little son greet him” (cf. the note in T.Vindol. 3, p. 158).105 For the New Testament, the following passages are to be mentioned: Rom 16:21–23; 1 Cor 16:19–20; 2 Cor 13:12; Phil 4:21–22; Col 4:10–14; 2 Tim 4:21; Titus 3:15; Phlm 23–24; 1 Pet 5:13; 2 Joh 13; 3 John 15. In addition to the many secondary greetings in the New Testament letters that are conveyed by named individuals, there are also some from groups whose members are not mentioned by name. Papyrological parallels are numerous. A possible template for a whole Christ group whose greetings are to be forwarded (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:19; cf. Phil 4:21) is “all in the house”; the papyrological examples are P.Wash.Univ. 2.106.10–11 (13 Jan 18 BCE); BGU 16.2618.22–24 [2.64] (10 May 7 BCE); P.Wisc. 2.73.18–19 [2.131] (122/123 CE); P.Michael. 11.6–7 (I–II CE); P.Mich. 8.481.34 (early II CE); P.Mert. 2.81.38–39; SB 14.11899.7 (both II CE); 12.11130.30–31 (III–IV CE). Unlike children, who are often referred to collectively, siblings are usually mentioned by name, but P.Oxy. 6.930.22–23 [1.34] (II–III CE), where the addressee is told that his sisters greet him many times, may be cited as a parallel to “the brothers (and sisters)” of 1 Cor 16:20 and Phil 4:21. SB 14.11644.15 [2.99] (I–II CE) and 6.9164.14 (first half II CE) offer parallels to “the friends” of 3 John 15. Similar to Titus 3:15 (“all with me are greeting you”) is “all my people are greeting you” as in BGU 2.615.32–33 (II CE) and P.Thomas 14.16–17 (second half II CE).106 Only the appeal to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12) is not attested in papyrus or ostracon letters. In addition to the numerous formulaic examples, some individually formulated ones can be mentioned. The secondary greetings in O.Krok. 2.181.6–8 (98–138 CE) read: “Gallonia greets you many times and Didymus and Tiberia many many times.” In BGU 2.380.23–24 [2.172] (III CE), the addressee’s son Ptoleminos, who is probably staying with his grandmother, adds greetings to his father, but he actually does so in the form of an opening greeting, which reminds us that letter formulas were already learned in school. In BGU 105 See also T.Vindol. 2.210.3 (ca. 92–97 CE); 1.59.2 (ca. 95–105 CE); 2.244.1 (ca. 97–103 CE). 106 Cf. P.Mich. 8.479.19–20 (early II CE): “My people are greeting you.”

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

167

2.530.32–40 [2.74] (I CE), a secondary greeting and another person’s rebuke are forwarded next to each other. In P.Mich. 3.201.15–18 [2.93] (11 Feb 99 CE), greeting and reproach come from the same person. Unique in its form is CPR 5.19.20–22 [2.114] (I–II CE): “All gods and all goddesses here greet you.” Many letter senders take the opportunity to both greet others close to the addressee and convey the greetings of people who are in their own vicinity. In SB 12.11016.5–8 (17 Apr 13 CE), the author of the letter asks his correspondent to greet five individuals mentioned by name and also their friends in general, and he passes on greetings of two people who are currently with him. In SB 3.6823.26–28 [2.73] (41–54 CE), the letter sender first conveys the greetings of a certain Sertoris and those with him, before he asks his correspondent to greet all his people.107 Regarding the letters of the New Testament, the following parallels can be mentioned: Rom 16:3–23; 1 Cor 16:19–20; 2 Cor 13:12; Phil 4:21–22; Col 4:10–15; 2 Tim 4:19, 21; Titus 3:15; 1 Pet 5:13–14; 3 John 15. No greetings are conveyed at the end of Gal. Some papyrus letters preserve remarkably long greeting lists, which are worth mentioning in comparison to Rom 16:3–16. Lines 13–20 of P.Horak 67 (27 Sep 14 CE?) mention the names (some of them fragmentary) of fifteen persons to be greeted by the sender of the letter; perhaps even more were to be greeted, for lines 21–24 are too fragmentarily preserved to be interpreted, and the end of the letter is missing. In P.Mich. 8.465.38–43 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?), at least twelve persons mentioned by name are greeted by the sender of the letter; in addition, he greets the children of a couple and, in general, everyone who belongs to the addressee’s household. P.Oxy. 78.5181.1–15 [2.179] (III CE) is even more extensive. And regarding O.Did. 386 (before ca. 120–125 CE), even more than half of the letter’s text is occupied by secondary greetings to be forwarded to ten persons who are mentioned by name. In P.Mich. 3.203.29–35 [2.125] (114–116 CE), the letter sender’s mother is asked to pass on his greetings to nine individuals mentioned by name and, in addition, to their children, relatives, and friends. Lines 31–32 of the letter just mentioned preserve a special detail: The recipient is asked not only to greet the sender’s sister, Tabegka, but also to write back if she has had a child. The notes Paul appends to each greeting in Rom 16:3–16 are, however, much more detailed, but we find here at least the same pattern. This is also true of SB 5.7572.10–12 [2.94] (5 Oct 104?), where a certain Thermouthas asks her mother Valerias to convey greetings to Valeris, adding 107 Some further examples are: P.Bad. 2.35.22–25 [2.87] (16 Dec 87 CE); P.Oxy. 2.300.6–10 [2.88] (late I CE); SB 14.11644.15–19 [2.99] (I–II CE); SB 5.7743.23–26 (I–II CE?); P.Mich. 3.203.29–37 [2.125] (114–116 CE); O.Claud. 1.143.5–12; 146.4–8; 152.11–14 (all ca. 100–120 CE).

168

Chapter 5

that she longs for him in her heart; in lines 18–21, Thermouthas forwards the greetings of a certain Rodine and adds: “I have put her out at handwork; I need her again.” In general, such notes are rarely attested. Similar to the example of Rodine just mentioned, the addressee of P.Mich. 8.477.39–43 (early II CE), Claudius Tiberianus, is asked by his son Terentianus to convey the greetings of Isidoros and Sempronius to a certain Zotike, whom the father should be sure to bring with him on his next visit, “because,” Terentianus adds, “you know that we are going to need her here.” Of the authentic Pauline letters, only Gal does not contain secondary greetings which may be interpreted as one of many indications of Paul’s disappointment with the addressees. However, Gal 6:10 deserves a closer look, for H. D. Betz (2002, 26) sees in Paul’s appeal “work for the good of all, and especially for those who are of the household of the faith” a parallel to an epistolary cliché which shows up near the end of several letters. Betz refers to P.Oxy. 4.743.43 (4 Oct 2 BCE), 2.294.31 (11 Dec 22 CE), and 293.16 (15 Nov 27 CE), but without quoting the respective cliché.108 In its center, we find a middle form of the Greek verb ἐπισκοπέω, which is why in the first editions, P.Oxy. 2.293.16–17 was translated as “take care of yourself and all your household,” 294.31–32 as “look after Demetrous and our father Dorion,” and 4.743.43 as “look after your household.” *Moulton and Milligan (1929, 244 s.v. ἐπισκοπέω) listed these and some further references and wrote: “The NT (Heb 1215) connotation of this word ‘exercise oversight or care’ may be illustrated by its common use as an epistolary formula in the closing salutations of letters.” *Koskenniemi 1956, in his chapter on greetings (pp. 148–51), mentioned the middle forms ἐπισκοποῦ (imperative) and ἐπισκοποῦμαι (first person indicative) as variants of secondary greetings; although he did not offer explicit translations, it follows at least indirectly that the meaning “to greet” is to be applied in the passages in question.109 When P.Mert. 2.63 [2.80] (18 Jan 58 CE) was published in 1959, the editors expressed their doubts concerning the accuracy of the translations of the papyrus letters from Oxyrhynchos, since a translation of P.Mert. 2.63.24–26 [2.80] as meaning “we take care of you and Charitous and their children” followed by “and Pompeius, the little one, takes care of you” (lines 26–27) would not make sense. As the editors correctly noted, “ἐπισκοπεῖσθαι usually means ‘send regards to’, at any rate in letters” (B. R. Rees, H. I. Bell, and J. W. B. Barns in P.Mert. 2, p. 45). The passages in the three papyrus letters from Oxyrhynchos are thus to be translated accordingly (cf. BL 4:59–60), which was also confirmed by 108 In n. 215 Betz refers to *Meecham 1923, 116, who quotes and translates the three passages but does not compare them with Gal 6:10. 109 He mentioned only P.Oxy. 4.743.43 in a general list on p. 150, not naming the verbs used in the passages.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

169

Clarysse (1990).110 In this way, the translation “to send/give regards to” became the standard meaning used for the formula by papyrologists. The evidence for this epistolary cliché is much more numerous than Betz’s brief footnote might suggest. Clarysse (1990, 104–5) lists nine examples of the version in the imperative (“give my regards to NN”) dating from 130 BCE to the second century CE111 and nine examples of the versions in the indicative (“I give my regards to NN” and “XX gives his regards to you and/or to NN”) dating from 127 BCE to the second century CE.112 The version with the imperative can be supplemented with five additional examples: P.Diosk. 17.27–29 (3 Nov 151 or 31 Oct 140 BCE); BGU 16.2616.6–9 (9 Jan 13 BCE); P.Graux 2.10.16–17 (I CE); SB 28.17264.4–7 (41–68 CE); P.Giss.Univ. 3.19.10 (20 Aug 55 CE). Additional examples of the versions with the indicative are: P.Tebt. 3.1.768.23–25 (13 Jan 115 BCE);113 P.Lips. 1.104.18–22 [2.56] (30 Jun 95 or 22 Jun 62 BCE); P.Horak 67.13–20 (27 Sep 14 CE?); lines 5–7 of TM 641988 (P.CtYBR inv. 736; 26 May 25 or 26 CE?); SB 20.14242.19–20 (first half I CE); P.Berl.Möller 11.15–16 (30 Jan 33 CE); P.Giss.Univ. 3.19.11–12 (20 Aug 55 CE). Altogether we have thus 26 papyrus letters attesting to one version of the formula and two letters preserving both versions (P.Bad. 4.48.13–14 and P.Giss.Univ. 3.19.10–12).114 In the last part of his article, Clarysse (1990, 105) notes that the “shift of meaning in the verb ἐπισκοπέομαι is paralleled in Egyptian, where nḏ-ḥr ‘to greet’ is derived from nḏ ‘to ask, to examine someone’s face.’” I assume that in Greek the basic meaning of ἐπισκοπέω in the sense of “to take care of” was not lost when the middle forms of the verb were used to introduce secondary greetings. The people who wrote or read Greek certainly did not take ἐπισκοπέομαι and ἀσπάζομαι identically, but at least distinguished between different connotations. The meaning “to take care of” was certainly too strong; a child, for example, was hardly in the position “to take care of” an adult. On the 110 The translations suggested by Clarysse (1990, 104) are “give my regards to NN” for the imperative, “I give my regards to NN” for the version with the first person indicative and “XX gives his regards to you and/or to NN” for the third person. 111 The example mentioned by Clarysse in the first paragraph of p. 103 can now be cited as SB 20.14280.5–7 (20 Jul 2 CE); Chrest.Wilck. 10.12 (earlier dated to 131 BCE) has now to be cited as P.Dryton 36.12–14 (15 Jan 130 BCE). 112 Clarysse lists eight, but since P.Bad. 4.48.13–14 with BL 4:103 (28 Oct 127 BCE) contains both versions (Clarysse mentions this letter only as example with the imperative), there are nine and the time frame is broader than Clarysse indicates. A new edition of SB 5.7660.31–34 is P.Col. 8.215.31–34 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE). 113 The editors translated “You are kept in remembrance by the whole household and your sister and Paraebates and Phileas and Demetria the younger” (A. S. Hunt and J. G. Smyly in P.Tebt. 3.1, p. 190). 114 The form [ἐπισκο]π̣ο̣ῦ̣μαι may be restored in P.Oxy. 34.2725.22 (29 Apr 71 CE) which would represent a unique version of a final greeting (“I [care about] all of you”).

170

Chapter 5

other hand, the middle forms of ἐπισκοπέομαι certainly express more than a mere greeting, namely a special attention, sympathy, or concern. This can be expressed by “to care about” (instead of “to take care of” or “to look after”) or by “to have someone on one’s mind” or “to think of someone often” or “to ask how someone is doing.” Since we are dealing here with an epistolary formula that has been identified as secondary greetings, the various versions may be translated as “I want to tell you that I care about you,” “they want to tell you that they care about you,” and “tell them that I care about them.” Returning to Gal 6:10, we must conclude that Paul’s formulation can hardly be understood as a variant of this epistolary formula. It is very unlikely that any reader would have grasped the appeal to “work for the good of all” as a variant of secondary greetings, even though it may be argued that the phrases “to work for the good of someone” and “to care about someone” are not entirely dissimilar semantically. For two reasons, it is not entirely impossible that Paul’s appeal to “work for the good of all” could have been understood at least in the sense of a placeholder for secondary greetings. First, Gal 6:10 would fit as epistolary location for secondary greetings; it precedes the passage Paul wrote with his own hand. It is true that secondary greetings are part of the letter closing and not—as would be the case here—of the concluding part of the letter corpus, but if we consider that in most cases of a change in handwriting the letter author only adds the final greeting to the text dictated up to that point, it would be conceivable that Paul initially had in mind to only add a closing greeting to Gal 6:10 before deciding otherwise; or the readers may at least have wondered whether Gal 6:10 is here in place of secondary greetings and thus meant to express something that was not entirely in a different direction. Second, the secondary greetings at the end of two other letters of Paul, namely 1 Cor 16:20 and 2 Cor 13:12, are formulated as an appeal to “greet one another with a holy kiss,” which is, however, a form not attested in papyrus or ostracon letters (cf. p. 166). This illustrates that Paul used not only the common variants of the formula but also an additional one formulated as appeal. All in all, we can say: Gal 6:10 is not formulated as secondary greetings and was not read that way; it is, however, not impossible that some readers may have expected and thought of secondary greetings here, but then realized that instead there is an invitation to treat each other with care, and it is of course not impossible that this was also Paul’s intention.

Final Health Wish and Final Prayer Report

Literature *Exler 1923, 113–16; *Nachtergaele 2023, 227–38; *Weima 1994, 34–39; *White 1986, 200–202; *Ziemann 1910, 313–20.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

171

New Testament Rom 16:20a; 1 Thess 5:23–24.

Many letters of the Athenodoros Archive (TM Arch 26; see pp. 79, 229) attest the formula “and take care of yourself so that you stay healthy,” to which the writer of BGU 16.2631.18–30 [2.61] (2 Mar 9 BCE) added “which is my greatest concern.” In analogy to the health wish in a letter opening, the formula is called a final health wish (in Latin formula valetudinis finalis). Some further examples of the Athenodoros Archive are: BGU 16.2623.13 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE); 2611.13 [2.60] (17 Dec 10 BCE); 2610.10–11 [2.62] (13 or 23 Nov 9 BCE); 2608.9 [2.66] (14 Mar 7 or 4 BCE?); 2618.24 [2.64] (10 May 7 BCE); 2654.9 [2.65] (14 Jul 6 BCE). Two selected examples from the first century CE attesting this kind of health wish are P.Oslo 2.47.14–15 [2.68] (23 Aug 1 CE) and P.Princ. 3.186.15–16 (28 CE); in the latter example, the whole letter ends with this formula. Already in the third century BCE, final health wishes are sometimes explicitly styled as prayer reports, similar to the comparable formulas in the letter opening. Such a final prayer report is preserved in P.Col. 4.66.22–23 (256/255 BCE), where the letter author assures his addressee near the end of his letter: “I pray to all the gods and to the guardian divinity of the king that you remain well and come to us soon.” Among later examples is P.Oxy. 2.292.11–13 [2.71] (ca. 25 CE). In P.Ryl. 2.233 (14 Jun 118 CE?), a letter which is part of the Archive of Apollonios (TM Arch 19; see p. 329), we read in lines 15–16: “I pray, my lord, that I may see you in further advancement, in ripe prosperity.” The draft letter in col. 1 of P.Aegyptus Cent. 35 [2.173] (III CE) ends in lines 15–16 with the unique form: “Above all I pray that you are fortunate, as you wish.” Just as there is no explicit health wish at the beginning of a New Testament letter, there is no real New Testament parallel to a final health wish. At most, 1 Thess 5:23–24 could be remotely compared to a final prayer report, since it loosely picks up topics of the letter opening and letter body. But that the readers of the letter may indeed have recognized in it a reference to a formulaic prayer report is far from certain. Something similar may be true of Rom 16:20a.

Final Greeting

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 267–70; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 540; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 46–48 (extended eBook 2008, locations 154–60); *Bauer 2011, 50–51; G. J. Cuming 1976, “Service-Endings in the Epistles,” NTS 22:110–13; *Exler 1923, 69–77, 134–36; *Koskenniemi 1956, 151–54; *Kreinecker 2010, 215–20; *Luiselli 2008, 705–7; *Luttenberger 2012, 117–26; *Meecham 1923, 117–18; *Nachtergaele 2023, 239–69; *Sarri 2018, 120–21, 140–90; *Steen 1938, 125–26; *Schnider and Stenger 1987,

172

Chapter 5

131–35; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 62–63; *Tibiletti 1979, 62–66; *Weima 1994, 29–34; *White 1978, 1734; *White 1986, 194–96; *Ziemann 1910, 334–44, 350–56. New Testament Acts 15:29; Rom 15:33; 16:20b; 1 Cor 16:23–24; 2 Cor 13:13; Gal 6:18; Eph 6:23–24; Phil 4:23; Col 4:18; 1  Thess 5:28; 2  Thess 3:16–18; 1  Tim 6:21b; 2  Tim 4:22; Titus 3:15c; Phlm 25; Jas 5:19–20; 1 Pet 5:14b; 2 Pet 3:18b; 2 John 13; 3 John 15a; Jude 24–25; Rev 22:21.

Some scholars call this part a postscript (e.g., *Bauer 2011, 50–51) which is misleading since a postscript is attached to a letter after the final greeting, as is still the case today. Since a formal final greeting is—similar to the opening greeting—one of the most essential parts of the Greco-Roman letter form, its missing may have quickly triggered the suspicion that the relationship between the letter partners was in trouble. This was certainly true for O.Did. 333 [2.89] (before ca. 88–92 CE), and it may have been the case with CPR 25.1 (II–III CE), a fragmentary letter from a certain Demetria to a physician, whom she accuses of not having sent her certain items and not having notified her at all. The author of P.Flor. 3.367 [2.174] (III CE) reproaches his friend Didymos for not caring about a mutual correspondence; instead of closing the letter with a final greeting, he only asks the recipient to greet “our father.” There are, however, also some friendly letters of which a final greeting is missing, such as at the end of Hilarion’s letter to his sister (and wife) Alis, P.Oxy. 4.744 [2.67] (17 Jun 1 CE), at the end of two letters from a certain Antonius, P.Mich. 3.201 [2.93] (11 Feb 99 CE) and P.Wisc. 2.69 (100/101 CE), and at the end of a letter from Thermouthas, the wife of the same Antonius, to her mother, SB 5.7572 [2.94] (5 Oct 104 CE?); all three reveal nothing to suggest that the letter author might have been angry or disappointed. A short note such as P.Michael. 12 (I–II CE) begins with an opening greeting but does not contain a final greeting, which in this case will hardly have struck the addressee as something strange; this piece of papyrus serves primarily to identify the messenger of a certain Herakleides as the authorized person to whom the addressee should hand over a specific object—namely, a false coin. P.Oxy. 47.3356 [2.82] (28 Jan 76 CE) was probably dictated to a professional scribe; why the author did not add a final greeting to the exceedingly nice letter is unclear, perhaps simply by mistake. Especially in ostracon letters, the absence of a final greeting often seems to be simply caused by lack of space, which was obviously the case, for example, in O.Berenike 2.198 (ca. 50–75 CE). To the author of the ostracon letter O.Did. 343 [2.86] (before ca. 77–92 CE) it was obviously important, after he had written some secondary greetings, to add that the enclosed bunch of cabbage was to be given to Abaskantos, which resulted in a lack of space for his final greeting.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

173

Among the letters of the New Testament, a final greeting is missing at the end of 2 John, which ends with passing on the greetings of “the children of your chosen sister” (v. 13), and at the end of Jas, which concludes with final requests (5:19–20). 2 Pet (3:18b) and Jude (24–25) end with a doxology, which has no parallel in non-Christian papyrus or ostracon letters (for a Christian letter cf. SB 26.16687.v.3–4, 22 from the fourth century CE). 1 John cannot be regarded as a real letter since the characteristic formulas are missing at both the beginning and the end of the whole text. The absence of a final greeting at the end of the fictitious letter of Claudius Lysias to the Roman governor Felix in Acts 23:26–30 deserves a closer look, since the absence of a greeting in a letter to the prefect may have seemed strange, as indicated by several manuscripts (including Codex Sinaiticus) that have added a “farewell.” The papyrological evidence to assess this, however, is scant. BGU 20.2863 (133–137 CE) is a copy of a letter from the judge Harpokration to the prefect Petronius Mamertinus, who was in office 133–137 CE; the form of address “most excellent prefect” is the same as in Acts 23:26 (“most excellent” being the equivalent to the Latin title vir egregius), but the end of the letter is not preserved, which is also true for BGU 3.747 (before 30 Mar 139 CE) and P.Oxy. 45.3243 (214/215 CE). SB 28.16941.1–9 (1 Mar 189 CE), however, is a completely preserved letter to the Roman governor Vibius Alexander from Rufus Aristoteles, the curator of the mines of Mons Claudianus; in line 8, the letter text ends with the note “I am writing to you, lord, so that nothing remains hidden from you,” which is followed only by the date in line 9. It is, therefore, not impossible that letters to a Roman governor written contemporary to Acts 23:26–30 sometimes lacked a final greeting. An early example of the most common final greeting ἔρρωσο (“farewell”) is preserved in line 7 of SEG 50.704, a letter from Panticapaeum at the Black Sea written on a lead tablet between 400 and 350 BCE (cf. *Ceccarelli 2013, 341–42 no. 10). The formula is of fixed shape, which is also evident from the fact that— especially in the case of the plural ἔρρωσθε—it is very rarely accompanied by a vocative. The only examples I could find are: P.Mich. 15.754.4 (II–III  CE): “farewell, friends”; P.Stras. 4.174.7 (late II/early III CE): “farewell, dearest ones”; P.Theon. 8.11 (26 Apr 157 CE): “farewell, most honored.” Two examples with the singular form are BGU 2.665.3.7–8 (I CE): “I pray that you fare well, oh father”; SB 24.16334.10–11 (II CE?): “I pray that you fare well, brother.” When a letter was dictated to a scribe, the letter sender often wrote the “farewell” in his own hand. This habit, which became fashionable in Roman times, served as a sign of authenticity. Some examples from the first and second centuries CE are: TM 130712.15 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69] (spring 6 CE); BGU 1.37.8 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE); P.Fay. 110.31 [2.91] (11 Sep 94 CE); T.Vindol. 2.250.17 [2.95]

174

Chapter 5

(ca. 97–103 CE); P.Brem. 56app.18–20 [2.127] (113–120 CE); 20.16–19 [2.128] (second half 116–120 CE?); 5.14–16 [2.129] (117–119 CE); P.Oxy. 73.4959.20–21 [2.145] (II CE); 14.1664.14–17 [2.167] (ca. 200 CE); 55.3810.20–21 [2.162] (II–III CE).115 The more extensive phrase “I wish/pray that you fare well” is broadly used from the first century CE onward. Examples from this period are: P.Genova 2.60.6–7 (early I CE); P.Mil.Vogl. 2.50.17; 51.21–22 (both first half I CE); BGU 2.530.41–42 [2.74]; 3.830.26 [2.75]; P.Oxy. 49.3469.19 (all I CE). That this form of final greeting can actually include a religious aspect (“I pray” instead of “I wish”), is illustrated, for example, by PSI 12.1246.7–9 (ca. 219–222 CE) where the letter author wrote the final greeting in his own handwriting and added “to all the gods” (i.e., “I pray to all the gods, brother, that you always fare well” or “I always pray to all the gods, brother, that you fare well”). Another frequently used version of a final greeting is εὐτύχει (“be of good fortune” or “be fortunate”), which is preferably used in official letters, especially in petitions to the Ptolemaic king (so-called enteuxeis), later to the prefect, the strategos, or to other authorities. Contemporaneous with New Testament letters is, for example, P.Mich. 3.170.15 (16 Sep 49 CE). Examples from private letters are rare; one from the first century CE is CPR 7.52.12. Through a variety of extensions, letter writers were able to add a personal touch to the commonly used formulas. A special “farewell” is preserved by P.Michael. 15.7–9 [2.85] (ca. 76–84 CE): “If the gods are willing, also I myself will soon greet you [and (?)] your children, with whom (you may) fare well”; the ἔρρωσο concludes the letter, but it is beautifully linked to the preceding sentence. Conversely, the final greeting of P.IFAO 2.10 (I–II CE), the very fragmentary letter of a certain Eudaimonis, is syntactically connected with a following final health wish and secondary greetings (lines 23–24), which therefore cannot be considered a postscript. At the end of her letter of condolence, P.Oxy. 1.115 [2.143] (II CE), a certain Eirene used the more or less individual greeting “keep well” (line 12). A certain Perousis concluded a letter to his superior, BGU 3.892 [2.135] (II CE), with the beautiful words: “I pray that you fare well, my lord, for many years and are of good cheer and in vigorous health.” Some other more or less individual examples from the first or second centuries are: P.Heid. 3.234.9–11: “I pray that you fare well and be fortunate through a long life”; P.Münch. 3.119.35–36: “I pray that you fare well, brother, and are doing well”; P.Oxy.Hels. 46.12: “I pray that you fare well, lord, together with your whole household.” See also P.Mich. 8.465.45–46 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?): “I pray that you fare well and be joyful”; P.Sarap. 89c.9–10 (2 May 108 CE?): “I pray 115 For some of these and other examples see *Sarri 2018, 347–66 (many presented with images).

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

175

that you fare well, mother, and be fortunate all the time” (cf. P.Sarap. 86.14–15); P.Oxy. 14.1664.14–17 [2.167] (ca. 200 CE): “I pray that you fare well, my kind and noblest lord Apion, and that you pass well through life with whom it pleases you to live”; P.Jördens 21.35–39 (II–III CE): “I pray that you fare well through life, and have great success, and attain great wealth so that you can share it with all who love you”; P.Oxy.Hels. 48.25–27 [2.163] (II–III CE): “We pray that you fare well with your whole household all your life and have much success.” A rather complex example has been preserved in BGU 4.1080.22–25 [2.180] (III CE?), where the letter author syntactically connected the extended final greeting, written in his own hand, even with the secondary greeting that he had dictated to his scribe (cf. p. 406). In the New Testament, the simple “farewell” serves as the final greeting of the fictitious letter Acts 15:23–29. In Paul’s letters, however, the final greetings are—similar to the opening greeting “grace to you and peace”—formulated quite differently from the usual final greetings of his time. All his letters (as well as 2 Thess 3:18 and Rev 22:21) end with the peculiar greeting “the grace of our lord Jesus Christ (be) with you”; the variant “… (be) with your spirit” is attested in Gal 6:18, Phil 4:23, and Phlm 25. The final greetings of several other letters are based on “grace” but continue with different details: Col 4:18, 1 Tim 6:21, 2 Tim 4:22, and Titus 3:15 have only “grace (be) with you” (Titus 3:15 has “all of you”); in 2 Tim 4:22 this greeting is preceded by “the lord be with your spirit.” 1 Pet 5:14 has “peace to all of you who are in Christ,” thus picking up the second term of the opening greeting (“may grace and peace be yours in abundance” in 1 Pet 1:2), and 3 John 15 has only “peace to you” (singular). Although Paul’s final greeting and the variants based on it are unique, the many individual examples from papyrus letters nevertheless prove that the option for deviations from the norm and for independent versions was used again and again. This suggests that the final greetings of New Testament letters were perceived as unique, but not strange, and conveyed to the addressees that the relationship with them was of special and personal significance to the letter sender. As for 2 Thess and Eph, it is worth noting that both letters end with a double final greeting, which in 2 Thess 3:16, 18 is interrupted by the curious note of v. 17 (see below), while Eph 6:23–24 can be identified either as one comprehensive greeting with two parts, addressing the recipients of the letter first as “the brothers” (v. 23) and then as “those who infinitely love our lord Jesus Christ” (v. 24), or as two final greetings, the first of which wishing the addressees “peace and love with faith” and the second “grace.” Be that as it may, these final greetings are in both cases to be seen as those of the respective letter author and not as the final greetings of several different persons. Papyrological parallels are understandably rare. P.Oxy. 55.3806.13–14 (21 May 15 CE) may be interpreted

176

Chapter 5

as a double final greeting: “Stay healthy in your soul.116 Farewell.” Since a typical final health wish is already conveyed in line 12, “stay healthy in your soul” may rather be understood as a very individual variant of “I pray that you fare well.” Clearly two final greetings are preserved in P.Mich. 8.464.22–24 [1.29] (16 Mar 99 CE?), and similar to 2 Thess 3:16–18, they are interrupted, in this case by secondary greetings; the whole passage reads: “I wish that you fare well, and your children and all your people greet you. Farewell.”117 The fragmentarily preserved letter P.Warr. 13 (II CE) was closed by the unknown sender in a first step with the words: “Farewell, my lord father, and be fortunate for long years” (lines 19–20); however, the remains of two lines in the left margin of the papyrus suggest that he repeated his final greeting after a postscript, but without “for long years.”118 A double “farewell” is also preserved at the end of the ostracon letters O.Krok. 2.290 (98–117 CE) and 193 [2.118] (98–138 CE), once separated by a secondary greeting, the other time by a message to a third person. A further example is P.Mich. 8.502.15–20 [2.141] (II CE).

A Closer Look #5: Paul’s Handwriting

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 240–43; P. Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 521–22; P. Arzt-Grabner 2018, review of S. Reece, Paul’s Large Letters: Paul’s Autographic Subcriptions in the Light of Ancient Epistolary Conventions, LNTS 561 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), Bib 99:614–17; G. J. Bahr 1968, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters,” JBL 87:27–41; *Deissmann 1903, 348–49; *Deissmann 1927, 166–67 n. 7; C. Keith 2008, “‘In My Own Hand’: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul,” Bib 89:39– 58; T. J. Kraus 2007, “An Obligation from Contract Law in Philemon 19: Characteristic Style and Juridical Background,” in idem, Ad fontes: Original Manuscripts and Their Significance for Studying Early Christianity: Selected Essays, TENTS 3 (Leiden: Brill), 207–30; *Kreinecker 2010, 216–19; *Kremendahl 2000, 39–48; *Luttenberger 2012, 120–26; *Palme 2006, 291–93; *Reece 2017; F. Reiter 2018, “Vorschläge zu Lesung und Deutung einiger Steuerquittungen aus Elephantine,” in Hieratic, Demotic and Greek Studies and Text Editions: Of Making Many Books There Is No End: Festschrift in Honour of Sven P. Vleeming, ed. K. Donker van Heel, F. A. J. Hoogendijk, and C. J. Martin, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 34 (Leiden: Brill), 60–68; *Roller 1933, 187–91, 590–92; *Schnider and Stenger 1987, 135–67; *Schubert 2021, 18–21, 25–26; D. Trobisch 2023, On the Origin of Christian Scripture: The Evolution of the New Testament Canon in the Second Century (Minneapolis: Fortress) (forthcoming); *Ziemann 1910, 362–65. 116 The editor translates “… in spirit” (J. R. Rea in P.Oxy. 55, p. 176). 117 Cf. P.Amh. 2.181 (III CE): “I wish that you fare well and that you remember the writing case I asked you for when you were present. Farewell and be fortunate.” 118 The final line can be restored as [--- ἔρρωσό] μ̣ο̣ι,̣ κύριέ μου πάτερ, εὐτυχῶν. The small blank space after it indicates that the text was not continued in the lost part of the papyrus.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

177

New Testament 1 Cor 16:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17; Phlm 19.

The papyrus and ostracon letters preserved in the original have, among other things, the advantage that one can still see the authentic handwriting of the scribe. If, due to different handwritings, several scribes can be distinguished in a letter, the final greeting (and sometimes also the dating or a postscript) can usually be assigned to the letter author. Such graphic peculiarities are lost during the process of publishing letter collections, which is why the remark to “write with my own hand” in Gal 6:11 and Phlm 19 (cf. 1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17) has been traditionally interpreted as an indication of a change of scribes and was attributed to the author of the respective New Testament letter. Some scholars also interpret the explicit mention of Paul’s name in 2 Cor 10:1 (“I myself, Paul”) as indicating that Paul wrote the text from here on with his own hand and that chapters 1–9 were written primarily by a secretary or by Timothy (Bahr 1968, 37–38; *Deissmann 1927, 166–67 n. 7). A vivid discussion has arisen especially around Gal 6:11, since Paul here allegedly characterizes his own handwriting as one of “large letters.” In this context, S. Reece (2017) reviewed the online images of some 5,000 Greek letters preserved on papyrus, tablets, or potsherds between 300 BCE and 300 CE119 for subscriptions. According to him, about 2,500 of these letters actually contain subscriptions, and about 425 show handwriting that differs from that of the letter corpus, sometimes larger (about 15%), sometimes about the same size (about 30%), but in more than half the cases smaller (about 55%). However, a large number of the evidence collected by Reece comes from receipts, petitions, and contracts. If we limit the results to those examples that are suitable for comparison with Gal 6:11, that is, to letters written close to the time of Paul of Tarsus and revealing at least two different scribal hands, one of which is clearly larger than the other, the results are quite modest. The earliest example listed by Reece (2017, 166 n. 25) that qualifies is P.Oxy. 55.3807 (ca. 26–28 CE?), a business letter with a long postscript; only the final “farewell” in line 32 was written by a second hand in larger letters, while the following postscript was again dictated to the scribe. Similar examples are SB 6.9122.14 (ca. 57 CE) and P.Col. 8.216.11 (ca. 100 CE). The last two lines of P.Oslo 3.151 (I–II CE) were written in larger characters by a second hand but their content can 119 Meanwhile the numbers are higher. As of 10 Jan 2023, the papyri.info database contains approximately 6,000 letters from the above-mentioned period (not counting receipts, petitions, and contracts as done by Reed), of which slightly more than 4,100 are linked to online images.

178

Chapter 5

no longer be determined. P.Brem. 61 [1.15] (113–120 CE) contains three letters to the strategos Apollonios; the final greeting and the dating of the first letter are written in larger characters by a second hand (col. 1.23–24), whereas the following postscript is again written by the first hand. The two lines below the scribe’s text of P.Giss. 1.75 (113–120 CE) contain a kind of final greeting written by a second hand. The first final greeting and the postscript of P.Brem. 53.43–44 (12 Jun 114 CE) are by a second hand; a second final greeting (line 45) is smaller and by a third hand, by which perhaps also the following dating was written. Finally, the last two lines of P.NYU 2.20 (II–III CE) contain the final greeting, written by the letter sender in much larger letters. The result is—strictly speaking—not very exciting, because the mere fact that two handwritings of different sizes can be distinguished within a single letter is nothing unusual. Additionally, since Gal 6:11 does not mention any further details (e.g., whether Paul’s letters are written by a clumsy or a practiced hand), nothing more than this mere fact can be deduced from it. It may be instructive for the exegetical discussion that—as Reece often points out (2017, 10–11, 197 et passim)—Paul’s large letters in Gal 6:11 did not indicate that Paul lacked education or even that he had an unusually poor writing style; it can only be assumed that Paul had a writing style that was technically less sophisticated than that of the scribe to whom he dictated the letter. Repeatedly, scholars have been searching for comparable papyrus evidence for the expression “I write with my own hand.” This phrase, however, is not an epistolary formula, that is, it is not part of the usual repertoire of letter writers, but a clause used in different kinds of contracts to express the binding nature of the document. The factual context of the clause is basically the so-called cheirographon, that is, the “handwritten” document, the “handbill” as the most important type of document in private law, which was used extremely widely from the third/second century BCE onwards. In it, its issuer confirmed the binding nature of the agreement through his own writing. The not infrequently used execution by professional scribes remained a mere technical aid and did not change the fundamentally private character. However, even in these documents the explicit clause “I write with my own hand” is only rarely attested,120 which can already be taken as an indication that the validity and binding nature did not depend on the actual use of this clause; if it was used, the binding nature was only emphasized more clearly. In this regard, a look at simple receipts is revealing. Only three out of more than 8,300 from the first and second centuries CE121 preserve the phrase “I 120 In SB 14.12138.14 (41–54 CE) it can be reconstructed. 121 Retrieved from papyri.info on 10 Jan 2023.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

179

wrote with my own hand,” all three originating from the Roman military camp of Pselkis in Nubia: O.Bodl. 2.2010 (with BL 6:212; 27 Nov–26 Dec 176 or 208 CE); SB 3.6968 (second half II–early III CE); 6971 (5 Jan 178 or 210 CE). In some wills, the expression is used in the context of a special clause. In P.Oxy. 3.495 (181–184 CE), for instance, we read in lines 15–16: “However, what I write with my own hand below to the official version122 of this will, whether I delete or add something from the present one or bequeath something to others or also want anything else, this too shall be valid as if … it were written down in the will.” By this clause, therefore, the testator refers to his right to append a codicil to the actual will, which, of course, was reserved for him alone. Now it is striking that the mentioned clause did not necessarily have to contain the detail “with my own hand,” as, for example, the otherwise quite similarly drawn up will P.Oxy. 3.494 (25 May 156 CE) shows, where we read in lines 25–27: “However, what I write below to the official version of this will, whether I delete …” A practical example of the process described is provided by BGU 1.326, the Greek-written minutes of the opening of the will of C. Longinus Castor, a veteran of the fleet of Misenum: The original will had been written on 17 November 189 CE, and a codicil was added and sealed before five witnesses on 7 February of an unnamed year; the reading of the will took place on 21 February 194 CE, as recorded in the minutes, which include the Greek translations of the Latin will (col. 1.1–col. 2.9) and of the codicil added to the will (col. 2.15–21). The text of the will again contains the respective clause (col. 2.2–3), which is repeated at the end of the will (col. 2.8–9). At the bottom of the text of the supplementary codicil, there is indeed the confirmation: “I have written with my own hand” (col. 2.18); after that the five witnesses are listed (cf. *Palme 2006, 291–93). The respective clause clearly indicates the validity and binding nature of what is written, not the type of writing or the scribe’s level of education, nor does it indicate that the testator wrote the relevant lines himself. For, considering the complexity of such wills, it must be assumed that they were written by professional scribes. Another of the rare examples of this clause is preserved in the cancellation of a loan from Appadana/Syria Coele, P.Euphrates 14 (21 Apr 241 CE). The context of this document is as follows: The taker of a loan of 12,000 denarii demands the return of the loan contract, which indicates that he claims to have repaid the loan. However, the lender, a certain Sigillios, has meanwhile passed away and the contract cannot be found by the heirs. A theft is under consideration, but since the borrower has been able to convince the issuer of the present document under oath that he has nothing to do with the disappearance of 122 This is the original version of the will deposited in the archive or in the notary’s office.

180

Chapter 5

the contract, the latter now releases him from his share of the claim, cancels the debt to him, and waives all further actions and claims under oath. The end of P.Euphrates 14, therefore, reads: “I have written with my own hand, in only one copy, without witnesses” (lines 18–19). Again, the affirmation emphasizes the validity of the document, not the writing skills of its responsible author or a change in handwriting (actually, the whole document was written by the identical scribe). In private letters there is not a single analogy to Gal 6:11 (or to 1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18; 2 Thess 3:17). The only evidence of the clause in a letter appears in P.Ammon 1.3.col5.25–26 [2.188] (324–330 CE?), where the letter author promises his mother: “I will write now in my own hand to my friends so that they act in concert with us about this.” Again, this has nothing to do with a change of scribes; moreover, it refers to letters that Ammon will later write in his own hand, and not to the present letter. The only parallel to the papyrological evidence of “I write in my own hand” is found in Phlm 19, because there the clause has the meaning to underline the binding nature of the promise Paul makes to his correspondent Philemon, namely, that he will pay back to Philemon any damage or debt the slave Onesimus may have caused. That, on the other hand, there is no parallel in papyrus or ostracon letters for Gal 6:11, 1 Cor 16:21, Col 4:18, and 2 Thess 3:17 is easily explained: a verbal reference to the way someone is writing or to a change of scribes was simply unnecessary. The recipients of the letter could see this clearly anyway, even without being able to read; it was simply visible. D. Trobisch (2023, forthcoming) emphasizes that a plausible interpretation of Gal 6:11, 1 Cor 16:21, Col 4:18, and 2 Thess 3:17 should include the publication process, because it is the publisher who plays an important role in making documents relevant.123 “Authentication makes a document relevant to the community, not authenticity.” By presenting “an autograph,” Trobisch writes, “the publisher becomes the authenticator.” This principle is also applicable to the publication of Paul’s letters. After publication, readers of Paul’s letters did “not have access to the originals”; they only had “access to published copies through the lens of the editorial narrative.” In this context, it is quite possible that the passages mentioned were inserted only during the publication process of Paul’s letters and that by introducing them, the editor of the letters wanted to indicate that he could see in the originals not only the change in handwriting but—in case of Gal 6:11—also Paul’s original handwriting with “the large letters.” The complete absence of comparable formulations in the 123 I am very grateful to David Trobisch for several conversations on the topic as well as for granting me access to his manuscript prior to publication.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

181

original letters of Greco-Roman antiquity at any rate lends this assumption no small degree of plausibility, since it can also explain why these formulations do not occur elsewhere. Another observation from the papyrus and ostracon letters even allows us to go one step further. It is noteworthy that longer remarks written in the sender’s own hand in cases where the rest of the letter was written by a secretary are rare, and most were written as postscript. A particularly interesting example is preserved in P.Mich. 8.496 [2.108] (ca. 100–147 CE). In this case, the handwriting of the scribe, to whom the letter was obviously dictated, is larger than that of the letter author, who has added his own final greeting and a long postscript in his own hand around the final greeting and date already written down by the scribe.124 It is especially rare that we can recognize the different handwriting of a letter author to be evident even before the final greeting; two examples are P.Giss. 1.97.11–16 and P.Oxy. 42.3063.21–26 (both II CE). Particularly for Gal 6:11–18, therefore, the following assumption can be made: In the original of Paul’s letter, vv. 12–18 were written in a different hand, but the original did not contain the explicit remark of v. 11: “See with what large letters I write to you with my own hand.” Both Paul himself and the readers of his letter would have considered such a reference unnecessary, even extremely strange. Pretty much anyone who got to see the letter could easily notice that vv. 12–18 revealed a different handwriting, and a larger one than that of the entire preceding text. To anyone who was at least generally familiar with the nature of Greek letters and Greco-Roman letter writing, there was no other explanation than that these lines had been written by the author of the letter, that is, by Paul himself. The comparatively enormous length of the passage and the fact that Paul already used the kalamos before the final greeting were certainly striking. If, on the contrary, Paul had written the final greeting first and attached a postscript to it, this would have been nothing unusual. During the subsequent process of copying and publishing the letter, precisely what was striking about Gal 6:12–18 would have been lost, for imitating another handwriting was unusual; and since it is only with v. 18 that the letter closing begins, which consists here only of the final greeting, it can hardly be assumed that, in the original, vv. 12–17 had been drawn in a special layout that could have been copied (cf. p. 71). The note of Gal 6:11 could, however, reveal exactly what was only visible in the original: that from here on Paul wrote a comparatively long section himself with his own hand, whereas he had dictated the preceding text 124 Two other examples of final greetings and postscripts written by the letter author and not by a secretary are BGU 2.665.3.7–14 (with BL 1:59; I CE) and P.Oxy. 41.2985.v.13–15 (II–III CE).

182

Chapter 5

to a scribe. This assumption implies that the person who inserted the remark, that is most likely the publisher, had seen the original of the letter to the Galatians and by the insertion wanted to let the readers of his edition mentally participate in this visual experience. In analogy, it can be assumed for 1 Cor 16:21 that also this remark was not part of Paul’s original letter but inserted later to inform the readers of Paul’s published letter collection that the final greeting in vv. 23–24, and perhaps also v. 22, had obviously been written in a different handwriting, namely, by Paul himself. However, it must also be conceded that the remark which is included in the canonical text cannot be used as independent proof of Paul’s handwriting. It is quite possible that the publisher of the Pauline letters, or whoever inserted the remark, only pretended to have seen Paul’s genuine handwriting. In this sense, also Col 4:18 and 2 Thess 3:17 are neither an argument for the authenticity of these two letters nor one against it.

Optional Additions



Postscript

Literature *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 142–44, 156–57, 184–86, 393 (extended eBook 2008, A7.9 no. 39, A7.11 no. 41, A7.18 no. 48, A11.1 no. 72, B12.7 no. 284); *Sarri 2018, 163–65, 350–51; *Weima 1994, 52–55. New Testament Rom 16:21–23; [16:25–27]; 3 John 15b–c.

In Greco-Roman letter writing, it was not uncommon for a scribe or author of a letter to add a short remark or sometimes even a larger passage to the final greeting. Usually such a postscript was written after the letter had already been completed. In some cases postscripts are quite extensive, such as P.Oxy. 55.3807.33–45 (ca. 26–28 CE?), P.Oxy. 75.5049.6–14 (25 Oct 59 CE), P.Oxy. 59.3992.22–33, and P.Tebt. 2.314.12–22 (both II CE). That of O.Claud. 2.383 (ca. 98–117 CE) is longer than the text of the letter itself, and one may wonder what prompted the letter writer to add it only after the final greeting. Several examples are very special. By the postscript of BGU 16.2611.16–19 [2.60] (17 Dec 10 BCE), for example, the letter sender Herakleides urges his addressee for the third time in this letter to finally provide the measure for the transport of grain to Alexandria, which he neglected to send him in accordance with an earlier letter. A certain Theoktistos adds to the final greeting of

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

183

his relatively long letter to Apollonios, BGU 3.884 (ca. 76–84 CE): “Before you leave for Chairemon, come to me so that I may bid you farewell” (col. 2.13–14). As indicated by the preceding text, Theoktistos was grieving over a conflict with the said Chairemon. The intention of the postscript, therefore, was probably to get an opportunity, before Apollonios’s departure to Chairemon, to give him, beyond the letter, some oral advice on how to behave towards Chairemon. In closing the letter P.Mich. 21.854, col. 2 (II CE), a certain Epaphrys (perhaps a slave) wrote: “I greet all our people. I have not yet bought the piglets. I pray that you fare well” (col. 2.11–13). The letter closing is already interrupted by a note on piglets that Epaphrys was supposed to buy but had not yet done so, which he apparently forgot to report earlier in his letter; after the final greeting in line 13, he refers once again to the piglets and asks his addressee, whose name is not preserved, how they should be raised. It is likely that this postscript was meant to serve as some sort of excuse for not having purchased the piglets yet, as Epaphrys implies that it would help him if he knew already at the time of purchase how to raise them afterwards. The letter bodies of P.Mich. 8.482 [2.110] (23 Aug 133 CE) and 490 [2.139] (II CE) present—both in combination with two postscripts—exciting insights into the letter-writing processes (see pp. 64 and 344). Similar to the first example, also the situation described in PSI 15.1553 [2.170] (first half III CE) has changed again after writing the final greetings, which is why a postscript (lines 22–25) informs the addressee that, as his correspondents had expected earlier, a man has finally arrived from the addressee, although it is not the person they had actually been waiting for. In the case of P.Mich. 8.496 [2.108] (ca. 100–147 CE), the change in handwriting reveals that a secretary had—after an empty space below the letter corpus—already added a final greeting and the date before the letter author himself added his final greeting and a long postscript in between and around it. A certain Arsinoos, following the closing greeting of P.Warr. 15.v (second half II CE), instructs his addressee to fulfill further orders until he will arrive on the 25th of the month, and he closes the ten-line postscript (lines 21–30) with the words: “But do your best, brother.” Some later examples are P.Oxy. 7.1070.44–56 [2.168] (after 212 CE); PSI 12.1247.v [2.171] (ca. 235–238 CE); P.Iand. 6.97.20–23 [2.181] (29 Nov 242 or 30 Nov 247 or 29 Nov 257 CE); P.Oxy. 7.1067.25–31 with BL 8:240 (III CE; see p. 45). In New Testament letters, postscripts are only attested at the end of Rom and 3 John. After the final greeting in Rom 16:20b, vv. 21–23 were added to pass on the greetings of several people who were with Paul while dictating the letter. Between vv. 21 and 23, Paul’s secretary Tertius added his own greeting which indicates that the entire postscript was written by him (on Tertius see

184

Chapter 5

pp. 61–65). In 3 John 15, the letter sender forwards the greetings of “the friends” but also asks his addressee to pass on greetings to “the friends” at his place by name (see p. 165). Some comparable postscripts in letters of the first century CE are: SB 3.6823.26–28 [2.73] (41–54 CE); O.Did. 330.16 (before ca. 88–96 CE); O.Krok. 2.288.16 [2.103]; 314.18; 316.32–33; 321.17–18; 327.13–14 (all 98–117 CE); P.Col. 8.215.34 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE). Dating

Literature *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 91–93 (extended eBook 2008, locations 267–70); *Deissmann 1927, 172 n. 3; *Exler 1923, 78–100; *Roller 1933, 68–69, 475–81; *Sarri 2018, 121–22; T. Schmeller 2004, “Die Cicerobriefe und die Frage nach der Einheitlichkeit des 2. Korintherbriefes,” ZNW 95:181–208, here 190; *Trobisch 1989, 96–97.

If provided, the date is written down either on a separate line125 or following the often-indented final greeting on the same line.126 Among other considerations, the absence of dates at the end of the New Testament letters, as attested by the manuscripts, may be explained by the fact that dating is an expression of the situational and time-related character of a letter. Accordingly, it is argued that those letters that were subsequently made available to a wider public through copying, transmission, and finally through edition as a collection were deliberately disconnected in this process from their original addressees and thus from their temporal limitation, and that for this reason the dating was often omitted as a limiting element (*Trobisch 1989, 96–97). However, some letters of Cicero are preserved with date;127 and three model letters which were copied from original letters and preserved on a papyrus scroll, written and found at Memphis, still preserve the exact dating of their originals (UPZ 1.110.1–192 is dated to 21 Sep 164 BCE, 110.193–213 to 23 Oct 164 BCE, and 111 to 22 Sep 163 BCE).128 The explanation mentioned above is also 125 Some examples from Egypt’s early Roman period are: BGU 16.2631.22 [2.61] (2 Mar 9 BCE); 2608.10 [2.66] (14 Mar 7 or 4 BCE?); P.Oxy. 4.744.15 [2.67] (17 Jun 1 BCE); BGU 4.1078.15–16 [2.72] (20 Oct 38 CE); 1.37.9–10 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE); P.Mert. 1.12.27 [2.78] (26 Apr 59 CE); P.Fouad 75.18–19 [2.81] (15 Oct 64 CE); P.Oxy. 47.3356.28–29 [2.82] (28 Jan 76 CE); P.Turner 18.14 [2.90] (89–96 CE); P.Fay. 110.32–34 [2.91] (11 Sep 94 CE); P.Mich. 3.203.39 [2.125] (114–116 CE); 8.482.19–21 [2.110] (23 Aug 133 CE); PSI 12.1241.38 [2.151] (14 Jul 159 CE). 126 See, e.g.: P.Lips. 1.104.30 [2.56] (30 Jun 95 or 22 Jun 62 BCE); BGU 16.2623.14 [2.59] (27 Apr 10 BCE); 2611.14 [2.60] (17 Dec 10 BCE); 2618.25 [2.64] (10 May 7 BCE); 2654.10 [2.65] (14 Jul 6 BCE); CPR 5.19.23 [2.114] (I–II CE); P.Oxy. 1.115.12 [2.143] (II CE). 127 E.g., Cicero, Fam. 10.21 | 10.21a; 12.23–30; 13.6 | 13.6a; Quint. fratr. 3.1 | 3.2; Att. 4.8 | 4.8a; 9.9 | 9.10; 10.3 | 10.3a; cf. Schmeller 2004, 190. 128 For palaeographical reasons it is assumed that the three copies on the scroll were written soon after the original letters.

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

185

only plausible in individual cases, because the evidence of the papyrus letters preserved in the original shows that about half of them (and not so few official letters) remained undated from the beginning (cf. already *Exler 1923, 98). Thus, in light of the papyrological evidence, it remains completely open whether any of the New Testament letters were originally dated, and if so, at what stage of the copying process the dating was later dropped. Address

Literature G. Adamson 2012, “Letter from a Soldier in Pannonia,” BASP 49:79–94; N. Gonis 2001, “Some More Elaborate Epistolary Addresses,” ZPE 136:116–18; *Llewelyn 1994a; *Llewelyn 1994c, 26–47; *Llewelyn 1998a; *Luiselli 2008, 709–10; *Reinard 2016, 419–32; *Sarri 2018, 122–24; M. Stern 2016, “Drei neue ptolemäische Papyri und das Amtsarchiv des Demetrios,” BASP 53:17–51, here 41; *Trobisch 1989, 96–97; *White 1978, 308–9; *White 1986, 216–17; *Ziemann 1910, 276–83.

The address was usually written on the back of a papyrus letter, and in most cases after the sheet had been folded. Ostracon letters were comparatively rarely provided with addresses. Since they could not be folded, the recipient was visible from the beginning of the letter’s text anyway. If at all, an address was usually noted on the same side of the ostracon as the letter text. In the case of O.Krok. 2.267 (98–117 CE), the address is written on top of the ostracon (before the opening greeting). O.Did. 317.11 (before ca. 77–92 CE) does not conclude with a final greeting, but with the address in line 11. Some papyrus letters preserve unusually detailed addresses; see, for example, BGU 4.1079 (4 Aug 41 CE): “[Deliver to] Alexandria, to the marketplace of Augustus, to the … store for Herakleides, from Sarapion son of …, the son of Sosipatros”; P.Oxy. 14.1678 (III CE): “Deliver from Theon. Address, at the Teumenous quarter in the lane opposite the well.” The gymnasiarch Dios addresses P.Oxy. 67.4624 (I CE) to his agent Sarapion, but the letter is to be delivered to Dios’s own residence, since Sarapion is apparently staying there. Sometimes a letter is addressed to a person other than the one named in the opening greeting. BGU 4.1078 [2.72] (20 Oct 38 CE), for example, is a letter from Sarapion to his sister (and wife?) Sarapias, but the address on the back of the papyrus told the letter carrier to deliver it to the younger son of the letter sender whose name was also Sarapion (on this and other examples see *Llewelyn 1994a). Ioanne’s letter to Epagathos, P.Bad. 2.35 [2.87] (16 Dec 87 CE), was to be sent to Ptolemais Hermeiou in the Egyptian nome Thinites (TM Geo 2023) and handed over to a guard or policeman who was to deliver it to the addressee (lines 30–31 with Stern 2016, 41). From P.Lond. 3.897.16–19 (pp. 206–7; 29 Mar 87 CE) we learn that a correspondent could be specifically asked where to send letters in the future: “And when you send me letters, send them

186

Chapter 5

to Theon’s snack store next to the bath of Charidemos, and in the store he (i.e., the letter carrier) will find Dios son of Syros, and he will give it to me, or to Herakleidion son of Abas.” In O.Claud. 1.155.3–6 (II CE), a certain Ammonios informs his fellow citizen and “brother” Apollonios that he has been notified that a letter from his wife has arrived, apparently at Apollonios’s current location of Mons Claudianus, and he therefore asks him to send it on to Kampe (TM Geo 2637), where he himself is currently stationed (lines 10–11). The recruit Apion alias Antonius Maximus used a military post in Philadelphia in the Arsinoite nome to have his letter BGU 2.423 [1.44] (II CE), which he had written after his arrival at Misenum in Italy, forwarded from there to his father, whereas other recruits who were in a similar situation had their letters delivered directly to their addressees, which is true of P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139], 491 [2.140] (both II CE), and P.Tebt. 2.583 [2.165] (II–III CE; cf. Adamson 2012, 81; *Llewelyn 1994c, 45–47). With the successful delivery of a letter, the address lost its actual function as an instruction for the letter carrier. It is therefore a reasonable consideration that in the case of the New Testament letters the address, if there was one originally provided at all, was omitted during the publication process (*Trobisch 1989, 96–97).

Sealings and Stamps

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 225–27; *Luiselli 2008, 710–11; M. Önal 2018, Die Siegelabdrücke von Zeugma, Asia Minor Studien 85; Dolichener und Kommagenische Forschungen 10 (Bonn: Habelt); A. Papathomas 2009, Juristische Begriffe im ersten Korintherbrief des Paulus: Eine semantisch-lexikalische Untersuchung auf der Basis der zeitgenössischen griechischen Papyri, Tyche Supplementband 7 (Vienna: Holzhausen), 142–43; *Roller 1933, 45, 394–97; B. F. van Oppen de Ruiter and R. Wallenfels, eds. 2021, Hellenistic Sealings & Archives: Proceedings of The Edfu Connection, an International Conference, 23–24 January 2018, Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, Studies in Classical Archaeology 10 (Turnhout: Brepols); K. Vandorpe 1995, Breaking the Seal of Secrecy: Sealing-Practices in Greco-Roman and Byzantine Egypt Based on Greek, Demotic and Latin Papyrological Evidence, Uitgaven vanwege de stichting “Het Leids Papyrologisch Instituut” 18 (Leiden: Papyrologisch Instituut); K. Vandorpe 1996, “Seals in and on the Papyri of Greco-Roman and Byzantine Egypt,” in Archives et sceaux du monde hellénistique – Archivi e sigilli nel mondo ellenistico, Torino, Villa Gualino, 13–16 Gennaio 1993, ed. M.-F. Boussac and A. Invernizzi, BCH Supplement 29 (Athens: École Française d’Athènes), 231–91, planche 45–47 (republished with additions https:// www.trismegistos.org/seals/overview_A.html); K. Vandorpe 2014, “Seals and Stamps as Identifiers in Daily Life in Greco-Roman Egypt,” in Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World, vol. 3 of Legal Documents in Ancient Societies, ed. M. Depauw and S. Coussement, OLA 229 (Leuven: Peeters), 141–51; K. Vandorpe and B. van Beek 2012, “‘Non Signat Aegyptus’? Seals and Stamps in the Multicultural Society of Greco-Roman Egypt,” in Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East: Developments

Letter Sections, Formulas, and Clichés

187

in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period – Proceedings of an International Workshop at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo on December 2–3, 2009, ed. I. Regulski, K. Duistermaat, and P. Verkinderen, OLA 219 (Leuven: Peeters), 81–98; A.-K. Wassiliou 1999, Siegel und Papyri: Das Siegelwesen in Ägypten von römischer bis in früharabische Zeit. Katalog zur Sonderausstellung des Papyrusmuseums der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek in Zusammenarbeit mit der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften / Kommission für Byzantinistik, 20.9.–31.12.1999, Nilus 4 (Vienna: Österreichische Verlagsgesellschaft C. & E. Dworak); *Ziemann 1910, 281–83. – See also the extensive bibliography by K. Vandorpe at https://www.trismegistos.org/seals/biblio.html. New Testament Rom 4:11; 15:28; 1 Cor 9:2; 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30; 2 Tim 2:19.

After a completed papyrus letter had been folded and the address written on its back, it was often sealed. During the Ptolemaic period, clay sealings were used to seal Greek and Demotic letters by pressing them on a thread that held the papyrus closed, which was rarely done in the Roman period. P.Col. 8.216 (ca. 100 CE) was found with part of the clay sealing and a papyrus string attached to the sheet (R. S. Bagnall and K. A. Worp in P.Col. 8, p. 96). Much more commonly, an X-shaped “cross” of ink or a saltire pattern (⪫⪪) was drawn across this string, and if the string was removed (or if it had been removed), the broken lines became visible (i.e., ⪥ or ⪫⪪). Some examples of ⪥ from the first century CE are BGU 2.530.v [2.74] (I CE); 417.v [2.83] (second half I CE); 531.v [2.84] (ca. 76–84 CE); P.Fay. 110.v [2.91] (11 Sep 94 CE); P.Mich. 3.201.v [2.93] (11 Feb 99 CE); BGU 2.451.v [2.102]; SB 14.11644.v [2.99] (both I–II CE); P.Sarap. 100.v [2.113] (90–133 CE). Examples of ⪫⪪ are P.Mich. 21.854.v (II CE) and PSI 12.1261.v [2.169] (212–217 CE). In some letters, we find explicit references to the sealing process, such as in P.Mert. 1.12.25 [2.78] (26 Apr 59 CE) and P.Oxy. 42.3057.3 [2.96] (I–II CE; see note 2). Red stamps were used by officials to register documents such as petitions and contracts, and are therefore extremely rare on papyrus letters, but on the back of P.Fay. 109 [2.70] (19 Jun 10 BCE or 34 CE) parts of two red stamps are preserved. Naturally, the seal marks of New Testament letters have not been preserved, and we do not know if any were sealed at all. The term “seal,” both as a verb and as a noun, is used in several passages (see above under “New Testament”), but always metaphorically, which can refer not only to sealed letters but also to other sealed documents, goods, or even animals (see Papathomas 2009, 142–43).

Chapter 6

Transport and Reception of Letters

Appended Letters and Multiple Letters on a Single Papyrus

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 100–105; *Arzt-Grabner 2020, 83–91; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 36–37, 395–406 (extended eBook 2008, locations 125–28, B13.1–9 nos. 286–294); C. S. Keener 2005, 1–2 Corinthians, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 150; *Kruse 2002, 817; *Reinard 2016, 98–113; *White 1986, 217–18. New Testament 2 Cor 1–9; 10–13.

With a letter, other letters or documents could be sent in a bundle, which is explicitly mentioned, for example, in P.Brem. 51.3–4 (113–120 CE) and P.Oxy. 7.1070.32–39 [2.168] (after 212 CE). A detailed example from official correspondence is provided by P.Ryl. 2.78 (with BL 1:388 and 9:227; 25 May 157 CE), a cover letter addressed to the strategos of the Bousirites (TM Geo 3115), delivering a series of letters summarized in two groups (lines 3–17, 27–36). Also mentioned are two previous shipments containing several letters that had been sent earlier (lines 36–38) or were deposited but possibly not yet picked up at the particular station (lines 17–27). For the individual letters, the clerk offers brief summaries of their contents. It is striking that the letters sent along were not addressed to the strategos, that is, the addressee of the accompanying letter, but to various officials of different nomes and higher officials, including the prefect. As the sender himself states in line 17, he acted “on the basis of a common practice” which, according to *Kruse (2002, 817), was aimed at ensuring that administrative letters which dealt with specific problems in one or more nomes, but were of general interest, would also be noted by officials not directly involved. The copy of another document could also be written under a letter on the same papyrus sheet, which again was a frequent practice in the administration.1 A remarkable example from private correspondence is P.Harrauer 35 1 Some examples are BGU 16.2595 (15–14 BCE); P.Lond. 2.276a (p. 148) with BL 6:61 (30 Jun 15 CE); BGU 11.2059 (ca. 63 CE?); P.Gen. 12.7 (after 1 Oct 86 CE); SB 5.7741 with BL 3:193 and 9:248 (ca. 126–133 or ca. 164–167 CE); P.Oxy. 43.3088 with BL 9:200 (21 Mar 128 CE?); P.Lond. 3.1222 (p. 126) with BL 1:281 and 7:90 (14 May 138 CE); P.Oxy. 42.3027 with BL 11:166 (166–169 CE);

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790487_007

190

Chapter 6

(ca. 250 CE); in five columns the papyrus contains first the private letter of Aurelius Nikon alias Aniketos to his mother, then the copy of a petition to the prefect L. Titinnius Clodianus for exemption from simultaneous liturgies, and finally the copy of an official letter of the prefect to liturgists with the request to come to Alexandria. Naturally, two or more original letters could be written on one papyrus. PSI 4.317 (12 Nov 95 CE), for example, contains two letters, both addressed to a certain Ptollis, the first (lines 1–13) from a certain Kastor, the second (lines 14–27) from one Asklepiades. Both are clearly distinguished from each other, even the identical date is written separately in each of the two letters. That Kastor and Asklepiades did not write a joint letter is easily explained by the different business matters at issue in the letters, each apparently concerning only one of the two. However, the fact that they also dated each letter separately on the joint papyrus sheet clearly confirms that it was important or perhaps self-evident to both authors that each letter could be handled separately. Three letters written on a single papyrus sheet and addressed to the strategos Apollonios, P.Brem. 61 [1.15] (113–120 CE), have in common that they are all concerned about the health of the strategos. Despite some typical epistolary formulas, each letter is highly individual and personalized. The first two letters were apparently dictated, the first probably by the sister of Apollonios whose name is not preserved; the closing greeting and the date (lines 23–24) were written by herself. The second letter is from a certain Chairas; he also wrote the closing greeting himself. The third letter was written entirely by one Diskas. There would have been nothing remarkable if all three had written a single joint letter to Apollonios, but their intention was obviously a different one. The reverse case, namely that one sender wrote three letters to different persons on one papyrus, is documented, for instance, by P.Wisc. 2.84 [1.22] (late II CE). Two letters on one papyrus are preserved, for example, on SB 20.14132 [2.101] (late I/early II CE) and SB 3.6263 [2.153] (late II CE). Relatively short are the three letters preserved on the ostracon O.Claud. 2.259 (mid II CE), which is of course a consequence of the limited space on the available potsherd. A Latin example of two letters from the same author to two different addressees was excavated in Vindolanda/Britannia: T.Vindol. 3.643 (97–105 CE?) is a diptych of wooden tablets, which contains in the left column a letter from Florus to Calavirus. The right column begins with another letter from Florus, but addressed to Titus, which continues in the left column on the back of the tablet. The two letters are clearly distinguished by separate opening greetings. BGU 11.2060 with BL 6:20, 7:24, and 10:22–23 (19 Oct 180 CE); P.Oxy. 3.474 (after 16 Dec 184 or 216 CE); 4.708.v with Chrest.Wilck. 432 (after 27 Oct 188 CE).

Transport and Reception of Letters

191

The end of the first letter is lost, but the closing greeting of the letter to Titus is fragmentarily preserved and written upwards in the left margin. The contents of the two letters are different; in the second letter, however, Florus mentions the bearer of both letters by name and conveys the greetings of a certain Ingenua to both addressees. The whole evidence is relevant to a particular compilation theory of 2 Cor proposed by C. S. Keener (2005, 150) who argued that Paul wrote and sealed 2 Cor 1–9 and 10–13 as two separate letters and then had Titus deliver them on the same mission to the assembly in Corinth, where they would have been read as one unit. The basic idea that Paul could have sent Titus to Corinth with two letters on the same day is possible and justifiable from the evidence presented above, but it is important to note that in comparable cases the senders always kept the letters clearly distinguishable.2 This is true even for SB 20.14132 [2.101] (late I/early II CE), where a certain Ptolema concludes her two letters to family members, which differ only slightly in the letter bodies, with only one “farewell,” but keeps them clearly distinguishable by different opening greetings and different secondary greetings. Consequently, the other part of Keener’s hypothesis, that the Corinthian Christ group would have read and considered the two letters as one, is highly implausible. Only in a later compilation process could the two letters have been combined into one. As with other compilation hypotheses, it must then be explained why the end of one letter and the beginning of the other were omitted to create a secondary epistolary unit (a possible explanation based on papyrological evidence is presented in PNT 1, pp. 58–65).

Bearers of Letters and Their Roles

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 98–99; *Arzt-Grabner 2009, 229–31; P. Arzt-Grabner 2010, “Neues zu Paulus aus den Papyri des römischen Alltags,” Early Christianity 1:131–57, here 135– 46; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 171–77; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 37–40, 324–45 (extended eBook 2008, locations 128–37, B4.1–39 nos. 200–238); A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2003, “The Traffic on the Road and the Provisioning of the Stations,” in *Cuvigny 2003, 399–426, here 414–18; A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2013, “Communication, travel, and transportation in Egypt’s Eastern Desert during Roman times (1st to 3rd century AD),” in Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond, ed. F. Förster and H. Riemer, Africa praehistorica: Monographs on African Archaeology and Environment 27 (Cologne: 2 This is true even for letters from the same author to the same addressee, as evidenced in a number of cases from the Zenon archive in mid-third century BCE (cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 100–101).

192

Chapter 6

Heinrich-Barth-Institut), 557–74; A. H. Cadwallader 2019, “Phoebe in and around Romans: The Weight of Marginal Reception,” in Romans and the Legacy of St Paul: Historical, Theological, & Social Perspectives, ed. P. G. Bolt and J. R. Harrison, Occasional Series 1 (Macquarie Park: SCD Press), 429–52; R. F. Collins 1996, “Reflections on 1 Corinthians as a Hellenistic Letter,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer, BETL 125 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 39–61; H. Cuvigny 2003, “Le fonctionnement du réseau,” in *Cuvigny 2003, 295–359, here 331–32; H. Cuvigny 2019, “Le livre de poste de Turbo, curateur du praesidium de Xèron Pelagos (Aegyptus),” in Roman Roads: New Evidence – New Perspectives, ed. A. Kolb (Berlin: De Gruyter), 68–105; H. Cuvigny 2021, Rome in Egypt’s Eastern Desert, vol. 1, ISAW Monographs (New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World), 255–98; *Drecoll 2006, 46–55; E. J. Epp 1991, “New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. B. A. Pearson et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress), 35–56; *Head 2009a; *Head 2009b; P. M. Head 2020, “Onesimus the Letter-Carrier and the Initial Reception of Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” JTS NS 71:628–56; *Klauck 2006, 60–65; A. Kolb 1997, “Der cursus publicus in Ägypten,” in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses: Berlin, 13.–19.8.1995, vol. 1, ed. B. Kramer et al., APF Beiheft 3 (Stuttgart: Teubner), 533–40; *Llewelyn 1994c, 13–47; S. R. Llewelyn 1995, “Sending Letters in the Ancient World,” TynBul 46:337–56; M. M. Mitchell 1992, “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,” JBL 111:641–62; O. Montevecchi 1999, “Phoebe prostatis (Rom. 16, 2),” in eadem, Bibbia e papiri: Luce dai papiri sulla Bibbia greca, Estudis de Papirologia i Filologia bíblica 5 (Barcelona: Institut de Teologia Fonamental, Seminari de Papirologia), 173–89; *Reinard 2016; *Richards 2004, 200–204; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 55–56; *Schubert 2021, 26–52; *White 1986, 214–16; M. Zellmann-Rohrer 2020, “An Order to the Police of Bakchias Mentioning the epistrategos,” BASP 57:55–60. New Testament Rom 16:1–2; 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10–11, 15–18; 2 Cor 2:13; 7:6; 8:16–23; Eph 6:21–22; Phil 2:25; 4:18; Col 4:7–9; 1 Thess 3:2, 6; Titus 3:12; Phlm 10–12; 1 Pet 5:12.

The bearers of letters served primarily as letter carriers, whose job was to deliver letters, but not infrequently they also acted as informants, bearers and recipients of other items, to transfer money, or to perform escort and police duties (*Schubert 2021). The communication and transportation system established by Augustus in the late first century BCE, later known as the cursus publicus, was reserved for state interests (Kolb 1997). O.Did. 318 (before ca. 77–92 CE) is a covering letter from a certain Iulius, who is currently at Aphrodites Orous (TM Geo 235), to his “brother” Valerius in Didymoi (TM Geo 3125), informing him that he is sending three letters and has previously sent four, making a total of seven, which Valerius is to hand over to a horseman who is to carry them in the direction of Koptos. Since Iulius has still not received confirmation from Valerius the next day, he sends O.Did. 319 as a reminder. Nothing is known about the content of

Transport and Reception of Letters

193

these letters, but as confirmed by the positions of the carriers, their delivery and forwarding absolutely took place in a military context. The transportation of private mail through the official system was sometimes used by those who worked in the military and administrative postal service and thus could easily conceal any misuse of the cursus publicus. The sender of the letter SB 22.15603 (late III CE) seems to be an official who rebukes his correspondent for not sending him any letters even though he has “many people either of the postal service or of the village” available to deliver them. This could, of course, refer to the transmission of official letters that at the same time contained private messages. The soldier Saturnilus, who—at the time of writing P.Mich. 3.203 [2.125] (114–116 CE) to his mother—is stationed more than 900 km south from his hometown, even hopes to be sent to Alexandria with letters to the Roman governor and to make a detour to his own people in Karanis. It is possible that also the Greco-Egyptian recruits Apollinaris (see P.Mich. 8.490.14–16 [2.139]) and Apion alias Antonius Maximus (see BGU 2.423.29–30 [1.44]) made use of the military postal service of the second century CE. Official letters of the administration were transported by professional letter carriers3 who were paid for their services as attested by P.Jördens 11 (160–162 CE), 12 (26 May–24 Jun 207 CE), and 13 (1–25 May 207 CE?). The delivery of private letters had to be organized by personal means. *Llewelyn (1994c, 26–47; Llewelyn 1995) discusses the different ways to ensure proper delivery: information on a separate label, a separate papyrus sheet, or on the back of the letter. Frequently, the business or private travels of family members, acquaintances, colleagues, or friends were used to maintain contacts in letter form. Spontaneous occasions of this kind offered at least to write and send a short letter with some philophronetic formulas. Towards the end of P.Berl.Cohen 14 (second half II CE), for example, the unknown letter sender explicitly mentions that he takes the opportunity to have the letter delivered by a certain Valerius Rufus. He sends along another letter from one Marcus, which the addressee should subsequently send up to a certain Hermias (lines 17–18). The sender of P.Ryl. 2.235 [2.147] (II CE) took advantage of a similar occasion but reproaches his addressee for not having used a comparable occasion to maintain the correspondence. On the other hand, letter senders complain that they had to wait for a favorable opportunity before they could actually send a letter that may have been written some time ago as we learn, for instance, from SB 10.10277.4–6 [2.126] 3 A list of documents mentioning ἐπιστολαφόροι is provided by W.  G. Claytor in P.Jördens, pp. 307–8.

194

Chapter 6

(26 Apr–24 Jun 116 CE?), where a certain Heras informs his father that “only with difficulty” he could find someone going to his place. An unknown letter sender informs his “brother” Isidoros in SB 14.11584.6–9 (late II CE): “Whenever I am slow to write to you, this happens easily because I find no one going your way.” Sending private letters over long distances, such as between Rome and Egypt, could be even more complicated as illustrated by P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139] and 491 [2.140] (both II CE). Sometimes such shipments had to go through several stations, as shown, for example, by the address on the back of BGU 2.423 [1.44] (II CE). The potential letter recipients could do their part to facilitate the transmission of letters. The author of SB 6.9017.10 [2.98] (I–II CE), for instance, offers his addressee the option to send his reply to a different place, namely, Koptos because he would have someone available to fetch it from there. Like letters, goods were delivered either by a private servant or by a suitable carrier, who often had to be looked for or waited for. For example, Longinus Apollinaris writes to the “brother” Priscus in O.Krok. 2.265.12–13 (118–130 CE) that he would send him the requested goods as soon as he found someone who was on his way to Priscus anyway. O.Krok. 2.322 (98–117 CE) attests that letter carriers sometimes could not take all goods at once. TM 140268 (P.CtYBR inv. 1678; III–IV CE) is most likely of Christian origin; the female sender of the letter informs her addressee that she wanted to send goods with this letter, but the postman was in too much of a hurry. As far as the longer letters of Paul of Tarsus are concerned, it is quite possible that their large extent is also due to the often-considerable problems of finding a suitable letter carrier. According to 2 Cor 2:13 and 7:6, Paul had to wait quite a while until Titus was available to him again, and similar circumstances may have arisen several times. They may then have contributed to the large size and varied content of 1 Cor, 2 Cor (1–9 and 10–13), and Rom (Collins 1996, 45). However, for none of the longer papyrus letters it can be verified that the length would have resulted from an increased waiting time for a letter carrier. We do not know, for instance, why P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188], the longest papyrus letter so far, which is comparable in length with Gal, is so extensive. Clearly writers of longer letters needed more time for writing than usual. However, the above-average effort may rather be explained by the special value that the author of the letter invested in his concerns than by a kind of pastime only made possible by the fact that a messenger was not immediately available. Concerning the messengers of New Testament letters in general, both possibilities are thus conceivable, which we can observe with papyrus and ostracon letters: to send a letter as soon as a messenger was available, or—especially in urgent cases and where the necessary means were at hand—to employ a messenger as soon as the letter was written.

Transport and Reception of Letters

195

On the route of delivery, letters were exposed to various hazards. How easily a letter could be lost, not to mention that shipments of goods were occasionally misappropriated, is indicated on the one hand by the regular requests in the (accompanying) letters to confirm receipt, and on the other hand by the numerous inquiries as to whether something sent earlier had actually arrived. An example of a simple accompanying letter from the late first century CE is P.Oxy. 2.300 [2.88],4 whereas in O.Krok. 2.241.2–4 (118–130 CE) a certain Apollos notifies his addressee that he had sent earlier “two matia of barley through Saturnilus, and you did not send me the reply” (it is noteworthy that Apollos wrote “the reply,” not “a reply”).5 In this context, it is no surprise that many letter senders were not looking for just any letter carrier. Gaius Iulius Apollinarios emphasizes in a letter to his mother Tasoucharion, P.Mich. 8.465 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?), that he wanted to send her a gift of Tyrian wares but did not want to entrust it to anyone because of the length of the journey (lines 17–21). P.Mich. 8.499 [2.109] (ca. 117–147 CE) is a letter from the same archive; in lines 12–14, Sabinianus assures his brother Apollinarios that he wrote him several letters that apparently did not reach him, which Sabinianus explains by the negligence of his letter carriers. The sender of SB 14.11644 [2.99] (I–II CE) blames her addressee for not mentioning in his previous letter the name of the carrier of several goods that had been sent to her even earlier but never reached her (lines 12–14). Now she obviously sees no possibility to ask or have someone search for these goods. Because of such failures, several letter senders specifically mention or ask to send a letter or goods through someone trustworthy or reliable. A certain Prokla, possibly a prostitute, confirms to her master and brother Domittius that she has received his letter through the horseman Baton, and she adds in O.Krok. 2.222.8–9 (98–117 CE)—perhaps in “a tone of mockery” (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 114): “You have finally done me the favor of sending me the letter through a trustworthy man.” In SB 28.17095.8–9 (ca. 126–150 CE), the prostitute Kyrathous announces to Clemens that she will send him a certain sum of money through a trustworthy man. In P.Oxy. 47.3357.14–18 (late I CE), on the other hand, a certain Didymos asks to be sent the money of a lease through the donkey drivers or another trustworthy person. In a similar way, the soldier Veturius asks his woman Theanous in O.Did. 402.8–11 [2.123] (before ca. 110–115 CE) to either come and bring him the leather ground sheet herself or to send 4 A few other examples are P.Oxy. 42.3057.22–24 [2.96] (I–II CE); P.Mich. 8.465.33–35 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?); P.Oxy. 14.1757.22–25 [2.133] (after 138 CE). 5 Two similar examples are O.Claud. 2.226.13–16 (mid II CE) and BGU 3.714.6–8 with BL 1:61 (II CE).

196

Chapter 6

it through someone trustworthy. In a postscript, the addressee of P.Oxy. 7.1067 (III CE) is asked by his father to buy him a little fish from the sea and to send it through a trustworthy man (lines 27–30 with BL 8:240).6 Additionally, the sender of P.Oxy. 41.2983.11–13 and P.Oxy. 41.2984.11–13 (both II–III CE) insists on reliable messengers for letters to be sent to him. A complex example is P.Oslo 2.47 [2.68] (23 Aug 1 CE): The letter sender Dionysios informs a certain Theon that he has given 60 pigfish and a basket “to the one who came from you” (cf. lines 5–8) and adds that the man “usually cheats in business affairs” (lines 9–10), which must be the reason why Dionysios explicitly asks Theon in a postscript to send back the basket through another man, namely a certain Androus. In letters of recommendation, the letter carrier on whose behalf the letter was issued is commonly mentioned by name (an example from the New Testament is Phlm 10–12), but this is not very often the case with other letters. In O.Claud. 2.239.6–7 (mid II CE) and SB 14.11580.8–10 [2.150] (mid or second half II CE), for example, the letter carriers are explicitly referred to, but without mentioning their names; similarly O.Krok. 2.189.16–21 (98–117 CE) and P.Oxy. 10.1295.14–15 (II–early III CE). The identification of a messenger by name was essential only when he was to be authorized for the delivery or collection of goods, gifts, or money, or for a specific activity or function. A certain Mystarion, for instance, sent his slave Blastos with the letter BGU 1.37 [1.2] (12 Sep 50 CE) to Stotoetis to fetch forked sticks for Mystarion’s olive groves, and one Didymos sent Ailourion with BGU 2.596 [1.48] (10 May 84 CE) to the most honorable Apollonios asking him to join Ailourion in buying little pigeons for a festival, whereas a certain Petechon delivered the letter P.Oxy. 47.3356 [2.82] (28 Jan 76 CE) along with a pair of sandals (lines 18–21). The letter carrier Trophimos delivered the double letter SB 20.14132 [2.101] (late I/early II CE) and the goods mentioned in it, while Euripatos delivered some goods along with the letter P.Oxy. 14.1757 [2.133] (after 138 CE) and was supposed to take back a letter from the addressee who was asked to confirm the receipt of the items and to write about his health. A certain Sarapammon was the letter carrier of SB 14.12026 [2.166] (II–III CE), which did not serve as an accompanying letter for goods, but Sarapammon was to accompany the addressee back to the letter sender, who was in dire need of assistance. Also, when a letter author confirms to have received certain goods, the one who delivered them is usually mentioned by name. In the letter to her mother, SB 5.7572.2–5 [2.94] (5 Oct 104 CE?), a certain Thermouthas confirms that she 6 See also P.Phil. 35.29–31 (late II CE); P.Oxy. 59.3991.16–18; 3993.28–30 (both II–III CE).

Transport and Reception of Letters

197

has received certain goods through Valerius. In the postscript of P.Messeri 47 [2.138] (II CE), one Sarapion confirms that he has received a basket with its contents, which was apparently delivered by the boatman Epitynchanon, who is now explicitly mentioned by Sarapion to carry his letter along with 16 drachmas and 10 pine cones to Theon. A certain Corbulo mentions in a single letter, P.Oxy. 1.113 [2.142] (II CE), so many different messengers and deliveries going back and forth between him and his addressee, that someone not involved in these matters could easily lose track. Strictly speaking, the correspondents probably knew well enough what was going on, but it would have been difficult for outsiders to find out (on my interpretation see p. 349). The fact that we know only a few bearers of the New Testament letters by name is consistent with the evidence from the papyrus and ostracon letters. As mentioned above, Onesimus was the bearer of Paul’s letter to Philemon (Phlm), a letter of recommendation written by Paul in favor of the slave (cf. vv. 10–12). Regarding Rom, it makes sense to consider Phoebe as the bearer of this letter, since Paul recommends her in 16:1–2. The name of another female letter bearer is preserved in O.Krok. 2.168.9–10 (98–138 CE), where a certain Tiberia is mentioned delivering eight drachmas, presumably together with the accompanying letter. In the case of 1 Cor, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus have sometimes been assumed as the letter carriers, since 16:15–18 could be understood as a letter of recommendation, and letters of recommendation were usually delivered by the recommended persons themselves (Collins 1996, 41–42). However, the three men are here not referred to as those “sent” by Paul or as those who are “delivering” the letter, which is explicitly the case with letters of recommendation. Based on 16:10, the role of messenger of 1 Cor is more likely to be attributed to Timothy,7 who—according to v. 11—is also expected to take the Corinthian Christ group’s reply back to Paul. Other named letter carriers mentioned in the New Testament are Epaphroditus as messenger between Paul and the Christ group in Philippi (cf. Phil 2:25; 4:18), Tychicus as carrier of Eph (cf. 6:21–22) and Col (cf. 4:7–9), and Silvanus as the one delivering 1 Pet (cf. 5:12).8 Titus 3:12 could be interpreted to mean that at the time of writing it was not yet clear whether Artemas or Tychicus would deliver the letter. Timothy also served as a messenger between Paul and the Christ group in Thessalonike 7 If “I have sent to you Timothy” in 1 Cor 4:17 is to be understood as epistolary aorist (see p. 149), this passage would also already refer to Timothy as the one who delivered 1 Cor. 8 A parallel for the phrase “I wrote to you through Silvanus” as a reference to the letter carrier is preserved in P.Fay. 123.4–5 (ca. 100 or after 110 CE): “I wrote to you through your Mardon,” although the passage here refers to another letter that was sent the day before. A similar example is P.Princ. 3.163.2 (II CE).

198

Chapter 6

(cf. 1 Thess 3:2, 6), but probably not as the bearer of 1 Thess, since he is mentioned as a co-author of that letter. The task of the three messengers mentioned in 2 Cor 8:16–23 and 9:3–5 must be considered as more extensive than that of simple letter carriers. Only Titus is mentioned by name, and he is already known to the Corinthian Christ group. Paul mentions his great zeal, which prompted him to make himself available as a letter carrier of his own free will. The other two members of the mission are apparently sent to Corinth for the first time. The issue for all three messengers is their legitimacy, for they are not only to deliver Paul’s present letter, but also—as messengers (ἀπόστολοι) of the assemblies (v. 23)—to conduct the collection for the needy Christ groups in Judea. As indicated by 2 Cor 9:3–5, they are to travel to Corinth ahead of Paul to prepare the collection so that it will be ready when Paul arrives with the people from Macedonia. When messengers are distinguished in the way described, they sometimes act—in addition to the letter as substitute for the personal presence of its author—as additional substitutes at the location of the letter’s recipients. In the case of 2 Cor this may even be true in the particular way that in the context of Paul’s weaker personal appearance (cf. 2 Cor 10:10) and the tense relationship between Paul and the Corinthian assembly (cf. 12:20–21 and 1:23–2:9), a letter and the messengers sent as Paul’s deputies could have a stronger mediating effect than Paul himself. Clear papyrological evidence of messengers who were supposed to act as representatives of the letter sender are not very numerous. This may be because the representative function of the messenger did not always have to be explicitly mentioned as such in the letter. One of the obvious examples is attested by the letter from Zosimos to Sarapion, BGU 3.830 [2.75] (I CE); in lines 3–7 (with BL 1:70) Zosimos informs his addressee: “I am sending you my man so that you please be so good as to put a fence around my olive grove there,” thus indicating that this man is sent both as the bearer of the letter and as the one to assist Sarapion in the required task. The author of P.Lips. 1.108.3–9 [2.160] (II–III CE) apologizes for not being able to visit and sends his son Didymos instead “so that he takes my place as if I were with you” (lines 7–9); a representative function could not be expressed more clearly, although the sender does not even mention which specific task his son and letter carrier Didymos should take over in his place. A similar but more precisely described task is assigned to the letter carrier of P.Flor. 2.156 (249–268 CE), since the sender of the letter cannot himself come by to inspect the vineyards and check the state of the harvest work and the arrangements for the hay; in his place he sends a certain Philippos to inspect everything and report back to him (lines 2–10 with BL 1:150). In some cases, a letter carrier was entrusted with the additional task of providing the addressees with further oral information on the subject matter of the

Transport and Reception of Letters

199

letter. Such an explanation was probably necessary for the ostracon letter SB 14.11580 [2.150] (after 138 CE), which despite its brevity provides a useful parallel to 2 Cor: By sending the letter, its author wants to prepare her visit, which she would otherwise have already started. The letter carrier not only delivers the letter with its particular concern, but probably also acts orally as the sender’s representative. Along with the letter P.Oxy. 46.3313 (II CE), Apollonios and Sarapias send 1,000 roses and 4,000 narcissi to a certain Dionysia on the wedding of her son (or stepson) Sarapion. Actually, Dionysia had ordered more roses than the 1,000 mentioned which is why the couple now sends by way of compensation twice as many narcissi (4,000 instead of the 2,000 requested). Delivering the letter and the flowers is one Sarapas who is also to testify to Dionysia about the roses as explained in lines 25–27: “Sarapas will testify to you about the roses, that I did everything to send you as many as you wanted, but we couldn’t find them.” Since the matter of the roses is mentioned twice in the letter, it is hard to imagine that Sarapas could have provided additional information, but this was certainly not so much about information as it was about personal communication. A certain Heras sends his slave Harpochras to deliver the letter P.Oxy. 51.3644 (III CE) to his father Papontos (cf. lines 3–4). The main subject of the letter is news about a certain Syra, who has been seriously injured by another woman during a fight and still must stay in bed. Before closing the letter, Heras writes regarding this other woman: “Harpochras will tell you what he has heard in the city, what deeds she has committed” (lines 26–28). The letter carrier of PSI 12.1247.v [2.171] (ca. 235–238 CE) is probably one Diogenes, since he is mentioned by name in the postscript, where the letter sender only briefly remarks that she is being harassed by a soldier in her business affairs, but finally she adds: “Hence, Diogenes will inform you of the affair” (lines 17–18). Examples like these illustrate not only the responsible task of Titus and the two other messengers who were sent to Corinth with 2 Cor (or—if the canonical 2 Cor is a compilation—at least with the respective letter referred to in 2 Cor 8:16–23 and 9:3–5), but also that of Tychicus as the letter carrier of Eph and Col, who was supposed to inform the recipients of both letters orally and in more detail about the situation of the author (cf. Eph 6:21 and Col 4:7).

Signs of Authenticity

Literature *Deissmann 1927, 171–72; *Klauck 2006, 398; *Kreinecker 2010, 217–19; J. R. Rea 1974, “The Use of σημεῖον in SB V 8005,” ZPE 14:14; J. R. Rea 1976, “Another σημεῖον – in P.Oxy. VII 1068,” ZPE 21:116; J. R. Rea 1977, “Yet Another σημεῖον – in SB VI 9415 (17),” ZPE 26:230; F. Winter in *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006, 95–96; H. C. Youtie 1979, “Σημεῖον in the Papyri and Ιts Significance for Plato, Epistle 13 (360a–b),” ZPE 6:105–16.

200

Chapter 6

New Testament 2 Thess 3:17.

Some letter writers mention a “sign” to prove that the present letter is legitimately from them. This could be a private remark made in a conversation in which the sender and recipient of the corresponding letter participated alone, or a particular action performed by one of them or by someone else and observed by the two. The particular “sign” mentioned by the sender of SB 5.8005 (II CE) in lines 11–13 (with BL 6:138; 7:197) is that the addressee’s “appointed day is at hand.” By way of a sign, a certain Palas reminds his addressee in SB 6.9415.17.14–15 (249–268 CE) “that you were quarrelling with Graph(e)ia(s ?) about …,” and the sender of P.Oxy. 7.1068 (III CE) reminds his addressee with the comparable purpose “that you sent for the donkey, and I kept him till I should come to you” (lines 21–23 with BL 7:134). In O.Krok. 2.178.13–15 (98–117 CE), the letter sender demands a sign, “but the context is too broken to allow guessing why” (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 66). In contrast, the remark in 2 Thess 3:17 that the final greeting was written in Paul’s hand (see in more detail pp. 176–82) and the addition “which is a sign in every letter; in this way I write” is strange and lacks a papyrological parallel. The double emphasis on the authorship of “Paul” and the mixing of phrases, neither of which is attested elsewhere in the presented usage, give reason for doubts. Like the thanksgiving report in 2 Thesss 1:3 and 2:13, the author seems to push the “proofs of authenticity” too far here. In any case, the introduction of a “sign” at this point and the usage here do not correspond to the usage of papyrus letters (*Klauck 2006, 398; *Kreinecker 2010, 219).

Reading

Literature A. H. Cadwallader 2015, “Paul Speaks Like a Girl: When Phoebe Reads Romans,” in Sexuality, Ideology and the Bible: Antipodean Engagements, ed. R. J. Myles and C. Blyth (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press), 69–94; A. H. Cadwallader 2019, “Phoebe in and around Romans: The Weight of Marginal Reception,” in Romans and the Legacy of St Paul: Historical, Theological, & Social Perspectives, ed. P. G. Bolt and J. R. Harrison, Occasional Series 1 (Macquarie Park: SCD Press), 429–52; W. A. Johnson 2010, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (Oxford: Oxford University Press), esp. 179–99; B. Oestreich 2004, “Leseanweisungen in Briefen als Mittel der Gestaltung von Beziehungen (1Thess 5.27),” NTS 50:224–45; *Reinard 2016, 410–19.

Transport and Reception of Letters

201

New Testament 2 Cor 1:13; 3:2; Eph 3:4; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27.

Especially when a letter was addressed to several people, it often had to be read aloud by someone who knew how to read, either one of the addressees or another person. This is also true for most of the letters of the New Testament. Phoebe, for instance, could have been not only the letter carrier of Rom but also the person who was reading it out (Cadwallader 2015; 2019). In some papyrus letters there are explicit instructions in such a regard. In SB 18.13867 (mid II CE), the letter of a certain Ptolemaios to his mother Zosime and his sister Rodous, the letter itself is preceded by a prescript that serves as an instruction to the person who is to read the letter: “You, whoever you are, who are reading the letter, make a small effort and translate to the women what is written in this letter and tell them” (lines 1–4). Apparently, the reader is not only asked to read the letter aloud, but to translate it from Greek into Egyptian before reading it to the recipients. The beginning of P.Phil. 33 (I CE?) is lost, but from the first completely preserved lines we learn that the letter sender had been alarmed by the news that his father is planning to leave his village. Now he writes to a relative asking for support so that this can be prevented, and he adds at the end of the letter in lines 17–19: “Therefore, I am writing to you, lord, so that you may read this letter to him so that he knows what I am thinking. And do not do otherwise.” The reason is not explicitly stated, but perhaps the father was illiterate or suffered from poor eyesight due to his age. A different reason is revealed in O.Krok. 2.160 (98–117 CE), an ostracon letter addressed to the woman Sknips, but concerning another woman whose name is not fully preserved and who had not paid a certain amount of money in time. Sknips is now asked to tell this woman: “Send us the three staters. You did not give them to the horseman. You force us to hurry along with the horseman” (lines 6–9); right after that, Sknips is told to “show her this letter and read it to her” (lines 10–11). Of similar urgency is the request of a certain Orsenoupis, which he expresses in his letter to his brother Neilos, BGU 2.450 [2.159] (II– III CE). Neilos is to look for Thaus immediately and send him to Orsenoupis; and he is to read the letter to Thaus so that he understands the urgency of the request. Among the references given above for the reading of letters in the New Testament, Col 4:16 and 1  Thess 5:27 are noteworthy. Right before the final greeting, the Thessalonian assembly is summoned to have this letter read to all the brothers and sisters. In the case of Col 4:16, the addressees are asked to see to it that the letter is also read in Laodicea and that the letter to the assembly there is also read in Colossae.

Chapter 7

Some General Conclusions Since the first editions of private papyrus letters from Greco-Roman times (in P.Petr. 1, published in 1891), more than 20,000 letters of different kinds and languages, preserved on papyri and related material, have been published and thus made available to New Testament scholarship. That a large part of these letters, namely the short messages of only slightly or moderately educated writers, offer hardly any material for comparison with the letters of the New Testament (perhaps apart from the opening and final greetings) is true and was never to be expected otherwise. The view, however, that the letters on papyrus, potsherds, and tablets would generally be of a completely different nature than, for example, the letters of Paul of Tarsus, and even insignificant and uninteresting in comparison with the latter, is far from the truth. P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] is the most striking, but by far not the only example, which in every respect provides a valuable interpretative context for the New Testament letters. That this letter of Ammon and other papyrus letters of above-average length and literacy are the great exception among the 20,000 letters is obvious. But this is also true for the Pauline letters. Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that the many comparatively short letters from experienced letter senders are a treasure trove of comparative examples. From the time of Paul, only one brief example may be repeated here: On 27 April 10 BCE, a certain Phaidros underscores his request to support one Leukios by employing a kind of diplomacy similar to that of Paul in Phlm 21; in BGU 16.2623.11–12 [2.59], Phaidros writes: “For I trust he will please you, and I for my part will not be left feeling any lack of effort made on your part.” Phaidros’s mode of expression as even more refined than that of Paul. A selected example from 212–217 CE illustrates the high level of education of a letter sender and his scribe, to whom he dictated PSI 12.1261.1–21 [2.169]: Similar to Paul’s style, almost every single formula or epistolary convention is elaborated. In particular, the artful combination of prayer report and thanksgiving as well as their elaboration in lines 3–13 is in no way inferior to Paul’s corresponding formulations. The secondary greetings are enriched with the expression of longing to meet the addressee in person, and the final greeting, written by the sender himself, is extended by additional wishes which are individually formulated. Studying the papyrus letters contributes significantly to understanding the form and intent of literally every single formula used in a New Testament

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790487_008

204

Chapter 7

letter: opening greeting, prayer report, motif of remembrance, report of joy, thanksgiving report, complaint about astonishing behavior, secondary greetings, and final greeting. Something similar is true of less formulaic epistolary clichés such as the explanation for a postponed visit, a complaint about astonishing behavior, the announcement of a visit or invitation to visit the letter sender, the offer to meet the addressee’s needs, or a postscript. Last but not least, the disclosure formulas used in the letter corpus, the formulas introducing requests or commands, the references to previous messages or current letters, and the responses to letters can be better explained and understood by looking at the numerous examples preserved in papyrus and ostracon letters. Concerning the letters of Paul, it only becomes clear what a great master he was in the use and application of epistolary formulas when we compare them with those preserved in the papyrus and ostracon letters. As shown again and again in the above chapters, he not only mastered the formulary, but extended or transformed formulas individually in such a way that their form and intention were still recognizable, but at the same time were perceived according to his personal and sometimes new intention. In this respect, Paul is not unique, but he is certainly among the great letter writers of Greco-Roman antiquity. One of the many highlights of Paul’s mastery is his thanksgiving report in Rom 1:8. The reception of good news, which is the indispensable condition for introducing a thanksgiving report, is here simply replaced by the good reputation of the Roman Christ groups, which is heard throughout the cosmos. In this way, Paul pretends to be already acquainted with the Roman groups, although he has had no personal contact with them so far and therefore has not received a letter from them. Since we can assume that at least the members of the Roman assembly who were literate were familiar with the form and purpose of a thanksgiving report, we can conclude that Paul’s move was well understood. All of this can only be understood by examining the details and components of the thanksgiving report in light of the papyrological record. The comparison with the papyrus and ostracon letters also allows us to better understand the many passages in New Testament letters that, despite intensive exegesis, are still ambiguous or inexplicable. Comparable passages in private letters of Greco-Roman times are numerous. Both can be easily explained by a simple principle: The original correspondents had all the correspondence available to understand an issue. For them, it was simply not necessary to repeat or reiterate details already known. To take 1 Cor 5 as a selected example: For the assembly in Corinth, it was as clear as for Paul himself whom he accused of an injustice and why; only the later readers may regret that this is not described in detail in the letter. The fact that these and many other questions remain open even today may be considered a deficiency from the

Some General Conclusions

205

perspective of modern exegesis, but it is in fact proof that Paul’s letters are real letters, originating from a real situation in his life and that of the assemblies. In accordance with the situational nature of a genuine letter, appeals for good behavior arise from special situations. In comparison, this also applies to the Pauline letters and there at least to a greater extent than in the Pastorals. Even longer passages like 1 Cor 13 are related to specific occasions. The Pastorals and Catholic Letters are, in this regard, fundamentally different from the authentic Pauline letters. For the extensive ethical instructions and catalogs of virtues and vices in 1 Tim and Titus, the comparative value of the papyrus letters is low overall. In fact, private, business, and official letters are not to be expected to contain treatise-like exhortations. Since the extensive instructions of the Pastorals are rather similar to bylaws of associations, the question seems obvious why the Pastorals are in epistolary form at all. There are good reasons to assume that the conspicuously few references to a current situation are fictitious and only pretend that these letters are occasional letters from Paul of Tarsus to two of his closest associates. This is also indicated by small details such as the use of “I wish” (Greek βούλομαι) to introduce appeals in 1 Tim (cf. 2:8; 5:14) and Titus (cf. 3:8), which is not found in private or business letters but in petitions, contracts, offers (e.g., leases), and only a few official letters. In general, the Pastorals and the Catholic Epistles are far less comparable to the letters of Greco-Roman everyday life than the letters of Paul. The papyrus and ostracon letters confirm that the two groups certainly belong to different genres. With the help of private and business letters on papyrus, potsherds, and tablets, we can also find evidence that Eph, Col, and 2 Thess can be attributed to an author other than Paul. The passages Eph 1:3–23 and Col 1:3–23 are exceptionally long and fail to fit into the usual pattern of epistolary formulas or conventions used in the letter opening or the introductory part of the letter body. They clearly fall outside the scheme of both the authentic Pauline letters and the private or business letters preserved on papyrus or potsherds. Regarding 2 Thess, *Kreinecker (2010) has already observed that the form of several formulas or clichés differs significantly from both Pauline and papyrus letters. This is true of the unique form of the thanksgiving report in 1:3 (cf. 2:13), the combination of “we command and beg” (παραγγέλλομεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν) in 3:12, the particular use of “we ask” (ἐρωτῶμε) in 2:1–2, and the double emphasis on the authorship of “Paul” as well as the mixing of phrases in 3:17. The author of 2 Thess pushes his efforts to be like Paul too far, but too much of “Paul” is not Pauline. A comparison with papyrus and ostracon letters reveals that, in Rev 1:11 and 19, John no longer appears as the author of the letter which started in Rev 1:4–5,

206

Chapter 7

but as its scribe, or—strictly speaking—as the secretary or even copyist of the seven letters following in chapters 2–3, which are dictated by “one like the Son of Man” (v. 13), that is by Jesus Christ as the true and responsible author. The seven letters following in chapters 2–3 are actually designed as transcriptions of dictations and resemble more drafts of letters than genuine fair copies, since they each begin with a dictation formula and contain neither an opening nor a final greeting. From one of the basic intentions of the letter itself, namely, to function as a substitute for the personal presence that is not possible at the moment, it is quite understandable that the authors of both the papyrus letters and the letters of the New Testament express their longing for an early reunion with the addressees as “hope.” The idea that an author is present in a letter and that a letter therefore has the same value as the physical presence of its author is explicitly expressed in a number of papyrus letters and several times by Paul (in (1 Cor 5:3; 2 Cor 10:11; 13:2, 10; Gal 4:18–20; Phil 1:27; cf. in addition Col 2:5). Interestingly, Paul of Tarsus is overall one of the earliest letter writers to clearly express this view.

Chapter 8

The Letters

A Note on the Provided Data and Translations

The data given in the respective header are based on the information of the relevant databases (Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnis, papyri.info, Trismegistos). In case of different data, those of Trismegistos are preferred. This is especially true for datings and the edition given as default. As for the literature references, the aim here is not completeness in the sense that every mention of the presented letter is listed, but they are to include the main reprints, all corrections, and more detailed comments. Personal names and place names are usually transcribed according to TM People (https://www.trismegistos.org /ref/) and TM Places (https://www.trismegistos.org/geo/, except “Oxyrhynchos” instead of “Oxyrynchos”). For the editorial abbreviations used, see p. XI. The English translations of the letters are based on the Greek or Latin texts of the default edition and the corrections listed under “Addenda/Corrigenda.” In addition, existing translations have been consulted, which are listed under “Cf.”; however, I myself am ultimately responsible for the translations in this volume.

Explanation of Diacritical Sigla

The following diacritical signs are used in translations of papyri, ostraca, and tablets: Resolution of an abbreviation or a symbol; e.g., “(year)” means that ( ) the scribe used the symbol for “year” (i.e., 𝖫), “Phamen(oth)” means that the scribe wrote “Phamen” as an abbreviation for the month “Phamenoth.” [ ] Lacuna in the text; “[abc]” would mean that “abc” is not preserved but can be reconstructed, “[…]” means that the lost text cannot be reconstructed. ⟨ ⟩ Letters omitted erroneously by the scribe; e.g., “⟨not⟩” means that the negation was omitted by mistake and therefore added by the modern editor. These diacritical signs are to be distinguished from deliberate abbreviations (see above).

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790487_009

208

Chapter 8

{ }

Superfluous letters written erroneously by the scribe; e.g., “you {you}” means that the writer accidentally wrote “you” twice, so the second “you” is redundant and to be deleted. abc Letters written, then deleted, by the scribe of the papyrus, ostracon, or tablet. ạḅc̣ In the editions, dots below letters are used when they are not completely preserved; in the translations, however, I use them only when a reading, e.g. of a name, remains uncertain, but not when the reading is more or less clear despite the letters not being completely preserved. … Traces of letters are preserved but illegible. … Illegible letters deleted by the scribe (crossed out, scraped off, or washed out). \abc/ Addition integrated into the line by the editor at the place desired by the scribe, who added these letters above a line or between two lines, sometimes also above a crossed-out word or form corrected by the scribe. In certain cases, especially when it is useful to explain such a correction process, the added letters or words may be placed above the word in question, just as can be seen on the papyrus or ostracon. (h1) This denotes the hand of scribe 1, i.e., the scribe who first wrote something on the papyrus or potsherd or incised something on a tablet; (h2), (h3), etc., denote the following scribes. The state of preservation of a writing material is indicated in the following way: The hooked line before the translation indicates that the first line of the original text is completely (or at least in part) preserved; it also means that the beginning of the translation represents the top of the original papyrus, ostracon, or tablet. The straight line before the translation indicates that the translation does not begin with the first line of the preserved text but, for example, with the first line of column 2 or some other part of the text. The straight line below the translation indicates that the end of the translation does not represent the end of the preserved text but, for example, the end of a column or some other part of the text.

209

The Letters

The slightly longer line with an upward hook below the translation indicates that the final line of the original text is completely (or at least in part) preserved; the end of the translation represents the end of the original papyrus, ostracon, or tablet.

The dashed line before the translation indicates that the beginning of the original text is not preserved, but the upper part of the papyrus, ostracon, or tablet is missing; in many cases it is not possible to determine how much text has been lost. The same dashed line is used below the translation if, for example, the end of a column or another part of the text has been lost; in this case, a further part of the text follows below the dashed line. The slightly longer dashed line below the translation indicates that the bottom of the papyrus, ostracon, or tablet is not preserved but missing; in many cases it is not possible to determine how much text has been lost.



Pre-forms of Letters and Early Letters (VI–IV BCE): [2.52]–[2.55] [2.52] Agora 21.B1 (TM 914298) Written request

Greek potsherd, Ancient Agora of Athens/Greece (TM Geo 364), mid VI BCE Ed. M. Lang 1976 (Agora 21.B1, drawing: plate 2, B1). – Cf. H. A. Thompson 1948, “The Excavation of the Athenian Agora Twelfth Season: 1947,” Hesperia 17:149–96, plates 37–69, here 160, image: plate 41.2; L. H. Jeffery 1990, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C., rev. ed. with a supplement by Alan W. Johnston, Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 135, 137 no. 1, image: plate 22 no. 1; *Eidinow and Taylor 2010, 58 no. A5; *Ceccarelli 2013, 351 no. 35; *Keegan 2014, 32–33 G2.7; M. Steinhart 2017, Griechische Inschriften als Zeugnisse der Kulturgeschichte, Sammlung Tusculum (Berlin: De Gruyter), 40–41, 152 no. 6 (with drawing).

[…] : put down : under the threshold : of the garden gate : the saw.

210

Chapter 8

The Greek graffito on the underside of the broken base of a skyphos of Corinthian shape was found in the rubbish dump of a house at the Ancient Agora of Athens that belonged to a certain Thamneus. The note is arranged in two circles, beginning with the outer circle and ending on the inner one. Some editors thought to recognize traces of a Greek Y before the first colon of the preserved text and reconstructed them to the vocative of the name Thamneus. An examination of the original has shown that in fact no traces of any character are visible there, and thus it is no longer possible to determine what was written on the lost fragment of the ostracon. [2.53] SEG 50.276 (TM 958014) Letter from Lesis to Xenokles

Greek lead tablet, Ancient Agora of Athens/Greece (TM Geo 364), early IV BCE Ed. D. R. Jordan 2000, “A Personal Letter Found in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 69:91– 103, images: 94 fig. 2, 96 fig. 3–4 (= SEG 50.276). – Addenda/Corrigenda: SEG 54.400; 57.294; 64.148bis. – Cf. *Eidinow and Taylor 2010, 51 no. A3; *Ceccarelli 2013, 353 no. 41; M. Dana 2015, “Les lettres grecques sur plomb et sur tesson: Pratiques épigraphiques et savoirs de l’écriture,” in Epigrammata 3: Saper scrivere nel mediterraneo antico: Esiti di scrittura fra VI e IV sec. a.C. in ricordo di Mario Luni, Atti del convegno di Roma, Roma, 7–8 Novembre 2014, ed. A. Inglese (Tivoli: Edizioni TORED), 111–33, 322–27 fig. 1–8, here 120–21, image: 325 fig. 4 (detail); M. Steinhart 2017, Griechische Inschriften als Zeugnisse der Kulturgeschichte, Sammlung Tusculum (Berlin: De Gruyter), here 70–71 (with drawing), 160–61 no. 25; *Sarri 2018, 55, 88–89, image: 88 fig. 8.

Lesis sends to/requests Xenokles and his mother by no means to overlook that he is perishing in the foundry but to come to his masters and find something better for him here(?). For I have been handed over to an absolutely wicked man. I am perishing from being whipped. I am tied up. I am treated like dirt. More and more. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening formula (pp.  73–84), 1–3 request (pp. 141–43).

The sender of the letter was a slave (SEG 54.400 and 57.294), apprenticed to a master who was treating him badly. He was either literate enough to write the letter himself or to have it written by a scribe who received from Lesis some service in return. It has been observed that here, and in several other letters of archaic and early classical times (e.g., in Syll.3 3.1259 [2.54]), the sender of the letter is not yet consistent regarding his grammatical “persona” (cf. “to overlook

211

The Letters

that he … his master … for him” vs. “I have … I am perishing … I am tied … I am treated”). The style of Lesis’s letter may have been simply influenced by the fact that the infinitives in the first part (“to overlook” and “to come”) are grammatically dependent from the opening formula which starts with “Lesis sends to/requests” (in the third person). Only after that the letter writer continues in the first person. A. *Sarri (2018, 41) argues “that the change in person was most probably the result of increased emotional intensity.” [2.54] Syll.3 3.1259 (TM 957121) Letter from Mnesiergos to his people at home

Greek lead tablet, Chaïdari near Daphni (Athens)/Greece (TM Geo 54403), early IV BCE Ed. A. Wilhelm 1904, “Der älteste griechische Brief,” JÖAI 7:94–105, images: 95–96 fig. 50, 51 (= Syll.3 3.1259). – Cf. W. Crönert 1910, “Die beiden ältesten griechischen Briefe,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 65:157–60, 381, here 157–58; *Witkowski 1911, 135–36; *Schubart 1912, 31–32 no. 23; *Schubart 1923, 44 no. 27; *Deissmann 1927, 150–52 no. 1, images: fig. 18 and 19 (after p. 150); *Trapp 2003, 50–51, 198–99 no. 2; *Klauck 2006, 19–20; *Eidinow and Taylor 2010, 50 no. A1; *Ceccarelli 2013, 45, 352 no. 39; *Harris 2013, 120–21; *Sarri 2018, 41–42. The layout of the following translation matches that of the tablet as closely as possible.

Mnesiergos requests1 those at home to rejoice and stay healthy. He says he too [is] so.2 |5 Send a covering, if you please, either sheepskins or goatskins, the cheapest possible and not cloaks,3 and shoe-soles; on occasion I will reimburse.4 (Back)

Carry it into the pottery |10 district (?), and give it to Nausias or Thrasykles or the son.

Notes 1 Mnesiergos used a Greek aorist here and wrote “Mnesiergos sent to/requested the people at home” because the writers of ancient Greek letters wrote such phrases from the perspective of the recipients, for whom the process of writing the letter was already in the past when they received it. On this so-called epistolary aorist see also p. 149.

212

Chapter 8

2 The meaning is that Mnesiergos reports to the addressees that he too is healthy. 3 Mnesiergos probably means that they should send skins which are not already shaped into cloaks. 4 Add “you.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 health wish (pp. 103–5), 5–8 request (pp. 141–43), 9–11 address (pp. 185–86).

Since the letter writer has left more blank space to the right of lines 1–4 than at the right margin of the other lines, it is quite plausible that the line breaks of 1–4 were intentionally chosen to put the corresponding information into separate lines—namely, letter sender, addressees, opening greeting including health wish, and the short report that the author too is doing well. Mnesiergos still explicitly formulates the opening greeting as a request (“Mnesiergos sends to/requests the people at home”) which he combines with the Greek infinitive χαίρειν (“to rejoice,” cf. p. 75). This is the earliest evidence so far of what would become the most common form of opening greeting, although the formulation of the request itself is dropped soon after and only the infinitive remains. It is also noteworthy that already in this letter this basic greeting formula is extended by the shortest form of a health wish, simply by adding another infinitive regarding the health of the recipients. In even earlier letters than this one, instead of the infinitive χαίρειν the imperative form of the verb (i.e., χαῖρε) is used, which is, however, not yet standardized: A letter written on a clay tablet, inscribed in Attic dialect in ca. 500 BCE but found in the gulf of Roses, between Ampurias and la Escala (cf. *Ceccarelli 2013, 347–48 no. 25, who records it as lost), has it at the very beginning of the letter, whereas another private letter on a sheet of lead, SEG 53.1153 (ca. 530–500 BCE), which was found rolled up in Emporion, preserves it as final greeting (*Ceccarelli 2013, 346–47 no. 23). Some terms which I have translated in present tense (“Mnesiergos requests,” “he says,” and he “is”), are actually written in aorist or past tense: he “sent to/ requested” and “he said.” This feature, which becomes a common one throughout the following centuries, illustrates the tendency to explain the writing of a letter or the sending of something or someone not from the writer’s but from the addressees’ perspective: when they receive the letter, those acts are already a matter of the past (see also p. 149). In the case of the letter of Mnesiergos, his relatives at home correctly read after receiving and unfolding the lead tablet: “Mnesiergos sent …” and “he said.” From the address on the back of the tablet we learn that “the people at home” were at least three persons of whom two are mentioned by name.

213

The Letters

[2.55] SEG 43.488 (TM 893687) Letter to Tegeas

Greek lead tablet, Torone (Chalkidike)/Greece (TM Geo 12126), ca. 350–325 BCE Ed. Alan Henry 1993, “A Lead Letter from Torone,” Archaiologikē ephēmeris 130/1991:65– 70, image: 67 fig. 1 (= SEG 43.488). – Cf. A. Henry 2001, “A Lead Letter,” in The Excavations of 1975, 1976, and 1978, vol. 1 of Torone, ed. A. Cambitoglou, J. K. Papadopoulos, and O. T. Jones, Bibliothēkē tēs en Athēnais Archaiologikēs Hetaireias 206–208 (Athens: Hē en Athēnais Archaiologikē Hetaireia), 765–71, images: pl. 100 (= SEG 52.646); A. Henry 2004, Torone: The Literary, Documentary and Epigraphical Testimonia, The Archaeological Society at Athens Library 230 (Athens: The Archaeological Society at Athens), 72–74 no. T 91, image: p. 73 fig. 3; *Eidinow and Taylor 2010, 51 no. B1; *Ceccarelli 2013, 350–51 no. 33; *Harris 2013, 121; Z. H. Archibald 2019, “Tegeas from Torone and Some Truths about Ancient Markets,” in The Power of Individual and Community in Ancient Athens and Beyond: Essays in Honour of John K. Davies, ed. Z. Archibald and J. Haywood (Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales), 177–211.

[…]tos to Tegeas, to rejoice (χαίρειν). I am unable to buy wood in M[ende?]. You, therefore, dispatch some to us immediately if you have a boat and buy seven talents if it is possible [from …]. Let him not provide you with any fewer at all, preferably [of … |5 …], but if not, […]. And in doing so you will do us a favor. Complete the purchases within seven days or I will put a stop (to the arrangement). Farewell(?).1

Note 1 Of the last line (line 7), only traces of one letter, most probably omega, is readable which may be restored to the final greeting [ἔρρ]ω̣[σο] (“farewell”). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–6 request (pp. 141–43), 7 final greeting? (pp. 171–76).

This letter is not only one of the earliest examples attesting the opening greeting χαίρειν and possibly the final greeting ἔρρωσο (“farewell”; but cf. note 1), but it also preserves the formula “by doing this you will do us a favor” (line 5) which is often used also in Ptolemaic papyrus letters like P.Cair.Zen. 4.59578.4 (Egypt, 263–229 BCE; digital image: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/Cairo-Zenon.4.html, select no. 59578).

214

Chapter 8

Letter from the Ptolemaic Period (323–30 BCE): [2.56] [2.56] P.Lips. 1.104 (TM 83) Letter from Petesouchos to Petearsemtheus, Paganis, Karouris, Horos, Petearsemtheus, Panebchounis, the son of Pekysis, Horos, Pakoibkis, and the children

Greek papyrus, written in Pathyrites? (TM Geo 2849), found at Pathyris/Egypt (TM Geo 1628), 30 Jun 95 or 22 Jun 62 BCE Ed. L. Mitteis 1906 (P.Lips. 1.104). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:214; 2.2:79; 3:92; 9:125. – Cf. *Witkowski 1911, 115–18 no. 63; *Salonius 1927, 15–17; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 110–12 no. 20, image: 125 Abb. 14. – Online information and image: https://papyri.unileipzig.de/receive/UBLPapyri_schrift_00001040. Archive of Peteharsemtheus son of Panebchounis (TM Arch 183; *Sarri 2018, 226–27). The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Petesouchos son of Panebchounis to Petearsemtheus, and to Paganis

son of Panebchounis, to Karouris1

and to Horos, and to Petearsemtheus

son of Panebchounis,1

son of Ergenouphis, and to Panebchou-

|5 nis son of Nechoutos, and to the son of Pekysis, and to Horos son of Portis, and to Pakoibkis son of Pas (?), and to the children, greetings and |10 welfare. I am also faring well myself and the children and all in the household.

215

The Letters

About what you want, write to me. I am grateful to you2 |15 for what you2 write in letters. Whenever you write2 to us, I receive something alive. Telling you to care about you are: Almentis, Psenosiris, |20 Phibis, Patoys […] Phaphis, Esthotes, and all those with us.3 Ptolion, the strategos, protects us very much, and we are |25 very much grateful to him. Dioskourides does twice as much for us. Do not be distressed about me. Just go somewhere else.4 |30 

Farewell. (Year) 19, Pauni 18.

(Back)

From Petosouchos [sic] son of Panebchou- nis

to Petearsemtheus son of Panebchounis.

216

Chapter 8

Notes 1 According to BL 1:214, the insertions above lines 3 and 4 have to be read continuously, i.e., “to Paganis son of Panebchounis, to Karouris son of Panebchounis.” 2 Only these forms of the second person are in the singular, all others in the plural. 3 The syntax represents the Greek formulation which in this way is quite usual; the meaning, of course, is: “Almentis etc. are telling you that they care about you.” On this translation see pp. 169–70. 4 The formulation in Greek is a bit strange here; literally translated it means something like: “Go somewhere else at random.” Perhaps it is the author’s intention to wish his addressees successful progress, or to go ahead in one way or another, or to just go on. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–10 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–9 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 10–12 health wish (pp. 102–5), 13–14 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 16–17 letter as representative of its author (pp. 57–60), 18–22 secondary greetings (pp. 168–70), 27–29 requests with imperative (p. 140), 30 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 30 date (pp. 184–85), 31–33 address (pp. 185–86).

According to the address on the back, Petesouchos son of Panebchounis had this letter delivered to his brother Petearsemtheus, but in the opening greeting nine men are addressed by name, as well as the children of either all of them or only those of the immediately before mentioned Pakoibkis. Besides the letter author himself, at least three of the addressees are sons of Panebchounis (Petearsemtheus, Paganis, Karouris; cf. note 1), but most likely also Horos, since otherwise he would be the only one whose father is not mentioned. The fact that in this private letter the author mentions his father’s name and the names of the fathers of most of the addressees, lends the letter an official character. The letter sender’s brother Petearsemtheus alone is obviously meant, when Petesouchos in the middle of the letter (lines 14–17) thanks a single person for the letters received, before he returns to the plural when referring to his addressees (see also p. 100). The content of the letter offers nothing concrete, but the many relationships, which include the local strategos, are instructive; we are probably dealing with a circle of higher society. A noteworthy detail is the letter author’s expression in lines 16–17 by which he assures his brother: “Whenever you write to us, I receive something alive.” Thus Petesouchos emphasizes, at least indirectly, that he perceives his brother’s presence in his letters (for further information on this topic see pp. 57–60).

217

The Letters



Letters from the Early Roman Empire (30 BCE–late II CE): [2.57]–[2.167] [2.57] P.Oxy. 7.1061 (TM 20350) Letter from Diogenes to Dionysios

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), 25 Jun–24 Jul 22 BCE Ed. A. S. Hunt 1910 (P.Oxy. 7.1061). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:331; 7:134; *Nachtergaele 2023, 335. – Cf. *Olsson 1925, 41–44 no. 8; R. Seider 1967, Tafeln: Teil 1: Urkunden, vol. 1 of Paläographie der griechischen Papyri (Stuttgart: Hiersemann), 61–62, image: Tafel 15 (after p. 62); *White 1986, 106–7 no. 67; G. Cavallo 2009, “Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri,” in *Bagnall 2009, 101–48, here 107, 109, image: 110 fig. 5.6. – Online information and images: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Papyrus_2051. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–28 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Dioge[n]es to Dionysios his brother, very many gr1 and health. Since we wrote to you also at other times and you have not reconciled us with Apollonios,2 your brother, I now felt the necessity |5 to beg Ptolemaios the youn(ger), son of Ptolemaios,3 that he meets with Dios and Diogenes son of Demet(rios) until the unwatered land is measured which is in the 7 arouras, and that the ta(xes) on i(t) are measured through Dionysio(s), and that the remainder be paid to Ptolemaios |10 maios. Therefore, please stay close to Ptolemaios, also your brother Apollonios, until you both have accomplished this for me, for you are superior to Ptolemaios in experience, and if it is necessary to meet the other Ptolemaios, the older brother |15 of Ptolemaios, in this regard, he should meet him and make every effort until it is accomplished. Hence, if it seems good to you to reply to me, both about this and the other matters about which I have asked you through letter, |20 you will have done me a favor; and also you yourself write to me about whatever you wish, and I will most gladly do it. I have also written to Dios, the son of the agent, about this, whom you will also meet. Greet all your people. Athenarous

218

Chapter 8

|25 and the children greet you. |26 Finally, take care of you(rself) so that you stay he[a(lthy)]. Farewell. (Year) 8, Epe[ipḥ .] (Back)

To Dionysios alias Hamois son of Ptolemaios (and) brother of Apollonios, the village scribe of Tholthis, who is staying near Theon son of Ischyrion.

Notes 1 The greeting formula is abbreviated; read “gr(eetings).” 2 The translation of line 2 is based on *Olsson 1925, 41; a different interpretation was suggested by A. S. Hunt in the editio princeps: “you have not brought about an agreement between us, and (I wrote) also to your brother Apollonios” (cf. *White 1986, 106). 3 As usual in the documentary papyri, “younger” identifies a younger brother. In this case, the said Ptolemaios is the younger brother of another Ptolemaios, and Ptolemaios is also the name of their father. The older brother Ptolemaios is mentioned in lines 14–15. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–3 reference to previous letters (pp. 149–51), 10–17 request “please” (p. 141), 17–20 request with attenuating clause “if it seems good to you” (p. 141), 20–22 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 24–25 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 26 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 26 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 26 date (pp. 184–85), 27–28 address (pp. 185–86).

A certain Diogenes asks for help in surveying an unirrigated plot of land and paying the taxes due on it. The recipient is addressed metaphorically as “brother,” which is clear from the fact that the recipient’s brother, Apollonios, is referred to only as “your brother” (lines 3–4, 11; cf. line 27). Only from the address on the back of the papyrus do we learn that this Apollonios is the village scribe of Tholthis, which explains his importance to the whole enterprise. The expression of appreciation in lines 17–22 serves “as a polite or subtle means of persuading the recipient to grant the request” (*White 1986, 204). [2.58] BGU 4.1141 (TM 18585) Draft of a letter to Erotes

Greek papyrus, written in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found at Bousiris/Egypt (TM Geo 471), after 9 Apr 13 BCE Ed. W. Schubart 1912 (BGU 4.1141).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 3:17; 8:42; 11:25; 13:31; *Olsson 1925, 44–47 no. 9; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 64 n. 65.  –  Cf. W. Schubart 1913, “Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus,” APF 5:35–131, here 131; *Olsson 1925, 44–53 no. 9; *Salonius 1927, 24–27; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 62–66;

The Letters

219

*Reinard 2016, 475–76 (lines 5–13); P. Arzt-Grabner 2017, “Wisdom in Non-Christian Papyrus Letters from Roman Egypt,” in Tra pratiche e credenze: Traiettorie antropologiche e storiche  –  Un omaggio ad Adriana Destro, ed. C. Gianotto and F. Sbardella (Brescia: Morcelliana), 197–216, here 198–201; P. van Minnen 2020 (https://classics.uc.edu/users /vanminnen/ancient_alexandria/pdf/bgu_4_1141.pdf). – Online information and image: http://berlpap.smb.museum/00523/. – Image in this volume: p. 222 fig. 1.

To Erotes, very many gree(tings). I have received from Philox[enos] your single letter … we disagreed since the … Therefore I held them back [with] great joy […] … and these …, but also the pressing things […] … […] by inscribed \necessary … to do/ |5 is treated philanthropically. You, therefore, sent Ph[iloxe]no(s) and Hilaros to find out about what I wrote you, whether it is like that or not. You seem to have been insulted so that I am forced to write to you as if to a fool, and no longer not to write to you, so that you realize that there is no fault in my first letter. For I am not an in- I am not performing the work of a showman and I do not think that you have me in the position of a showman. I really ask |10 and beg you and adjure you by Caesar’s good fortune that you also realize so impartially that you have delivered the letter in anger. Ask those whom you have sent in any way, and (you will see that) I have given you true proof.1 But you are ridiculous when you write: “If Eros is doing what is befitting to you, write to me,” and after you had written to him to insult me, you wrote this to me as a joke. I do not |15 think that I deserve to be insulted as will also be testified to you by your friends, for I have not wronged you in any way, and also to your friends \it will not seem right/ that I am doing, what is befitting, to the one who is insulting me \it will not see(m right) that I am being insulted, as I am doing what is befitting to you./ For I am myself convinced that I did not leave my position that, ever since I became friends with you, I have not abandoned my station. You will not bring one charge against me if you treat me with honor and you want me to be human (?) as well. |20 And you have given support to both my fellow slaves and my fellow freedmen, which for me is money2 from your part, and I am not acting abusively toward those who have become rich except for your fellow slave and fellow freedman.3 On every occasion Eros, your …, reproaches me saying For I did not become your friend in order to snatch something, but your soul knows that, just as a slave in the hope of manumission wants to please, |25 I too want, \wanting/ your friendship, behaved blamelessly so but with a slave er-. For what sort \ what sort/ of abuse he made against me in the garden and in the house, while Terentius was present and Priamos and Philoxenos and Hilaros, I would, if it were possible to write tears to you, have written out of the

220

Chapter 8

tears; and in the Broad Street, he harvested our walkway from the garden. Concerning these things, those whom you have sent will make clear, |30 unless they want to show extraordinary favor toward a fellow slave. —4 But concerning Xystos, you write to me that he’s sick outside. Whether his fellow slave will somehow be able to support him, I do not know, because I do not sleep inside so that I could find out. But on the days when I go up, I find him sitting and wetting the thread(?).5 And every day I question the doorkeeper |35 whether someone has fallen asleep outside, and the (doorkeeper) of the house has never yet … to me to me … … had not even dined outside. But when I learned that Xystos had dined twice inside in the house of Eros, I took him along with me into the house and gave him orders not to have anything to do with that man—though I was cautious because I had previously learned about the rings Eros had made—|40 so that he might not somehow persuade him to reveal something pertaining to the affair.6 But concerning the embroidered patch (for a robe), however, it has become clear to me during my research \together with Philoxenos and Hilaros/ that the purple stripe was altered by Diodoros, and that he had not given it to you in accordance with the sample specimen he had shown you; but the … \because the/ old man who had hidden the embroidered patch and who had been asked by me, \said that it had been changed, and because I told him twice,/ “Why didn’t you reveal these things from the beginning … so that |45 you too would have been treated kindly?”, he said: “Diodoros had promised me to give me some gift, but he gave me neither the remuneration nor the gift, so I have been forced to reveal it.” I, therefore, asked the old man … \I, therefore, put him to the test and interrogated him privately, without the awareness of Xystos, because I wanted to know whether Xystos was also a confidant./ The old man said that he (Xystos) did not know anything at all about these things. |50  But I told him: “It is also necessary that you report in writing that Xystos did not know anything of these things.”7 And he first … to be a confident who … \… report in writing/ … \…/ … […] … Diodoros because of not giving wages … who begs me to await the … |55 to him Diodoros because he had not given … who is a …arches … I am healthy … to write and be useful … \It therefore seemed to me/ … |60 … \manuscript note/ … |61 … Notes 1 The meaning is: the addressee should ask those whom he has sent (i.e., Philoxenos and Hilaros), and from what they are able to report he will recognize that the letter sender has told him the truth in the earlier letter.

The Letters

221

2 Probably, the writer does not think of real money but of reward. 3 If it is correct to assume that the letter sender was the addressee’s freedman, the phrase “your fellow slave and fellow freedman” most probably refers to the letter sender’s fellow slave and fellow freedman who, naturally, also was the addressee’s slave. 4 A horizontal line to the left of line 30 (paragraphos) indicates a break before dealing with something different concerning Xystos. 5 The phrase probably refers to weaving or spinning (*Olsson 1925, 51). Van Minnen (2020) translates: “I find him sitting and winding the thread off a reel for the woof.” 6 The “matter” probably refers to the task with which the letter sender was entrusted by his addressee concerning the slave Xystos. 7 Due to the fragmentary preservation of the papyrus at this point, it is uncertain where the direct speech ends. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 6 reference to previous letter (pp. 149–51), 9–11 request “ask and beg” (pp. 145–46), 11–12 with imperative (p. 140), 13–19, 31–40 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54).

This draft of a letter was written on the back of the papyrus, the front of which had been previously used for two documents (BGU 4.1057.1–17, a contract about a loan, and lines 18–32 which contain the surety of the guarantor; both dated to 9 Apr 13 BCE). Afterwards the papyrus was re-used as mummy cartonnage which was found in 1904 during O. Rubensohn’s excavation in Abusir el-Melek (Egypt). That the back of the papyrus does not preserve the delivered letter but a draft of it, is also indicated by the many corrections in the text. Understandably, crossed-out passages are often hard to decipher. Whenever possible, the original and then crossed-out passages have also been reproduced in the translation above to provide an impression of the writer’s correction process. The author of this text is not mentioned by name, but it is generally assumed that he was a freed-man addressing his patron, a certain Erotes. Large parts of the text have been written in a rather reproachful tone. In the first part, the writer refers to a previous letter, which obviously contained a great deal of information that we are now missing for a clearer understanding of the whole situation. He has obviously been slandered by others whose names are not mentioned and is now trying to defend himself. Among other complaints, he blames his patron for mistrusting him by sending two people (Philoxenos and Hilaros) to check details from the sender’s earlier letter. In the context he also expresses fundamental thoughts about the behaviour of a slave towards his master. Then he reports about an insult which happened to him in the garden and house of a certain Terentius by a fellow slave and fellow freedman (what this insult or evidence consisted of is again unclear). Furthermore, the letter sender reports on his supervision of a slave and finally (and rather extensively) on an issue with a garment. The overall impression of the letter is that of a great gossip and bragging in the circles of the letter writer (Schubart 1913, 131).

222

Fig. 1

Chapter 8

BGU 4.1141, lines 1–35 [2.58] (P.Berol. inv. 13070 V); image courtesy of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz. The crossed out passages and interlinear corrections of lines 4, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and 35 are clearly visible.

The Letters

223

Two motifs that the writer introduces, are remarkable: In lines 24–25 he simply states that a slave wants to please his master because he hopes to get manumitted one day. In doing so he himself confesses that he behaved blamelessly because he wanted his master’s friendship. It does not seem that the author uses embellished words to design a deep emotional relationship between his former master and himself. Does he act like that because he wants to underscore that everything he writes is true and honest? If so, his frank language might have served him better in his intention to regain his patron’s trust and friendship than sweet words would have done so. In lines 27–28 he introduces the motif to write under tears, comparable with 2  Cor 2:4. The image is perfectly styled and very complex, much more than the phrase used by Paul (2 Cor 2:4 reads: “for I wrote you out of much distress and anguish of heart through many tears”). The writer of our draft refers to his tears as the content of his writing but also as the ink, or even the ink well out of which he gets the fluid unto his reed to be able to write about his bad experience. Like a scribe dips his reed into black ink to write his text with it, our anonymous writer would, if possible, dip the reed into his tears to report with this fluid the tearful event that he had experienced so that his patron would be able to read the “tears” of his client firsthand. On the phrase “but concerning” as introduction to a new subsection in lines 31 and 40 and analogies in 1 Cor (cf. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1) and 1 Thess (cf. 4:9 and 5:1), see p. 152. [2.59] BGU 16.2623 (TM 23347) Letter of recommendation from Phaidros to Athenodoros on behalf of Leukios

Greek papyrus, found in Herakleopolites/Egypt (TM Geo 2713), 27 Apr 10 BCE Ed. W. M. Brashear 1995 (BGU 16.2623, image on microfiche). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:35; 13:39. – Online information and image: http://berlpap.smb.museum/05152/. Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26; *Sarri 2018, 248–49; see pp. 79, 229); see also BGU 16.2611 [2.60]; 2631 [2.61]; 2610 [2.62]; 2619 [2.63]; 2618 [2.64]; 2654 [2.65]; 2608 [2.66]. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and that of the final greeting in line 14 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Phaidros to Athenodoros his brother, greetings, welfare, and best prosperity as I wish. —1 Leukios, a good man, is coming up to the Herakleopol(ites) for the collection of his money. Since he has been a friend to me

224

Chapter 8

|5 for a long time, he asked to recommend him if I could have someone among my friends there. Since I know no one else at present who is in a better position than you, I feel obliged to write you and beg you, if you are still able to remember us— and, of course, you are—, to assist the man and to attend to whatever he might |10 require of you during his stay. For I trust he will please you, and I for my part will not be left feeling any lack of effort made on your part. Otherwise, […] take care of yourself so that you stay healthy.—1 |14

Farewell. (Year) 20 of Caesar, Pachon 2.2

(Back)

|15 To Athenodoros.

Notes 1 Lines 2 and 13 both end with a horizontal stroke which could simply be seen as line filler; but since these lines only occur at the end of these two lines, and thus at the end of the initial greeting and before the final greeting respectively, they could also have been intended as separators. The final greeting, however, is clearly separated by the indentation anyway. 2 “Caesar” (without any additional titles) always refers to Augustus. The exact date can be converted to 27 April 10 BCE. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 6–10 request (pp. 141–43), 12–13 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 14 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 14 date (pp. 184–85), 15 address (pp. 185–86).

On the elaborated form of the opening greeting in the context of the many variations documented by letters of this archive, see pp. 79–83. Details comparable with Phlm are the use of the verb παρακαλέω (“beg, appeal to”; cf. Phlm 10; see also P.Oxy. 2.292.5 [2.71]), and the conditional clause in lines 7–8: “if you are still able to remember us …” which is remotely comparable to Phlm 17. In lines 11–12, the author underscores his request by employing a kind of diplomacy similar to that of Paul in Phlm 21 (“Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, and I know that you will do even more than what I say”), but the mode of expression used by Phaidros is even more refined than that of Paul.

225

The Letters

[2.60] BGU 16.2611 (TM 23334) Letter from Herakleides to Athenodors

Greek papyrus, Herakleopolites/Egypt (TM Geo 2713), 17 Dec 10 BCE Ed. W. M. Brashear 1995 (BGU 16.2611, image on microfiche). – Cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 76–77; *Reinard 2016, 797–99. – Online information and image: https://berlpap.smb. museum/05153/. Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26; *Sarri 2018, 248–49; see pp. 79, 229); see also BGU 16.2623 [2.59]; 2631 [2.61]; 2610 [2.62]; 2619 [2.63]; 2618 [2.64]; 2654 [2.65]; 2608 [2.66]. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–3 and of lines 13–15 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Herakleides to Athenodoros his brother, very many greetings and continual health I read what you wrote. You do not as I pray. write at all what measure I should use for transporting to the city. And whether |5 you are going to ship any of the first grain to Alexandria, notify me. However, the wholesale merchant (?) came to me in Bousiris because of 500 (artabas) (of wheat) for two hundred drachmas. At (your) place1 he will tell you (about it). Notify me tomorrow in Bousiris, how the measure is there. For I am going to Tilothis tomorrow |10 to give letters (?) to the wholesale merchants …, so that I can sell if others come. And let us in no way hold back the wholesale merchants. |13 Otherwise, take care of yourself so that you stay healthy. ∽ ∽2 |15

Farewell. (Year) 21 of Caesar, Choiak 20.3

Notify me tomorrow for sure about the measure and about the wholesale merchant. And send me (message) to Tilothis. Send sacks. For the transport of one hundred artabas we are charged 4 (drachmas). Notes 1 The meaning is obviously “when he gets to your place” (i.e., in person). 2 Before the scribe wrote the final greeting, he placed a decorative element at the beginning and end of line 14. 3 “Caesar” (without any additional titles) always refers to Augustus. The exact date of the letter can be converted to 17 December 10 BCE.

226

Chapter 8

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54), 4–5, 8–9, 16–18 requests with imperatives (p. 140), 13 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 15 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 15 date (pp. 184–85), 16–19 postscript (pp. 182–84).

The letter does not only deal with business matters, but it also reveals something about the personal relationship between the correspondents. As the two other surviving letters from Herakleides to Athenodoros (BGU 16.2610 [2.62] and 2608 [2.66]) demonstrate, the present case is not a one-time negligence on the part of Athenodoros to which Herakleides draws his attention, but the relationship between the two seems to have been basically strained. Without knowledge of the other letters, one could assume that Athenodoros had simply forgotten in his previous letter to Herakleides to provide the measure for the transport of grain to Alexandria, but the request to finally send this measure, expressed three times in total and the third time as an extreme urgency (and in a postscript), suggests that Herakleides experienced his business partner as notoriously negligent. On the other hand, this personal experience did not keep him from addressing Athenodoros as “brother” in all three letters or from greeting him with a more elaborate salutation than was customary. A fourth letter from Herakleides, BGU 16.2609 (28 Sep 7 BCE) which was written in the same hand but addressed to a certain Aspheus, who is not called “brother” and is simply greeted with χαίρειν (i.e., the basic form), confirms that Herakleides did not address all his correspondents in the same sophisticated and personal way as Athenodoros. For further details of the style used by Herakleides in his letters see G. Schwab in *Kreinecker 2010, 49–50, 55–59. [2.61] BGU 16.2631 (TM 23355) Letter from Pappos to Athenodoros

Greek papyrus, Herakleopolites/Egypt (TM Geo 2713), 2 Mar 9 BCE Ed. W.  M. Brashear 1995 (BGU 16.2631, image on microfiche).  –  Cf. *Armoni 2018, 123–34; *Kruse 2002, 285–88.  –  Online information and image: https://berlpap.smb. museum/05388/. – Image in this volume: p. 228 fig. 2. Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26; *Sarri 2018, 248–49; see below and p. 79); see also BGU 16.2623 [2.59]; 2611 [2.60]; 2610 [2.62]; 2619 [2.63]; 2618 [2.64]; 2654 [2.65]; 2608 [2.66]. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–3 and of lines 21–22 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

The Letters

227

Pappos to Athenodoros the most divine doiketes, very many greetings and continual good fortune, best progress.1 Since I have been hindered from coming to Memphis for |5 the clothes for the advent of Gallus, I have sent Asklapon so that … he comes up. If it seems right to you, make him set out immediately so that I myself am not impeded. I am receiving from him |10 six (clothes). Asklapon has advised me that … lawyer is arriving. Therefore, I did not want to incur any expenses without your knowledge. Therefore, if it seems right to you, tell (me). I have sent you the register of the |15 land damaged by salt and the royal scribe’s survey report. I am holding out (?) beyond the time limits (?). If it seems right to you, after several days … send pickled fish. Otherwise, t⟨ake c⟩are of yourself so that you stay healthy which is my greatest |20 [conc]e(rn).2 (h2?) Farewell.3 |21 (Year) 21 of Caesar, Phamen(oth) 6.4 (Back)

(h1) [… to Ath]enodoros, the dioiketes.

Notes 1 Syntactically noticeable is the simple addition of the two infinitives “to remain fortunate” and “to prosper” (without a connecting “and”). 2 Literally “which I regard as the greatest”; in the Greek text, the equivalent of “I regard” is written at the end of the whole sentence, preserved only in part and abbreviated. 3 The indented farewell is written lower than the ink traces at the beginning of line 20 and should therefore be considered a separate line. 4 “Caesar” (without any additional titles) always refers to Augustus. The exact date can be converted to 2 March 9 BCE. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 explanation of postponed visit (pp. 129–31), 3–6 letter carrier as author’s representative (pp. 198– 99), 5–7, 9–11 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 7–9, 13, 17–18 requests with attenuating clause “if it seems right to you” (p. 141), 18–20 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 21 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 22 date (pp. 184–85), 23 address (pp. 185–86).

228

Chapter 8

Fig. 2

BGU 16.2631 [2.61] (P.Berol. inv. 16898 + 25265); image courtesy of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz

229

The Letters

This is one of the letters of the Athenodoros Archive (TM Arch 26), from which it was supposed that Athenodoros, in addition to his activity as manager of the estates of a certain Asklepiades in the Herakleopolite nome, might have held offices in the public administration. However, it is more likely that the term dioiketes here, as in the other early Roman documents, refers to a manager of private property. The reason for the fact that, as is the case with many of the archive’s letters, the local population approached him and asked him for help in various matters must therefore be found in his position as estate manager, which made him an influential personality in the region (*Armoni 2018, 123–24). Two details in this letter are unique: First, Pappos is so far the only author of a papyrus letter who used the opening greeting “very many greetings and continual good fortune, best progress.” Second, if the interpretation is correct that Gallus is a Roman prefect of Egypt, he is attested here for the first time. In that case, his mention and the issues raised by Pappos would refer to the conventus, the annual inspection tour of Egypt by the prefect, since “the requisitioning of clothes in preparation for the arrival of a personage with a Latin name apparently at Memphis has all the earmarks of a prefectural visit” (W. M. Brashear in BGU 16, p. 128). The form of address “most divine” (line 1) is unique (cf. p. 86). It is possible that the final greeting and date (lines 21–22) were written by a different hand and with a thinner kalamos, but since these lines are less well preserved than the lines before, this is uncertain. [2.62] BGU 16.2610 (TM 23333) Letter from Herakleides to Athenodors

Greek papyrus, Herakleopolites/Egypt (TM Geo 2713), 13 or 23 Nov 9 BCE Ed. W. M. Brashear 1995 (BGU 16.2610, image on microfiche). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:35; 13:39.  –  Cf. G. Schwab in *Kreinecker 2010, 49–50; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 91–92. – Online information and image: https://berlpap.smb.museum/05151/. Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26; *Sarri 2018, 248–49; see pp. 79, 229); see also BGU 16.2623 [2.59]; 2611 [2.60]; 2631 [2.61]; 2619 [2.63]; 2618 [2.64]; 2654 [2.65]; 2608 [2.66]. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible, where, however, the line spacing is above average (more than double line spacing).

Herakleides to Athenodoros his brother, very many greetings and continual health as I pray. I have written to you often, and in conversation I have asked you to write |5 to those in charge of finances in Koma so that

230

Chapter 8

they take the grain with them, and you haven’t. One day you’ll put the blame on me. I know you aren’t negligent. For if you forget, you will come before the one in charge of the price. For the wheat |10 is useful.1 Otherwise, take care of yourself so that you stay healthy. Farewell. (Year) 22 of Caesar, Hathyr 27.2 (Back)

To Athenodoros, the brother.

Notes 1 The Greek term used here literally means “useful”; the meaning is probably “of the best quality” as W. M. Brashear translated in BGU 16, p. 98. 2 “Caesar” (without any additional titles) always refers to Augustus. The day of the month is either the 17th (ιζ) or—what seems more likely to me from the digital image—the 27th (κζ) which can be converted to 13 or 23 November 9 BCE. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6 reference to previous letter and message (pp. 149–51), 10–11 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 11 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 11 date (pp. 184–85), 12 address (pp. 185–86).

On the general relationship between Herakleides and his business partner Athenodoros as well as on the opening greeting and the metaphorical form of the address “brother” see p. 226. As in the two other surviving letters from Herakleides to Athenodoros, BGU 16.2611 [2.60] and 2608 [2.66], the letter author informs his addressee about business problems. The phrase “I know you are not negligent” (lines 7–8) is probably meant ironically, because in the rest of the letter—and even more forcefully in the other two letters—Herakleides expresses his concern about possible negligence of Athenodoros and points out to him the possible consequences. For further details of the style used by Herakleides in his letters see G. Schwab in *Kreinecker 2010, 49–50, 55–59. [2.63] BGU 16.2619 (TM 23343) Letter from Erasistratos to Athenodoros

Greek papyrus, Herakleopolites (TM Geo 2713), ca. 21 BCE–5 CE Ed. W. M. Brashear 1995 (BGU 16.2619, image on microfiche). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BOEP 5.1. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/05224/. Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26; *Sarri 2018, 248–49; see pp. 79, 229); see also BGU 16.2623 [2.59]; 2611 [2.60]; 2631 [2.61]; 2610 [2.62]; 2618 [2.64]; 2654 [2.65]; 2608 [2.66].

The Letters

231

In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–12 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Erasistratos to Atheno[doros ………] prosperity […?]. Since Ammon, the … [is com]ing to you,1 I considered it necessary to |5 greet you and remind you about the radish. For I now need … since I am preparing the medication with it. Hence, if it is not burdensome to you, send me some pure so that it is usable. |10 Otherwise, take care of your health so that we receive you in prosperity as well. (Back)

[To Athenodoros,] the dioiketes.

Note 1 The fragmentary passage can be reconstructed at least in terms of content on the basis of BGU 16.2637.3 (3/2 BCE) or P.Ryl. 2.235.2–5 [2.147] (II CE). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 4 disclosure formula (p. 139), 5 reference to previous message (pp. 149–51), 8–10 request imperative (p. 140), 10–11 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 12 address (pp. 185–86).

The simple greeting χαίρειν is replaced here by the infinitive “to do well,” which can be translated as a wish for prosperity. The content of the disclosure formula in line 4 is dependent on the fact that a certain Ammon is on his way to the addressee and in this way the formula already introduces the letter corpus. The sender of the letter takes the opportunity not only to convey greetings, but also to remind the addressee of his previously communicated wishes, and Ammon serves to urge the addressee to finally fulfill them. Lines 3–10 provide a remote parallel to 2 Cor 9:5 and Phil 2:25 (see p. 139).

232

Chapter 8

[2.64] BGU 16.2618 (TM 23342) Letter from Tryphas to Athenodoros and Artemis

Greek papyrus, Herakleopolites/Egypt (TM Geo 2713), 10 May 7 BCE Ed. W. M. Brashear 1995 (BGU 16.2618, image on microfiche). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 13:39; BOEP 5.1; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 119 n. 48; *Armoni 2018, 131–32. – Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 125 (extended eBook 2008, A4.3 no. 23); *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 83–85; *Armoni 2018, 131–34.  –  Online information and image: https://berlpap.smb .museum/05156/. Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26; *Sarri 2018, 248–49; see pp. 79, 229); see also BGU 16.2623 [2.59]; 2611 [2.60]; 2631 [2.61]; 2610 [2.62]; 2619 [2.63]; 2654 [2.65]; 2608 [2.66].

Tryphas to Athenodoros her son, and to Artemis her daughter, very many greetings and continual welfare. Know, that I did not take the grain |5 you sent me. For I have realized that it is not advantageous for me to take it. In any case, now order it to be fetched. Neither Thoas nor anyone else is able to help the slaves out of their predicament. |10 Every day I am troubled by the two executors (?), S… as well as Gnomon, […] harassed and pawned. I have often written to you |15 to take care of the slaves. They will die in prison. Please be so good as to listen to me and to lock up your grain and to give nothing to anyone. |20 For on the fifteenth (the price) has risen by one triobolon, and they fear that it will become even more expensive. Nardos greets you, and Nikas and all in the house.1 And take care of yourself so that you stay healthy. |25 (h2?) Farewell. (h1) (Year) 23 of Caesar, Pachon 15.2 (Back)

Deli(ver)

to Athenodoros, the son.

Notes 1 The construction here is very typical of Greek, particularly Hellenistic Greek: the verb in the singular and the personal pronoun (“he greets you”) are in first place and grammatically refer to the first-mentioned person, Nardos. What follows is “and Nikas and all in the house,” both in the nominative, which means that all three send their greetings. The meaning is identical with “Nardos and Nikas and all in the house greet you.” 2 “Caesar” (without any additional titles) always refers to Augustus. The exact date can be converted to 10 May 7 BCE. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 4 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 7–8 request with imperative (p. 140), 14–15 reference to previous letters (pp. 149–51), 17–20 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 22–24 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 24 final health wish (pp. 170– 71), 25 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 25 date (pp. 184–85), 26 address (pp. 185–86).

The Letters

233

Tryphas directs the opening greeting to Athenodoros and Artemis, but everything else (including the address on the back of the papyrus) is directed to Athenodoros alone. The simple reason could have been that Artemis lived in the same household as Athenodoros, for Tryphas greets her and another Tryphas as “the ladies, my daughters” in another letter from her to Athenodoros (BGU 16.2617.6–7). Since these two letters are the only ones in which Tryphas, Athenodoros, and Artemis appear together, and since the same terms are used in both for Athenodoros and Artemis (“son” and “daughter”), it is not impossible that Athenodoros and Artemis were also married siblings (which would not have been unusual in Egypt at that time), or that Artemis was the real daughter of Tryphas and Athenodoros her son-in-law. At the time this letter was written, there were apparently shortages in the supply of grain, which had led to an increase in its price. Since Tryphas reckons that prices will continue to rise, she advises Athenodoros to hoard his grain, which may have been considered inappropriate by the Roman administration already at this early time.1 Lines 4–8 had previously been interpreted to mean that Tryphas complained to Athenodoros that she had not received a promised delivery of grain, and that now she urged him to finally ship it. It remained a mystery, however, why Tryphas, on the other hand (lines 17–20), instructed Athenodoros to lock up his grain and give nothing to anyone (on an attempt to resolve this contradiction, see *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 84). According to *Armoni (2018, 132–33) a different interpretation, which I also follow in my translation, is preferable and resolves this contradiction: The point of departure is the Greek term αἴρω which basically means “to lift for the purpose of carrying” and is used in line 8 as a passive infinitive. It can thus mean either that Athenodoros is requested to lift the respective amount of grain to be brought to Tryphas or to his own place, in other words: to be brought back to him, to be fetched. Considering the instruction mentioned in lines 17–22 and the economic situation described there, Tryphas—so Armoni—did not want to take the grain that Athenodoros had actually sent her but asked him to pick it up again so that he could make an even greater profit. Tryphas is apparently in financial trouble and reports how she herself is pressured by executors and her property is mortgaged. Perhaps two (of her?) slaves were also imprisoned in this connection (lines 14–17) since they may have been taken into custody in the course of the execution. Tryphas emphasizes that she has already written to Athenodoros several times to take care of 1 For attempts to prevent excessive price increases during shortages of grain supply by imposing an obligation to declare and sell, see the decrees P.Oxy. 47.3339 (18 Dec 191 CE) and 42.3048 (18 Mar 246 CE); cf. *Armoni 2018, 131 (including n. 35–36).

234

Chapter 8

the slaves. Meanwhile they are in danger of dying in prison. That Athenodoros often appeared to be negligent is also documented by three letters from Herakleides to him (BGU 16.2611 [2.60]; 2610 [2.62]; 2608 [2.66]). The farewell in line 25 seems to be written in a smaller handwriting, after which the dating is written in the same handwriting as lines 1–24. If this is correct, Tryphas dictated the letter to a scribe, but wrote the final greeting in her own hand. [2.65] BGU 16.2654 (TM 23378) Letter of recommendation from Philotas to Soterichos on behalf of Ptoys

Greek papyrus, Herakleopolites/Egypt (TM Geo 2713), 14 Jul 6 BCE Ed. W. M. Brashear 1995 (BGU 16.2654, image on microfiche). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:35. – Online information and image: http://berlpap.smb.museum/05148/; https:// grammateus.unige.ch/document/23378. Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26; *Sarri 2018, 248–49; see pp. 79, 229); see also BGU 16.2623 [2.59]; 2611 [2.60]; 2631 [2.61]; 2610 [2.62]; 2619 [2.63]; 2618 [2.64]; 2608 [2.66]. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Philotas to Soterichos1 the dioiketes, very many greetings and through all good health. Ptoys, who is delivering the letter to you, is the farmer of myself and Asklepiades, the accountant. Now please be so |5 good as to collect from his debtors that as rental fees which (their sheep) have devoured of his own grass. He himself will measure out to you the rental fees of Asklepiades, the accountant. So do not do otherwise. And take care of yourself so that you stay healthy. Farewell. (Year) 24 of Caesar, Epeiph 20.2 |10 (Back)3

To (the) dioik(et)es Soterichos.1

Notes 1 According to line 1, addressee Soterichos is a dioiketes which suggests that διοικης in the address on the verso refers to him. This, however, would require a dative, while διοικης could rather be explained as an abbreviated nominative, i.e., as διοικη(τή)ς. The extra-large blank space between διοικης and the dative of Soterichos could provide a clue here in that the two words were certainly to be read on the opposite sides of the letter after folding. The address then was to be read either “Dioike(te)s” or “To Soterichos,” and both will thus have referred to the same person. 2 “Caesar” (without any additional titles) always refers to Augustus. The exact date can be converted to 14 July 6 BCE.

235

The Letters

3 In the upper left corner of the back only fragments of four lines are visible which have not been transcribed by the editor. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84, especially 79–83), 2–4 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 4–7 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 8–9 reminder of request (pp. 161–62), 9 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 10 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 10 date (pp. 184–85), 11 address (pp. 185–86).

The farmer Ptoys in whose favor this letter has been written, had rented (some of) his pastureland to unnamed people to graze their herds. As they did not pay him the rental fees, and maybe still refused to do so, he asked Philotas for help who sends him together with this letter of recommendation to the dioiketes Soterichos. This suggests that the addressee had in whatever way more influence to support Ptoys than Philotas himself. On the other hand, Philotas was in the position to ask this dioiketes to do him a favor which means that both correspondents were more or less of equal social rank. [2.66] BGU 16.2608 (TM 23331) Letter from Herakleides to Athenodors

Greek papyrus, Herakleopolites/Egypt (TM Geo 2713), 14 Mar 7 or 4 BCE? Ed. W. M. Brashear 1995 (BGU 16.2608, image on microfiche). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:35; 13:39. – Cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 77. – Online information and image: https:// berlpap.smb.museum/05164/. Archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26; *Sarri 2018, 248–49; see pp. 79, 229); see also BGU 16.2623 [2.59]; 2611 [2.60]; 2631 [2.61]; 2610 [2.62]; 2619 [2.63]; 2618 [2.64]; 2654 [2.65].

Herakleides to Athenodoros his brother, [very many] greetings and continual health as I pray. I came to Tilothis. The beer brewers have not ground the barley, unless […] them |5 for a stater in Pauni.1 Therefore, if it seems right to you, indicate (it to me). Get busy and tend to the barley, for if you forget, all will be lost. Therefore, I’m writing you, so that you know. Therefore, indicate what you want. and take care of yourself so that you stay healthy. Farewell. |10 (Year) 23 (or 26?) of Caesar, Phamenoth 18.2 (Back)

To Athenodoros, the dioiketes.

Notes 1 The Egyptian month Pauni can be converted to 26 May–24 June.

236

Chapter 8

2 There are traces of a second character visible after kappa (= 20), perhaps gamma (= 3) or stigma (= 6). “Caesar” (without any additional titles) always refers to Augustus, so the dating may be converted to 14 March 7 or 4 BCE. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2 health wish and prayer report (pp. 102–12), 5–6 request with attenuating clause “if it seems right to you” (p. 141), 6–7 with imperatives (p. 140), 7–8 reminder of request (pp. 161–62), 8 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 9 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 9 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 10 date (pp. 184–85), 11 address (pp. 185–86).

On the general relationship between Herakleides and his business partner Athenodoros as well as on the opening greeting and the metaphorical form of address “brother” see p. 226. As in the two other surviving letters from Herakleides to Athenodoros (BGU 16.2611 [2.60] and 2610 [2.62]), the letter author informs his addressee about business problems, here in particular about problems with brewers who are not willing to mill the barley without receiving more money, and as in the other two letters, Herakleides fears that Athenodoros might be negligent. In lines 5–8, he basically expresses the same thing several times: Athenodoros should tell him most quickly what he should do. For further details of the style used by Herakleides in his letters see G. Schwab in *Kreinecker 2010, 49–50, 55–59. [2.67] P.Oxy. 4.744 (TM 20442) Letter from Hilarion to Alis and Berous and Apollonarion

Greek papyrus, written in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found at Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), 17 Jun 1 BCE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1904 (P.Oxy. 4.744). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:328; 2.2:97; 3:132; 7:130; 8:237; 9:181; 11:145; 13:149. – Cf. *Milligan 1910, 32–33 no. 12, image: frontispiece; *Witkowski 1911, 131–33, 142 no. 72; *Laudien 1912, 2, 32–33, 37 no. 1, image: p. 1; *Schubart 1912, 49 no. 40; *Schubart 1923, 65–66 no. 46; *Crönert 1925, 479–81 no. 7; *Deissmann 1927, 167–70 no. 7, image: fig. 26 (after p. 168); *Salonius 1927, 22–23; A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar 1932 (Sel.Pap. 1.105); *Winter 1933, 56; *Lietzmann 1934, 3, 7 no. 5; *Johnson 1936, 281 no. 170; *Finegan 1946, 325–26, image: fig. 135 (after p. 318); H. Braunert 1955–1956, “Ιδια: Studien zur Bevölkerungsgeschichte des ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten,” JJP 9–10:211–328, here 261–64; *Metzger 1974, 39–40 no. 46; N. Lewis 1983, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press; repr., Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1999), 54; D. C. Braund 1985, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History, 31 BC–AD 68 (London: Croom Helm), 272 no. 723; *White 1986, 111–12 no. 72; R.  K. Sherk 1988, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 245 no. 188; H. Kloft 1991, Die Wirtschaft der griechisch-römischen Welt: Eine Einführung, Die Altertumswissenschaft (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), 75, image: 74 Abb. 9; B. Palme 1998, “Alltagsgeschichte und Papyrologie,” in Alltägliches Altertum, ed. E. Specht (Frankfurt a.M.: Lang), 155–205, here 167–71 no. 2; *Palme 2007, 200–5; *Rowlandson 1998, 295 no. 230; S. West 1998, “Whose Baby? A Note on P. Oxy. 744,” ZPE

237

The Letters

121:167–72 (with an emendated transcription that does not follow usual papyrological standards); P. McKechnie 1999, “An Errant Husband and a Rare Idiom (P.Oxy. 744),” ZPE 127:157–61 (with West’s 1998 Greek transcription); H.-J. Drexhage, H. Konen, and K. Ruffing 2002, Die Wirtschaft des Römischen Reiches (1.–3. Jahrhundert): Eine Einführung, Studienbücher Geschichte und Kultur der Alten Welt (Berlin: De Gruyter), 281 M 72; *Burnet 2003a, 259–60 no. 199; J. A. Straus 2004, “L’Égypte gréco-romaine révélée par les papyrus”: L’esclave (Recueil de documents papyrologiques), Entretiens sur l’Antiquité gréco-romaine 26 (Liège: Université de Liège, Sciences de l’Antiquité, Langues et littératures classiques), 5–6 no. 1; *Messeri 2006, 93–94 no. 8; *Palme 2007, 200–205; J. Mélèze Modrzejewski 2012, Le droit grec après Alexandre, L’esprit du droit (Paris: Dalloz), 127 no. 25; *Luttenberger 2012, 93–97, image: 94; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 106–8 no. 18, image: 123 Abb. 12; T. Backhuys 2017, “Ammenvertrag aus der Zeit des Tiberius und unbestimmter Text in Buchschrift: P.Sorb. inv. 2129 + P.Lips. inv. 162: Mit einer Neuedition von P.Rein. II 103 = C.Pap.Gr. I 14,” ZPE 201:219–31; J. J. Johnston 2020, “Hilarion’s Letter to His Wife, Child Exposure, and Early Christianity,” in Scribes and Their Remains, ed. C.  A. Evans and J.  J. Johnston, SSEJC 21; LSTS 94 (London: T&T Clark), 146–62, here 146–53; J. A. Straus 2020, L’esclavage dans l’Égypte romaine: Choix de documents traduits et commentés, Cahiers du CeDoPaL 8 (Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège), 22–23 no. 5.  –  Online information and images: https://papyri.info/ddbdp /p.oxy;4;744.

Hilarion to Alis his sister, very many greetings, and to Berous, my lady, and to Apollonarion. Know that at present we are still in Alexandria. Do not worry if they wholly set |5 out, I will stay in Alexandria.1 I ask you and beg you, take care of the child, and if—and as soon as—I receive my pay, I will send you up2 (immediately).3 If perhaps you give birth, if it is male, |10 let it be, if it is female, throw it out. You have told Aphrodisias: “Don’t forget me.” How can I forget you? So, I ask you not to worry. |15

(Year) 29 of Caesar, Pauni 23.4

(Back)

Hilarion. Deliver to Alis.

Notes 1 A different interpretation of lines 4–5 has been suggested by Braunert (1955–1956, 261–64), who argues that Hilarion was afraid not to fulfill his tax obligations during the upcoming harvest (the letter is dated June 17) and therefore fled to Alexandria; the people who could “really walk in (i.e., into the house)” would then be officials looking for Hilarion. 2 Hilarion literally wrote “I send you up,” but the meaning should be “I send it up to you.” 3 On the syntax see N. Litinas in P.Horak, p. 286. 4 The dating was added after some blank space. “Caesar” (without any additional titles) always refers to Augustus. The exact date can be converted to 17 June 1 BCE.

238

Chapter 8

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–3 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 3 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 3–5 explanation for a postponed visit (pp. 129–31), 6–7 request “ask and beg” (pp. 145–46), 8–10 with imperative (p. 140), 11–14 response to addressee’s message (pp. 151–54), 15 date (pp. 184–85), 16 address (pp. 185–86).

This letter probably received the most comments and annotations of all papyrus letters from Greco-Roman antiquity so far, which is mainly due to the injunction to infanticide in line 10 (for recent discussion see West 1998; McKechnie 1999; on Hilarion’s possible mentality and his wife’s dramatic situation see especially *Palme 2007, 200–205; cf. p. 20). The intention of abandoning a child was not necessarily the death of the child because foundlings (females and males) were often raised as slaves, as some contracts with wet nurses illustrate (cf. Backhuys 2017 with new editions of two contracts). This is even reflected in some slave names, which refer to the rubbish mound where the child was found (the name Koprias literally means nothing else than “the one [picked up] from the rubbish mound”). In addition to his wife Alis, who is called “sister,” the letter sender also addresses Berous and Apollinarion in the opening greeting. Berous is addressed as “my lady” and could be Hilarion’s mother (*Palme 2007, 202; less likely his mother-in-law), and Apollonarion seems to be the couple’s daughter, “the little child” mentioned in line 7. So probably Hilarion is greeting everyone who is currently living in his house. Α formal final greeting is missing. [2.68] P.Oslo 2.47 (TM 21524) Letter from Dionysios to Theon Greek papyrus, Egypt, 23 Aug 1 CE

Ed. S. Eitrem and L. Amundsen 1931 (P.Oslo 2.47; image: plate V).  –  Addenda/ Corrigenda: BL 2.2:91; 3:122. – Online information and images: https://ub-baser.uio.no/ opes/record/1; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/21524.

Dionysios to Theon his dearest, very many greetings and continual good health. When you reminded me to buy fish, I asked a friend of mine to buy |5 60 pigfish for a drachma. I gave (them) to the one (who came) from you. And also he himself bought 30 pigfish for a drachma. I also gave him a basket. See that he does not cheat you {you}, as he usually |10 cheats in business affairs. When he himself bought, he only got 30 pigfish, but you 60. And send me five art(abas) of beans instead of lentils. Otherwise,

239

The Letters

{but} take care of yourself |15 so that you stay healthy. Greet all your people (and) Herakles son of Petalos. |17 Farewell. (Year) 30 of Caesar, Mesore 30. And the basket, send it to me through Androus. (Back)

|20 De liver

to Theonas.

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–8 response to addressee’s message (pp. 151–54), 8–10, 12–14, 18–19 requests with imperative (p. 140), 14–15 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 15–16 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 17 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 17 date (pp. 184–85), 18–19 postscript (pp. 182–84), 20–21 address (pp. 185–86).

The letter is a reply to the message or letter of a certain Theon about the purchase and delivery of fish, to which the sender of the letter encloses the request to send him a certain amount of beans. In lines 8–10, the appeal to Theon to be cautious not to be deceived by the letter sender’s friend, who is not mentioned by name, is introduced, and emphasized by the imperative “look, see” (cf. 1 Thess 5:15). The basket referred to in the postscript (lines 18–19) must be the basket that Dionysios gave to the one who came from Theon, the recipient of this letter (cf. lines 5–8). Since Dionysios emphasizes that the man “usually cheats in business affairs” (lines 9–10), one Androus whom Theon should send to return the basket is apparently a more trustworthy person (cf. p. 196). [2.69] TM 130712 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) Letter of recommendation from Tryphon to his father Tryphon on behalf of Isidoros

Greek papyrus, written at Philadelphia/Arsinoites? (TM Geo 1760), found in Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), spring 6 CE Ed. A.  E. Hanson 2012, “A New Letter from the Archive of Isidorus from Psophthis, Memphite Nome,” in PapCongr. 26, 323–29, image: 324.  –  Online information and images: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-4047/. Archive of Isidorus son of Isidoros from Psophthis (TM Arch 113; *Sarri 2018, 254–55). The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

240

Chapter 8

Tryphon to Tryphon his father,1 very many greetings. Isido[ros who is d]elivering the letter to you and who was recommended to me by real friends, |5 [said (?) and repeatedly pr]oved to be from the v[illage of Ps]ophthis in the Memphites, but being put in custody by some e[ne]mies, he was forc[ed to s]ign a declaration to cultivate near the village of Philadelphia five and one-half |10 arouras from Livia’s estate. I thus ask you, father,1 out of respect for [th]e friends who recommended him, make him free of trouble, with his declaration returned to him, so that on his behalf those friends will speedily acknowledge their obligation to me. |15 (Back)

Deliver

(h2) Farewell. to Tryphon […].

Note 1 Tryphon, the strategos, who is addressed twice as “father” in this letter (lines 1 and 10), was not the real father of the letter sender but is called as such in an honorific way. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–10 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 10–14 request “ask” (pp. 143–46), 15 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 16 address (pp. 185–86).

On the importance of this letter of recommendation and the entire case of Isidoros son of Isidoros from Psophthis in the Memphite nome, see pp. 39–41 and TM Arch 113. [2.70] P.Fay. 109 (TM 10774) Letter from Pisais to Herakleos

Greek papyrus, Euhemeria/Egypt (TM Geo 675), 19 Jun 10 BCE or 34 CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1900 (P.Fay. 109). – Addenda/Corrigenda: *Olsson 1925, 187–88 no. 68; BL 11:78. – Cf. *Olsson 1925, 187–88 no. 68. – Online image: http://ipap. csad.ox.ac.uk/Fayum.html (select no. 109).

The Letters

241

Pisais to Herakleos, greetings. Whenever you want to borrow something from me out of necessity, (I will give) you immediately from what I have. And now, please1 give Kleon the three staters Seleukos told you to give me, and consider |5 that you are lending them to me. If necessary, pawn your cloak. For I have settled accounts with (his?) father, and he has allowed me to remain in arrears (?), and I want to get a receipt. Seleukos has evaded paying the money, saying that you have made an arrangement with him (to pay instead). |10 And now, please1 consider that you are lending them to me, and do not keep Kleon waiting, and join with Kleon, and claim the 12 (drachmas) from Saras. So do not do otherwise. (Year) 20, Pauni 25. (Back)

|15 To Herakleos (Parts of two red stamps)

Note 1 The writer used the passive participle of “to beg,” so literally “begged (by me)” or simply “please.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–4, 10–13 requests (pp. 141–43), 13 reminder of main request (pp. 161–62), 14 date (pp. 184–85), 15 address (pp. 185–86).

This is a simple business letter about money, but it nevertheless reveals some personal relationships, especially at the beginning when the sender of the letter reminds his addressee that he never abandons him in a situation of need. [2.71] P.Oxy. 2.292 (TM 20563) Letter of recommendation from Theon to Tyrannos on behalf of Herakleides

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), ca. 25 CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1899 (P.Oxy. 2.292). – Cf. *Milligan 1910, 37–38 no. 14; *Laudien 1912, 7, 40 no. 9; *Olsson 1925, 68–70 no. 18; A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar 1932 (Sel. Pap. 1.106); *Lietzmann 1934, 3, 6 no. 3; *White 1986, 118–19 no. 79; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 59–60; *Head 2009b, 285–86; *Luttenberger 2012, 150–51; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 173 no. 204; D. I. Yoon 2016, “Ancient Letters of Recommendation and 2 Corinthians 3.1–3: A Literary Analysis,” JGRChJ 12:45–72, here 58–61. – No image available. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as presented in the edition; the layout of lines 3–14 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

242

Chapter 8

Theon to Tyrannos his most honored, very many greetings. Herakleides, who is delivering the letter to the, is my brother. |5 Therefore, I beg you with all my power to regard him recommended. I have also asked Hermias your brother by letter to talk with you about him. You will do me the biggest favor |10 if he receives your attention. Before everything I pray that you remain healthy and, unenchanted,1 fare most excellently. Farewell. (Back)

To Tyrannos, the dioiketes.

Note 1 The Greek term ἀβάσκαντος is not easy to translate into English; it means that the person described as such may not be struck by the evil eye (i.e., may remain immune from any harm caused by spells etc.). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 5–7 request “beg” (pp. 141–43), 9–10 statement to be “favored” (p. 162), 11–13 final prayer report (pp. 170–71), 13 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 14 address (pp. 185–86).

Details of this letter of recommendation comparable with Phlm are the use of διό (“therefore”; cf. Phlm 8) and of the verb παρακαλέω (“beg, appeal to”; cf. Phlm 10; see also BGU 16.2623.7 [2.59]) in line 5. In what way the addressee should support the recommended Herakleides is not explained, but it is not impossible that this should be done by Hermias, to whom Theon also wrote a letter in favor of Herakleides. [2.72] BGU 4.1078 (TM 9455) Letter from Sarapion to Sarapias

Greek papyrus, Philadelpheia/Egpyt (TM Geo 1760), 20 Oct 38 CE Ed. P. Viereck 1912 (BGU 4.1078). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:95; 8:40 (suggestions of BL 4:6 have to be discarded); U. Wilcken in Chrest.Wilck., p. 83 n. 5; *Olsson 1925, 89–91 no. 29. – Cf. U. Wilcken 1912 (Chrest.Wilck. 59); *Olsson 1925, 89–91 no. 29; *Llewelyn 1994a, 73–74. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/02816/; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/9455.

243

The Letters

In the following translation, the layouts of the final greeting, the dating, and the address on the back (lines 14–18) reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 1–13 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Sarapion to Sarapias his sister, very many greetings and continual health. Know that I have purchased at the right time. But you did not do well, because although many friends traveled out here, you did not send |5 me a single message, even though you know that I am worried about you.1 And besides, when I get the money, I will see what I have to do. I should not sit around idly. I would have wanted you to notify me about the work, whether it has become cheap or not. |10 Know that Hegemon moved in on the twenty-third. Otherwise, take care2 of yourself2 so that you2 stay healthy. Greet the children and all those in the house and Panechotes. |14 Farewell.2 |15 (Year) 3 of Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, month Soterios 23. (Back)

Deli(ver)

from Sarapion, the wholesale merchant, to Sarapion his younger son on the farmstead.

Notes 1 This is a plural form obviously referring to the addressee and all those who are greeted in lines 12–13: the children and all in the house and Panechotes. 2 The concluding “Farewell” is abbreviated but presumably meant as a singular form. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2, 10 disclosure formulas (pp. 136–38), 3–6 complaint (pp. 132–33), 12–13 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 11–12 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 14 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 15–16 date (pp. 184–85), 17–18 address (pp. 185–86).

The opening greeting of this letter is directed to the author’s sister (and wife?), but he repeatedly addresses everyone in the house in the plural (see note 1). The address on the back of the papyrus deserves special mention. It is not directed to the addressee, but to the younger son of the letter sender, who bears the same name as his father. Presumably the letter was addressed to this Sarapion “because either Sarapias lived there with him or he could easily forward the letter on to her” (*Llewelyn 1994a, 74).

244

Chapter 8

[2.73] SB 3.6823 (TM 18827) Letter from Capito to Teres

Greek papyrus, Egypt, 41–54 CE Ed. W. Schubart 1924, “Papyruskunde,” in Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, vol. 1/Heft 9, ed. A. Gercke and E. Norden (Leipzig: Teubner), 27–68, here 55–56 (= SB 3.6823). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 12:186; *Fournet 2012, 137 n. 47; D. Hagedorn 2016, “Bemerkungen zu Urkunden,” ZPE 198:190–95, here 194–95.  –  Cf. *Schubart 1923, 68–69 no. 49; *Olsson 1925, 99–103 no. 34; *David and van Groningen 1965, 151–52 no. 78; *Fournet 2012, 136–38. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb. museum/03241/; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/18827. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–30 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Capito to Teres his dearest, very many greetings. Above everything else I rejoiced greatly after receiving your letter |5 that you are healthy and that you found your wife and the child in good shape. As for the dining room, don’t worry, for I won’t do anything otherwise—I |10 reported everything— if not even better. For what concerns me greatly and matters to me is your friendship, and what you have instructed me in your (previous?) letter, you will find accomplished. |15 And I hope that, when you come, you will find more things finished. I thank Primus and Tycharion greatly because they follow your orders and take care |20 of us. And the plasterers have done everything in colors (?)1 and do. But as for the gallery, write me, what seems (best) to you, because you are refurbishing it, what you want to have there, whether iliaka2 |25 or whatever else you want. Because the place needs it. Farewell. Sertoris greets you, and those with him.

245

The Letters

Greet all your people. (Year).3 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus |30 Emperor, Pachon 2[  ̣?].4 Notes 1 Or: they “have applied everywhere a simple plaster (i.e., without moldings)” (cf. *Fournet 2012, 137 n. 47). 2 The term iliaka probably refers to paintings with scenes from Homer’s Il. or, since “gallery” in line 22 seems to refer to a room connected to a palaestra or a gymnasium, to statues of heroes from the Il. (cf. *Fournet 2012, 137–38). 3 The number of the year is not preserved. 4 The number of the year in line 29 is illegible; regarding the day at the end of line 30, one numeral may be lost which means that the date is between Pachon 20 and Pachon 29. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–7 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 13–14 response to addressee’s message (pp. 151–54), 22–25 request imperative (p. 140), 26 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 26–28 postscript (pp. 182–84) with secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

Capito had received a letter from Teres, obviously written after Teres had come home from a journey (perhaps from visiting Capito himself). Now, Capito keeps his correspondent informed of the renovation work on his house. Regarding the letter form, the report of joy (lines 3–7) and the secondary greetings added as postscript (lines 26–28) are worth mentioning. Lines 11–16 are, in a sense, the counterpart to Phlm 21, for Capito here assures his addressee to do pretty much what Paul expects his addressee Philemon to do, namely, to fulfill everything as expected or to do it even better. [2.74] BGU 2.530 (TM 25647) Letter from Hermokrates to Chairas

Greek papyrus, Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), I CE Ed. F. Krebs 1898 (BGU 2.530).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:49; 7:13; 13:23.  –  Cf. *Erman and Krebs 1899, 215–16; *Milligan 1910, 60–63 no. 22; *Olsson 1925, 188–91 no. 69; N. Hohlwein 1927, “La Papyrologie grecque,” Le Musée Belge 31:5–19, here 17–18; *Johnson 1936, 207–8 no. 107; J. Hengstl 1978 (C.Pap.Hengstl 1); *Kloppenborg 2006, 488–90 no. 41. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/02362/.

Hermokrates [to Chairas] his son, [greetings]. Above all I pray that you are well […] |5 I entreat you […] to write about your health and whatever you wish. I also wrote you at (an)other time(s) about Tapsoia,1 and you |10 neither answered nor came, and now, if you do

246

Chapter 8

not come, I run the risk of losing the allotment of land which I now own. Our partner |15 has not worked with us, but the well was not cleaned out and especially the irrigation channel was choked with |20 sand, and the vineyard is uncultivated. None of the tenants were willing to cultivate it; only I continue |25 to pay the public taxes without getting back anything in return. There is hardly a single plot that will be irrigated by the water. Therefore, you have to |30 come; otherwise, there is a risk that the plants will do badly. Your sister Helene greets you and your mother reproaches you |35 because you have never answered her, and particularly (because) she has been pursued by the bailiffs for a long time because you did not send the tax |40 collectors to you (?); but now also send (them) to her (?). I pray that you fare well. Pauni 9.2 (Back)

Deliver from Hermokrates

⪥ to Chairas his son.

Notes 1 The text reads Tapsya which according to *Olsson 1925, 190 (= BL 7:13) is to be identified with the female name Tapsoia, also attested in P.Lond. 3.994.5 (p. 259) (24 Feb 517 CE), i.e., comparably late. Is this a misspelling of the well-known female name Tapsois (variant of Tapsais)? 2 The date can be converted to 3 June. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 5–7 request “entreat” (p. 146), 8–9 reference to previous letter (pp. 149–51), 9–10, 33–36 complaints (pp. 132–33), 29–30, 40–41 requests with imperatives (p. 140), 32–33 secondary greeting (pp. 164–68), 41–42 final greeting (pp. 171– 76), 42 date (pp. 184–85), 43–44 address (pp. 185–86), 44 sealing (pp. 186–87).

On 3 June of an unspecified year, a reasonably desperate father asks his son Chairas to help him with agricultural work because he has been abandoned by both his partner and the farm laborers just before the Nile inundation, which usually began in mid-June. If not even his own son comes to the rescue, the father risks being ruined because all income would be lost, but public taxes still have to be paid. Lines 14–15 provide a good contemporary parallel to Phlm 17, where Paul applies the same term “partner” (in Greek κοινωνός) to himself and Philemon and indirectly to Onesimus. The example demonstrates the importance of a true partner’s reliability.

247

The Letters

[2.75] BGU 3.830 (TM 25638) Letter from Zosimos to Sarapion

Greek papyrus, Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), I CE Ed. G.  F. Zereteli 1903 (BGU 3.830).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:70; 4:5; 13:27.  –  Cf. *Olsson 1925, 195–98 no. 71.  –  Online information and image: https://berlpap.smb. museum/02361/. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–26 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Z[osi]mos to Sarapio[n] his dearest, greetings. I am sending1 you my man so that you please be so good as |5 to put a fence around my olive grove there; for when the day before yesterday its fruit seller2 was admonished by the |10 tax collectors for the imposition and sent me a message through Sokrates, the cameldriver, “Keep your attention on it until I come to you,” {and}3 I promised them the |15 matter (?) as if he had come himself, but just now I heard from the fruit-seller that it is sold4 to the head of the office of the royal (scribe). It is therefore necessary to get ready and pull out (?) so that he can |20 sell. For I have the preferential right (?), since I am his neighbor. Therefore, please be ⟨so good⟩ as to notify me of the situation. For I am aware to whom I write, and |25 do you trouble our guardians for … (?) I pra(y) that you fare w(ell). Notes 1 The form used here is an epistolary aorist (literally “I sent”; see pp. 149, 212). 2 The fruit seller acts as a kind of tenant.

248

Chapter 8

3 This “and” seems superfluous, because this is where the main clause should begin. 4 What exactly is to be sold is not explicitly mentioned in the text, but since the sender of this message is a fruit dealer, it is certainly olive oil. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 reference to letter carrier (pp. 191–99), 4–7, 22–23 17–20 requests “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 26 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

A certain Zosimos sends his “man” to a subordinate with a letter instructing him to put a fence around his olive grove, with that man helping him. The reason for the letter is a message that Zosimos has received from the tenant of the olive grove through the camel driver Sokrates. In it, the tenant notified him of having already been admonished by the tax collectors for a payment of a certain tax, and he asked Zosimos to take care of the matter. Zosimos further reports that he has just heard from the tenant in another message that the sale of the olive oil is pending. Therefore, all the necessary preparations with which Sarapion is charged are now to be carried out, and the construction of the fence to secure the ripe olives is only part of the work due to be done. [2.76] P.Phil. 34 (TM 25215) Letter from Aristandros to Aristandros

Greek papyrus, written in Arsinoites (TM Geo 332), found at Philadelphia/Egypt (TM Geo 1760), I CE Ed. J. Scherer 1947 (P.Phil. 34). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 12:160; P. Arzt-Grabner via PN. – Online image: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/Philadelphia.html (select no. 34). The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Aristandros to Aristan dros his brother, greetings. After arriving in the Ar|5 sinoite nome with Apollonios we greet you and wish you the greatest happiness. About what you wrote |10 to me, I will consult with you face to face. I pray that you fare well, my lord broth er.1

249

The Letters

(h2) |15 Rejoice, brother Aristandros, I, [Ap]ollinarios, greet you, praying that you progress well and are fortunate (one illegible line) |20 Farewell. Note 1 The letter author’s final greeting begins right after the end of the letter corpus, i.e., in continuation of line 11, but the following three lines of this greeting (lines 12–14) are indented. In this way, the final greeting is not entirely separated from the letter body, but the writer obviously had a good notion of this habit. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 4–8 health wish (pp. 102–5), 9–11 response to addressee’s message (pp. 151–54), 11–14, 20 final greetings (pp. 171–76), 16–18 prayer report (pp. 102–12).

Because of the affectionate character of the whole letter, we may assume that Aristandros is writing here to his biological brother in Philadelphia. It was not uncommon in Greco-Roman antiquity that brothers bore the same name, with the two then being distinguished as “the older” and “the younger.” Since here the one is writing to the other, such an addition was unnecessary, because for both, it was clear anyway who is who. Particularly noteworthy is the use of the plural in lines 6–8, because Apollonios is not named as co-sender in the letter opening, but only in lines 4–6 is he mentioned as a travelling companion of Aristandros. Lines 15–20 are to be seen less as a postscript, but rather as an independent letter, perhaps written by the aforementioned Apollonios, who here refers to himself as Apollinarios; the two names were interchangeable in a certain way. This attached letter consists only of the opening greeting (here in the form of the imperative, see p. 79), a kind of prayer report and the final greeting. [2.77] BGU 4.1097 (TM 18535) Letter from a woman to Sarapion

Greek papyrus, Egypt, 41–67 CE Ed. P.  M. Meyer 1912 (BGU 4.1097).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:97; 8:40.  –  Cf. *Olsson 1925, 112–16 no. 38; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 307–8, image: p. 308 fig. 25 (extended eBook 2008, B3.2 no. 185 with image).  –  Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/02958/.

250

Chapter 8

[…] … […] therefore, I am writing to you so that you know. But we ourselves have not done anything yet. If our opponent goes up, keep an eye on him. For I am afraid that he may give up, for he is disgusted. |5 But concerning Sarapas, the son, he has not stayed with me at all, but went off to the camp to join the army. You did not do well counseling him to join the army. For when I say to him not to join the army, he says to me, |10 “My father said to me to join the army.” But concerning Epaphroditos, he is here with me. You will do well now. I have lentils in the middle house, send this to me and a chous of radish oil, so that I have monthly provisions here. For I |15 am not disturbed, but remain in good spirits. And if the allotment is inundated, hurry and sow it well. I informed you about the crops … […] to the prefect a letter […] us, so that |20 it is paid to the treasury and the balance given for seed … […] (Left margin, downwards)

[Year .  . of Nero (?) Clau]dius1 Caesar Augustus Germanicus Emperor, Mesore 22.

(Back)

[Greet] now your mother and Demetrios and his children. Greet […] and Aparosi[…] … […] |25 […] his mother and Dionysia and her children and […] of her and her mother … [… of Dem]etrios to Sarapion, her father.

Note 1 The letter was written either during the reign of Claudius or Nero as there should have been enough space before “[Clau]dius” for “Nero.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 7–10 complaint (pp. 133–34), 13–14, 16–17 requests with imperatives (p. 140), 22 date (pp. 184– 85), 23–27 postscript with secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

According to the editor, this letter was sent by a woman, whose name is not preserved, to her husband Sarapion, who is addressed metaphorically as “father” in the last line. *Olsson (1925, 112), however, understands Sarapion to be the sender’s biological father, although she is identified in the last line as “of Demetrios,” which Olsson understands in this case not to mean “daughter of Demetrios” but “wife of Demetrios.” In consequence, Olsson interprets “the son” Sarapas (line 5) not as her son, but as her brother. Given the widespread metaphorical use of family terminology, this problem does not seem to be resolvable (*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, extended eBook 2008, B3.2 no. 185).

251

The Letters

In both places where the sender of the letter refers to a person (lines 5 and 11), this is introduced by “but concerning,” which is a suitable parallel to 1 Cor (cf. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1) as well as 1 Thess (cf. 4:9 and 5:1). [2.78] P.Mert. 1.12 (TM 21292) Letter from Chairas to Dionysios

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos (TM Geo 1524) or Hermopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 816), 26 Apr 59 CE Ed. H.  I. Bell and C.  H. Roberts 1948 (P.Mert. 1.12, image: pl. XV fig. 1).  –  Addenda/ Corrigenda: BL 8:207.  –  Cf. N. Lewis 1983, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press; repr., Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1999), 151–52; *White 1986, 145–46 no. 93; *Peterman 1997, 74–79; *Burnet 2003a, 214–15 no. 143; *Jördens 2010, 335 no. V.8.1; I. Boehm 2014, “Lettres de médecins,” in La Lettre gréco-latine: Un genre littéraire?, ed. J. Schneider, Collection de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen ancien, Série littéraire et philosophique 52 (Lyon: Maison des sciences l’homme), 101–20, here 113–18, image: p. 115. – Online information and images: https://viewer.cbl.ie/viewer/object/MP_12/1/. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–3 and of lines 25–28 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Chairas to Dionysios his dearest, very many greetings and continual good health. When I received your letter, I was as exceedingly joyous as if |5 I had actually been to my hometown, because without this there is nothing. I may dispense with writing to you great thanksgivings, because it is only necessary to give thanks in words to those who are not friends. I trust that I may |10 maintain myself in some degree of serenity and be able, if not to give you an equivalent, at least to show some small return for your affection towards me. You sent me two prescription-copies, one of the Archagathian,1 the other of the |15 caustic plaster. The Archagathian1 is rightly compounded, but the caustic does not include the relative weight of resin. Yet I ask you about a strong caustic which can safely be used to cauterize the soles (of the feet); |20 for I am in urgent need. As to the dry (?) plaster, you

252

Chapter 8

wrote that there are two kinds. Send me the prescription for the resolvent kind; for the four-substance plaster is also dry. |25 This letter is sealed with this. Farewell and remember what I have said. In the 5th (year) of Nero the lord, month of Germanicus 1.2 (Back)

To Dionysios,

physician.

Notes 1 Archagathos was a Laconic surgeon who was the first Greek physician to come to Rome in 219 BCE. The plaster developed by him and named after him is also mentioned by Celsus, De Medicina 5.19.27, and other ancient authors. 2 The dating can be converted to 26 April 59 CE (not 29 August 58 CE as calculated by Boehm 2014, 114). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 6–9 reference to thanksgiving report (pp. 123–28), 13–17 response to addressee’s message (pp. 151–54), 17–21 request “ask” (pp. 143–46), 22–23 with imperative (p. 140), 25 reference to sealing (pp. 186–87), 26 final greeting (pp. 171–76), final reminder (pp. 161–62), 27 date (pp. 184–85), 28 address (pp. 185–86).

The mention of Archagathian plasters, composed by the well-known physician (see note 1), is a sign that both correspondents are well-educated, even specialized in the medical field. According to other sources, the Archagathian plaster consisted, among other things, of resin, argentic salts, and charcoal, while the plaster “with four substances” was mixed from wax, resin, fat, and pitch (*Burnet 2003a, 215). In a letter like this, however, the lack of precision on the composition of a plaster also implies that both know what they are talking about. We are here in the context of an epistolary exchange where, contrary to a medical treatise, it is useless to define the composition of this plaster (Boehm 2014, 117). The note in line 25 about the sealing of the letter is not entirely clear, but presumably Chairas used some of the four-substance plaster for his sealing and points out this sample to his addressee here (T. C. Skeat according to H. I. Bell and C. H. Roberts in P.Mert. 1, p. 54). Understandably, nothing of this is preserved on the papyrus today. On the thanksgiving in lines 6–9, see p. 126 (cf. P. Arzt-Grabner in *ArztGrabner et al. 2006, 457).

253

The Letters

[2.79] O.Berenike 2.129 (TM 89155) Letter from Hikane to Isidoros

Greek papyrus, Berenike (TM Geo 416), ca. 50–75 CE Ed. R. S. Bagnall, C. Helms, and A. M. F. W. Verhoogt 2005 (O.Berenike 2.129). – Addenda/ Corrigenda: *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 85–86.  –  Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 169–70 (extended eBook 2008, A8.4 no. 59); *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 85–87; *Heinz et al. 2020, 196–97 no. 102. – Online images: http://papyri.info/ddbdp/o.berenike;2;129/images.

[Hikane] to Isido[ros her son, greetings. Above everything else,] since the cargo ship is leaving, I thought it ne[cessa]ry to write […] me. I am [i]n [Be]renike. I have written a letter to you […] letter.1 Was it for this reason that I carried you for ten months and nursed you for three years, so that you do not know to remember me |5  by a letter? And likewise (?) you neglected me because of people from the oasis,2 and not I you. But I left your brother(s?) and sisters3 behind […] Arabia […] … Egypt I see your face4 and … the breath(?), I only ask and beg and adjure you […] … and in remembrance of the one who begat you, to depart when you are healthy. I |10 … Amarantos much and from […] Arabia, and your sister who came … […] … your aunt, I have taken myself to safety … your elder sister has departed, and the little one is there (?)5 … Arabia, so that I ask and beg you to … […].6 Save |15 your brother. For we have no one […] … […] … The brother … […] with the first winds, but he found … […] … and came to me to Berenike. […] is greeting [you] and Amarantos. Epaphras [and …] are greeting you much |20 as well as those who lov[e us …] 24.7 (Back)

Deliv(er),

Hikane to Isidoros, her son, hormites.8

Notes 1 Somethink like “I did not receive a letter from you” is missing. 2 It is unclear which oasis is meant. Possible are Bahariya as well as Kharga or Dakhla, but also an oasis outside Egypt (cf. R. S. Bagnall, C. Helms, and A. M. F. W. Verhoogt in O.Berenike 2, p. 42). 3 The following lines mention two sisters and at least one brother of Isidoros; thus, the masculine form ἀδελφοί must refer to siblings. 4 The meaning is presumably that Hikane left her other children in Arabia to come to Egypt to see her son Isidoros. 5 The entire context indicates that the recipient’s little sister is also in a different place than the mother. The verb used here could also be translated as “she went down to …” or similar.

254

Chapter 8

6 The meaning of the fragmentary sentence is probably that Hikane asks her son to come to her quickly and help her. Right after that, Isidoros is asked to save his brother. 7 The lacuna is large enough to have included a final greeting and the name of the month of which the day (the 24th) is preserved. 8 The Greek form ὡρμίτῳ is hard to interpret. It could be derived from a place name (Myos Hormos?) or from an occupation (dockworker?; cf. R. S. Bagnall, C. Helms, and A. M. F. W. Verhoogt in O.Berenike 2, p. 43). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–5 complaint (pp. 132–33), 8–9, 14 requests “ask and beg” (pp. 145–46), 14–15 request with imperative (p. 140), 18–20 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 21–22 address (pp. 185–86).

A certain Hikane writes to her son Isidoros, stating “in extraordinarily pointed terms her vexation at his failure to write to her or come see her” (*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 169). Only towards the end of the letter does the extremely reproachful tone become more conciliatory again. The fragmentary text suggests that Hikane is in a difficult, perhaps even dangerous situation. In particular Isidoros is asked to save his little brother, who seems to be the only family member still with his mother, while two daughters are already at a different (and safe?) location. Although Hikane is in great distress, her son Isidoros, the only one who could help her now (cf. lines 8–9, 14–15), does not even think it worthwhile to answer her previous letter and come to her. At least, she interprets the fact that she still has not received a letter in this sense. Obviously, Hikane’s intention is not just to vent her anger, but rather to express her desperate situation. In her disappointment at the apathetic behavior of a family member she does not spare emotional reproaches and cynical rhetoric (lines 3–5; cf. p. 22). After all, her addressee is her last hope for a way out. [2.80] P.Mert. 2.63 (TM 11913) Letter from Herennia to Pompeius

Greek papyrus, Arsinoites/Egypt, 18 Jan 58 CE Ed. B. R. Rees, H. I. Bell, and J. W. B. Barns 1959 (P.Mert. 2.63, image: pl. XI after p. 42). – Addenda/Corrigenda: A. Maravela and J. Mangerud 2019, “A Point of Contact Between the Archives of Pompeius Niger and of Tryphon the Weaver?,” APF 65:317–32, here 327–28; A. Maravela and J. Mangerud 2020, “The Letters of Herennia to Pompeius Niger,” ZPE 215:211–22, here 216–21 (with images on pp. 7 and 10). – Cf. *White 1986, 141–42 no. 90; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 127–28, image: 128 fig. 3 (extended eBook 2008, A5.1 no. 24 with image). – Online information and images: https://viewer.cbl.ie/ viewer/object/MP_63/1/. Archive of Lucius Pompeius Niger (TM Arch 195; *Sarri 2018, 258–59); see also P.Fouad 75 [2.81].

The Letters

255

[He]lenia (sic)1 to Ponpegios (sic)1 her father, very many greetings and continual good health. I have bought the olives for you. They are trying to collect from all |5 directions for the “Piety” of the temple of Souchos, from everyone, even Romans and Alexandrians and settlers in |10 the Arsinoite nome. They are trying to collect from Pompeius. We have not paid until today since we were expecting that you will come. If it seems (right) to you, send (the money). But if |15 not, we too can pay. And I received in good health the letter from the donkey-driver. We pray that all is well with you. So that |20 you do ⟨not⟩ forget your children, receive another letter of Syrion your son. We want to tell you that we care about you and |25 Charitous and her children.2 And Pompeius, the little one,2 wants to tell you that he cares about you.2 (Year) 4 of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator, |30 Tybi 23. (Back)

Deliver to Ponpegios (sic)1 from Helenia (sic)1 … […] … the father … … […] … |35 … house (?) of Nemesous.

Notes 1 The misspellings in the personal names, easily identified as Herennia and Pompeius, can be explained as a result of the pronunciation of Koine Greek (phonetic spelling); for details see B. R. Rees, H. I. Bell, and J. W. B. Barns in P.Mert. 2, p. 44. 2 Presumably Herennia’s son, named after his grandfather in accordance with widespread tradition.

This letter from Herennia to her father Pompeius was probably written by Herennia herself who “was certainly fully literate” (*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 126, cf. 50, 127) and is also known as the author of SB 6.9122 (ca. 57 CE). Pompeius seems to have lived not very far from Herennia’s family, perhaps in Arsinoe, the capital of the Arsinoite nome. The son of Pompeius mentioned in line 22, Syrion, may have been Herennia’s husband and little Pompeius (lines 26–27, cf. note 2) her own son. The main topic of the letter is the payment of a contribution, which is currently collected from everyone for the “Piety” of the temple of the crocodile god Sobek (Souchos). The editors have noted that this is probably not a regular tax at a fixed rate, but an irregular contribution collected on a special occasion

256

Chapter 8

(B. R. Rees, H. I. Bell, and J. W. B. Barns in P.Mert. 2, p. 41–42). Herennia specifically points out that the collection affects everyone, including Roman citizens and citizens of Alexandria who were exempt from the poll tax, as well as settlers (κατοικοῦντες) of the Arsinoite nome who paid a reduced rate of poll tax. Presumably, Herennia wants to explain to her father that his family is indeed affected by the collection; most likely, they belonged to the third group (on the details see B. R. Rees, H. I. Bell, and J. W. B. Barns in P.Mert. 2, p. 42). Up to now, Herennia has not paid, which she explains by the fact that the collectors explicitly wanted “to collect from Pompeius,” that is, from her father. Here, Herennia virtually reproduces what the collectors said. Therefore, she asks her father to send her the money, but also offers to make the payment herself. The empty space between lines 23 and 24 could indicate that Herennia left it blank so that Syrion could insert his own “farewell” or a short note here, which he ultimately did not do; perhaps he wrote the “other letter” (cf. lines 21–22) on a separate piece of papyrus that was attached to this letter (cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 128). On the translation of the secondary greetings in lines 24–27 using middle forms of the verb ἐπισκοπέω see pp. 169–70. [2.81] P.Fouad 75 (TM 11201) Letter from Thaubas to Pompeius

Greek papyrus, Arsinoites/Egypt (destination Oxyrhyncha/Arsinoites, TM Geo 1523), 15 Oct 64 CE Ed. A. Bataille 1939 (P.Fouad 75, image: pl. IV). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 4:32; 7:57; *Arzt-Grabner 2022, 569–70.  –  Cf. J. Hengstl 1978 (C.Pap.Hengstl 90); S. Daris 1984, “Problemi di ermeneutica papirologica,” in Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983), vol. 1 (Naples: Centro Internationale per lo Studio dei Papiri Ercolanesi), 71–79, here 78–79; *Rowlandson 1998, 293–94 no. 228; *Müller 1997, 27–28; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 133–34 (extended eBook 2008, A5.5 no. 28 with images); *Messeri 2006, 93 no. 7. – Online image: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac .uk/Fouad.html (select no. 75). Archive of Lucius Pompeius Niger (TM Arch 195; *Sarri 2018, 258–59); see also P.Mert. 2.63 [2.80]. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and of the final greeting in line 17 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Thaubas to Pompeius her father, very many greetings. After receiving my letter, please be so good

The Letters

257

as to come home immediately because |5 your poor daughter Herennia has died, even though she had already come safely through a miscarriage on Phaophi ninth. For she gave birth to an eightmonth child, dead, and lived on for four |10 days, and after that she died and was given a funeral by us and her husband, as was right, and has been transported to Alabanthis. So if you come and wish you can |15 see her. Alexandros greets you, and the children.1 Farewell. (Year) 11 of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Emperor, Phaophi 18. (Back)

|20 To Oxyrhyncha, to the place called …, to Pompeius …

Note 1 After “Alexandros greets you” the writer added “the children” in the nominative, which means that they are also among those who convey their greetings to the addressee. The construction is very typical of Greek, particularly Hellenistic Greek. The meaning is identical with “Alexandros and the children greet you.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 15–16 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 17 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 18–19 date (pp. 184–85), 20 address (pp. 185–86).

Recipient of this letter is L. Pompeius Niger, a Roman legionary veteran, who is informed by his daughter Thaubas about the death of his other daughter Herennia, who is known as the author of the letters SB 6.9122 (ca. 57 CE) and P.Mert. 2.63 [2.80] (18 Jan 58 CE), both of which were also sent to Pompeius. Regarding the opening greeting in lines 1–2, Thaubas (or her scribe) had originally written “to rejoice very much” (or, as usually translated, “very many greetings”), but “very much” was subsequently scraped off or washed out, most probably (and contrary to BL 7:57) by herself (or the scribe) because in connection with such sad news it was considered inappropriate (*Arzt-Grabner 2022, 569–70).

258

Chapter 8

[2.82] P.Oxy. 47.3356 (TM 22470) Letter from Harpokras to Thrakidas

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos (TM Geo 1524), 28 Jan 76 CE Ed. G. M. Browne 1980 (P.Oxy. 47.3356, image: plate VII). – Cf. *Harrauer 2010, Textband, 268–70 no. 87, image: Tafelband, Abb. 75. – Online information and images: https://doi. org/10.25446/oxford.21168040.v1. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–30 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Harpokras to Thrakidas his father, very many greetings. Knowing that you will rejoice, I necessarily write you that there is nothing the |5 matter with me but that I was only rather lethargic for a very few days and have already been feeling better for some time, and there is nothing the matter with me. |10 And I greatly rejoiced to read through your letter, in which I learned that you were in excellent health, (my) lord father, and because I was tremendously elated in spirit |15 on receiving your letter, at that very hour I thought if this isn’t a god’s oracle, and I became even more exceedingly healthy. Receive from Petechon, who is also bringing |20 you the letter, a pair of sandals worth 4 (drachmas). And whatever else you have need of, notify me quickly as I still have a few days here. Greet Thatres, (my) mother, and |25 Thaisous and Sarapion and Ariston and Tycharion and Nike and Eutych( ) and everyone in the house. (Year) 8 of Emperor Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, Mecheir 2.

259

The Letters (Back)

|30 From Harpokra(s)

to Thrakidas his fath(er).

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 10–18 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 18–20 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 21–23 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 24–27 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 28–29 date (pp. 184–85), 30 address (pp. 185–86).

The letter serves as an accompanying letter to the delivery of a pair of sandals to the sender’s father, but its peculiarity lies in the detailed nature and the context of the report of joy in lines 10–18. Before adopting the convention of a report of joy, Harpkras comforts his father by informing him that although he felt lethargic for a few days, he is doing better now (lines 5–9), which will be a reason for the addressee to rejoice at the good news (cf. lines 3–5). In this way, he perfectly describes the genre of the report of joy before continuing his letter and reporting his own joy at the good news of his father’s healthy condition (lines 10–18). The excellent style and the well-chosen words of the letter writer are remarkable. The offer to meet the addressee’s needs (lines 21–23) is not just a philophronetic formula, but is explained in practical terms: the son’s current location, unknown to us, might improve the chances of quickly acquiring everything his addressee might need, which is similar to BGU 3.892.23–25 [2.135] (II CE). [2.83] BGU 2.417 (TM 28136) Letter from Chairemon to Dioskoros

Greek papyrus, found in Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), second half I CE Ed. P. Viereck 1898 (BGU 2.417). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:44; 13:21; R. Smolders 2005, “Chairemon: Alexandrian Citizen, Royal Scribe, Gymnasiarch, Landholder at Bacchias, and Loving Father,” BASP 42:93–100, here 97 n. 20. – Cf. *Schubart 1912, 69–71 no. 59, image: p. 70; *Schubart 1923, 84–86 no. 62, image: p. 85.  –  Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/02331/; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/28136.  –  See also the illustration on the cover of this volume, courtesy of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Archive of Apollonios of Bakchias (TM Arch 16; *Sarri 2018, 260–61; see below); see also BGU 2.531 [2.84] and P.Michael. 15 [2.85]. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in line 1 and of lines 31–33 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

260

Chapter 8

Chairemon  to Dioskoros his son,  greetings. Regarding what you wrote, I will take care of. But I my self also ask you to get rid of all pending businesses and to not again leave pending businesses for yourself since you realize |5 the bitterness of the times. So, get rid of all pending business, so that you now once will be free of worries and my little pending businesses now for once will have a hit. The honey jars should be taken care of by you, for you realize that I am busy with the new wine. |10 Look then, do not forget it, since you have often been begged by me in this regard and know the necessity. And meet with Dionysios about the bas ket of grapes, and he should come to an end; also give him notice of the rent of the baskets and the price of the |15 wicker baskets. And take care of Heraklas, and likewise also of the affairs of Ptollaros, for you realize that this concerns you too and promotes you. To Sisois and Petsiris I have given orders. And please1 meet with Gemeinas and inform yourself |20 about the half aroura of Souerous so that you may register it; and so accom plish this for me so that I know that you love me. Re garding the jars of vinegar, I will do something else and give you another order for it. Heraklas shall appoint a day for you and inquire with Isidoros |25 about the other things. For I know that if you are willing, every thing will be managed. Therefore, take care of every thing, but I will write to you often about the same things so that you do not neglect them. And come soon your self, because the matter of the bulls is urgent. Your chil dren |30 fare well. Greet Phaboullos, your brother. Farewell, sweetest, and bring to me the jars of vinegar. (Back)



⪥ To Dioskoros,

the son.

Note 1 The writer used the passive participle of “to beg,” so literally “begged (by me)” or simply “please.”

261

The Letters

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2 response to addressee’s message (pp. 151–54), 2–5 request “ask” (pp. 143–46), 5–9, 12–22, 24–25, 31–32 requests with imperative (p. 140), 10, 25 disclosure formulas (pp. 136–39), 10–11 reference to previous message (pp. 149–51), 26–28 reminder of requests (pp. 161–62), 28–29 invitation to visit (p. 148), 30 secondary greeting (pp. 164–68), 31 final greeting (pp. 171–76) 31–32 postscript (pp. 182–84), 33 address (pp. 185–86), 33 sealing (pp. 186–87).

This papyrus letter is part of the Archive of Apollonios of Bakchias (TM Arch 16), who was a kind of estate manager and the addressee of many letters from the gymnasiarch Chairemon (see Smolders 2005), who discussed agricultural and financial matters with him. This letter, addressed to Chairemon’s son Dioskoros, was written in the same handwriting as several other letters of Chairemon (BGU 1.248; 249; 2.531 [2.84]; 3.850; P.Michael. 15 [2.85]) which can be dated to ca. 76–84 CE, suggesting that BGU 2.417 should be dated to the second half of the first century CE (BL 13:21). This letter is a good example of including a wide variety of formulas to express or reinforce commands or to attract the attention of the recipient through the use of a disclosure formula. Requests are introduced or affirmed by expressions such as “I ask you” (line 2), “I beg you” (line 11; in the sense of “please” in lines 18–19), or “(you should) take care of” (lines 8–9, 15, 26), and the opposite command not to forget something is used in lines 10 and 27–28. Several times the writer simply uses an imperative (lines 5, 12, 19, 21, 24, 28, 30, 32); a third person imperative in lines 13 and 23 issues a command to Dioskoros to pass it on to someone else. Disclosure formulas are based on forms of “look” (line 10), “know” (lines 11, 25), or “realize” (lines 9, 16–17). [2.84] BGU 2.531 (TM 25648) Letter from Chairemon to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, sent to Bakchias (TM Geo 392), found in Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), ca. 76–84 CE Ed. F. Krebs 1898 (BGU 2.531). – Addenda/Corrigend: BL 1:49–50; 5:11; 7:13; 9:21; 13:23. – Cf. *Olsson 1925, 128–33 no. 43; *Mees 2002, 362–63; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 102. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/01709/. Archive of Apollonios of Bakchias (TM Arch 16; *Sarri 2018, 260–61; see p. 261); see also BGU 2.417 [2.83] and P.Michael. 15 [2.85]. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting (col. 1.1–2) and of the address (col. 2.25) reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

262

Chapter 8 (Col. 1)

Chairemon to Apollonios his dearest, greetings. I received your letter on the […] of the present month, (tied) by a slip-knot, which I read and rejoiced that you are faring |5 well together with all your people, for this is what I am praying for. Regarding the matter in question, then, I thank [you], as is fitting, for your care, if you do not forget your friendship for me. On the 26th of the present month the little […] happens … |10 on the 29th of the [present month] … leaving the city (lines 11–20 are too fragmentary to be translated) |21 … […] and I beg you, brother, (lines 22–26 are too fragmentary to be translated)

(Col. 2)

… that there are 12 (drachmas) on (the account of) the potter from the previous year, which are on it for pots, for which you shall demand pots, in the way Theoktistos received, paying in the month Phaophi 20 (drachmas) for one hundred (pots), but if |5 not, he shall give twenty-five pots, each holding two chora.1 But all will be done by your efficiency; and as you promised the little one, demand for me the hundred, as you always arrange for me, taking among them four (holding) a Koan measure2 and 17 (holding) two chora.1 The rest of the rents |10 shall be written on the account of everyone who harvests the wine, so that they are paid; and in a similar way also concerning those originating from the wine press. So, I want you to obey me in everything so that nothing escapes my notice. But in a similar way I beg you also concerning Sabinus, that |15 you hold back from … or … under your seal sixty keramia of wine distillate, until I come and take [them?] into custody. … […] that you will certainly not grieve me, for I have understood how much you love me. But if you forget me, |20 you will cause me eternal pain; for you trust my view that I am neither unjust nor desiring other people’s belongings. I have also written to Chairemon

263

The Letters

[… if] it seems to you […] the letter to him […] … […] but if […] sufficient (Back)

|25 To Apollonios

⪥ the d[earest …?]

Notes 1 Two chora equals about 8.5 liters. 2 The Koan measure refers to the island of Kos as origin of jars containing this kind of measure. Formulas, clichés, and other features: col. 1.1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), col. 1.5–6 prayer report (pp. 102–12), col. 1.3–5 report of joy (pp. 119–23), col. 1.6–8 response to addressee’s message (pp. 151–54), col. 1.21, col. 2.14–16 requests “beg” (pp. 141–43), col. 2.3–5, 7–9 requests “demand” (p. 147), col. 2.9–12 request with imperative (p. 140), col. 2.12–13 request “want” (p. 147), col. 2.17 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), col. 2.25 address (pp. 185–86), col. 2.25 sealing (pp. 186–87).

For the letter sender Chairemon and the relationship to his addressee Apollonios, see p. 261. What the request introduced in line 14 has to do with Sabinus can no longer be clearly determined, but as in Phlm 10, the entire context seems to suggest only the meaning “I beg you concerning Sabinus” (cf. line 11), especially since the actual subject of the request is specified only from the end of the line onwards (*Arzt-Grabner 2003, 101–2; see also p. 142). Perhaps the point is that the wine distillate mentioned in line 16 should be withheld for Sabinus. [2.85] P.Michael. 15 (TM 25895) Letter from Chairemon to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, sent to Bakchias (TM Geo 392), found in Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), ca. 76–84 CE Ed. D. S. Crawford 1955 (P.Michael. 15, image: plate IV). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 4:51; 5:68; 13:135. Archive of Apollonios of Bakchias (TM Arch 16; *Sarri 2018, 260–61; see p. 261); see also BGU 2.417 [2.83] and 531 [2.84]. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–10 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

264

Chapter 8

Chairemon to Apollonios his deare(st)1 greetings. I have also asked you through another letter to send me the balance due from our private account, since I also |5 am in need of it. I ask you, therefore, to give them to Dios, who will testify it to you with an oath. And I believe that he will do that completely. And send to me through Dios four dichora of wine. And if the gods are willing, also I myself will soon greet you [and (?)] your children, with whom also fare well. Phaophi 16. (Back)

|10 To Apollonios, the dearest […].

Note 1 The scribe wrote only φιλτα; there is a hole in the papyrus from the chi of Chairemon down through all of line 2, but not large enough to reconstruct the missing -τωι here (D. S. Crawford in P.Michael., p. 27). Moreover, comparable examples of a layout with χαίρειν so far to the right in line 2 suggest that the entire space in line 2 before the greeting was left blank. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 reference to previous letter (pp. 149–51), 5–6 request “ask” (pp. 143–46), 6 disclosure formula (p. 138), 7 request with imperative (p. 140), 7–9 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 9 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 9 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 9 date (pp. 184–85), 10 address (pp. 185–86).

For the letter sender Chairemon and the relationship to his addressee Apollonios, see p. 261. At the beginning of this letter Chairemon asks his correspondent already for the second time to accomplish a specific task, and a certain Dios, who obviously enjoys Chairemon’s confidence (cf. line 6), is to be called in as a messenger. Chairemon’s hope to visit the addressee soon is expressed through a form of secondary greetings and beautifully combined with the farewell. [2.86] O.Did. 343 (TM 78790) Letter from Longinus to Numerius

Greek ostracon, Didymoi/Egypt (TM Geo 3125), before ca. 77–92 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2012 (O.Did. 343).  –  Cf. A.  Z. Bryen 2013, Violence in Roman Egypt: A Study in Legal Interpretation, Empire and after (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press), 147–48; *Reinard 2018, 184–85. – Online image: https://www.ifao. egnet.net/bases/publications/fifao67/ (“n° ostracon” = “343”).

265

The Letters

Longinus to Numerius his most honored best friend and brother, very many greetings and continual good health. Having received the ostracon from |5 the emerald-worker, the one in which you write1 to me that you have lent to Quadratus 60 (drachmas) when we drank together in your house, I immediately write2 and send2 you a reply through the cameldrivers who have |10 come up with the provisions. We made your bread(s) and you opened a jar and we drank it for lunch, I ⟨and⟩ you yourself. If it was on that day, write to me. But if (it was the day) of accounting for the pigs, |15 write to me again and remind me. I am ready to testify, only I have forgotten at what time and in what way. Write so that our accounts agree, lest you say that you got (the money) at that |20 time, and I (say) at another (time). [Tell me] whether he (i.e., Quadratus) received it before you brought Herais there or while she was present or after she went back, quickly and not in many words but according to |25 what you have said to him. Greet Herais and Abaskantos. Give him a bunch of cabbage. Notes 1 Longinus uses the present tense here though the form clearly refers to the already received letter of Numerius. 2 Both forms are epistolary aorists (see pp. 149, 212). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–4 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 4–10 response to addressee’s message (pp. 151–54), 8–10 reference to letter carriers (pp. 191–99), 13–15, 18–20, [20–25], 26–27 requests with imperative (p. 140), 25–26 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

This letter represents the reply to the ostracon letter O.Did. 342 by which Numerius had written to Longinus: “I want you to know that I lent Quadratus sixty drachmas when we drank together in my (?) house … besides, write to me what you remember in order to testify for me” (lines 7–13). Now, Longinus confirms his willingness to testify, but since he cannot remember the exact circumstances, he asks Numerius to describe them to avoid divergent testimony. For a closing greeting, the writer probably just ran out space (see also p. 172). [2.87] P.Bad. 2.35 (TM 19330) Letter from Ioanne to Epagathos

Greek papyrus, written at Ptolemais Hermeiou (TM Geo 2023), found in Egypt, 16 Dec 87 CE

266

Chapter 8

Ed. F. Bilabel 1923 (P.Bad. 2.35).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 2.2:174; 3:255; 4:103; M. Stern 2016, “Drei neue ptolemäische Papyri und das Amtsarchiv des Demetrios,” BASP 53:17–51, here 41. – Cf. *Olsson 1925, 147–50 no. 51; V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks 1960 (C.Pap.Jud. 2.424); *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 291–92, image: 292 fig. 24 (extended eBook 2008, B2.4 no. 167 with images). – Online information and images: http://www .rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~gv0/Papyri/VBP_II/035/VBP_II_35.html.

Ioa[nn]e to Epagathos her own, very m[any greetings]. You did not well in cha[nging] everything and going back on your agreement which acknowledged me [to be] the o[wner] |5 of 20 (drachmas) and the interest. Let me have the pri[ncip]al. I wonder why you have changed your faithfulness. Do not compel me then. I want to do and … (?) not by a letter … (?) the interest. This is a sign |10 of unkindness. You will also tell Taesis, “Don’t you wish yet to include Epagathos as a free man?” Concerning Pheragathos, let him not neglect, if he can, to bring us both (his?) son and […]. |15 Know that Elpis has not yet been found (?). Come with Taesis without anger, [if] she comes up. Don’t neglect to bring me the other […]. Know that […] is paying 1 (drachma) and Anthousa […] obols, [like also] |20 Taesis. Know that I have not received the bronze from Prosdokimos. Bring us doums. Pheragathos and Taesis and Lysis greet you. Anthousa greets you. Greet |25 Philadelphos and all his people. Farewell.1 Above everything else take care of yourself so that you stay healthy. [(Year)] 7 of Emperor Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Choiak 19. (Back of letter, recto of papyrus)

To Ptolemais Herme[iou]. [Deliver to the villa]ge guard so that he carries it to Epag[athos].

Note 1 The “farewell” is indented and followed by a health wish which usually precedes the final greeting. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–5, 6–7 complaints (pp. 133–34), 5–6, 7–8, 10–14, 16–18, 22 requests with imperative (p. 140), 15, 18, 20 disclosure formulas (pp. 136–38), 22–25 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 26 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 26 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 27–28 date (pp. 184–85), 26 postscript (pp. 182–84), 30–31 address (pp. 185–86).

The letter was written on the back (verso) of a late Ptolemaic document; the address is thus on the recto and a few centimeters below the document, leaving a blank space in between.

267

The Letters

Regarding the handwriting, it is noteworthy that the writer, probably Ioanne herself, was not very skilled in forming the letters, the Greek is “less than flawless,” which makes “understanding difficult in a number of passages”; on the other hand, the vocabulary “is extensive” (*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 291–92; extended eBook 2008, B2.4 no. 167). Ioanne accuses her addressee of having totally breached his agreement regarding a loan transaction. It seems that he operated in his name but with her money, which was recorded in the mentioned agreement. [2.88] P.Oxy. 2.300 (TM 25673) Letter from Indike to Taisous

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), late I CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1899 (P.Oxy. 2.300). – Cf. *Olsson 1925, 208–9 no. 78; *White 1986, 146 no. 94; J. Diethart 1992, “Emendationes et interpretationes lexicographicae ad papyrologiam pertinentes,” ZPE 92:237–40, here 237–38; *Llewelyn 1994a, 74; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 332–33 (extended eBook 2008, B4.20 no. 219).  –  No image available; not found in the collection and no distribution destination known according to R.  A. Coles 1974, Location-List of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri and of Other Greek Papyri Published by the Egypt Exploration Society, Graeco-Roman Memoirs 59 (London: Egypt Exploration Society), 12. The layout of the following translation matches that of the papyrus as presented in the edition.

Indike to Thaisous her lady, greetings. I am sending1 you the box2 through the camel driver Taurinos, concerning which |5 please be so good as to send me word that you have received it. Greet Theon, the lord, and Nikoboulos and Dioskoros and Theon and Hermokles, the unenchanted ones.3 Longinus |10 greets you. Farewell. Mo(nth) Germanic( )4 2. (Back)

To the gymnasi(um)

to Theon son of Nikoboul(os), the olive oil supplier.

268

Chapter 8

Notes 1 If the letter serves as accompanying letter, which I suggest, the form used here has to be an epistolary aorist (literally “I sent”; see pp. 149, 212). 2 The editio princeps translates “bread-basket” but it could as well be a box containing jewelry (Diethart 1992, 237). 3 The Greek term ἀβάσκαντος is not easy to translate into English; it means that the person described as such may not be struck by the evil eye (i.e., may remain immune from any harm caused by spells etc.). 4 Since the name of the month is abbreviated, it could either be Germanikeios (26 Apr–25 May) or Germanikos (29 Aug–27 Sep). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 4–6 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 6–10 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 10 final greeting (pp. 171– 76), 11 date (pp. 184–85), 12–13 address (pp. 185–86).

This is a typical cover letter for the delivery of a box through a camel driver, who is mentioned by name. The contents of the box are not mentioned (see note 2), but the recipient is asked to confirm its successful delivery. According to the address on the back the letter had to be delivered to Theon, probably the husband of the addressee. [2.89] O.Did. 333 (TM 144896) Letter from Cornelius to Antonius

Greek ostracon, Didymoi/Egypt (TM Geo 3125), before ca. 88–92 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2012 (O.Did. 333). – Online images: https://www.ifao.egnet.net/ bases/publications/fifao67/ (“n° ostracon” = “333”).

Cornelius to Antonius, greetings. I have already told you ten times, if you have anything against me to come forward, come forward. For you are not my creditor, since I do not |5 owe you anything. And if I want, I will make you pay for the days that Iulia spent idle.1 For I’ve been pressing the whole praesidium in order that she comes to you, for you were burning.2 And now, if |10 you do not do your own thing, I shall take her from you even if you offer five mnai. I hope she is alive. Notes 1 The Greek verb used here literally means “to hollow out” or “to make empty,” which I suppose is used metaphorically here to imply that Iulia was not paid to serve Antonius sexually. Iulia let the days pass empty, i.e., without being paid. 2 The Greek verb used here literally means “to fry on the frying pan.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–3 reference to previous messages (pp. 149–51).

269

The Letters

The background of this emotional letter is probably the following (cf. A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Did., pp. 249, 251): The soldier Antonius is full of desire for the prostitute Iulia, who is at the disposal of Cornelius, the author of this letter. As a favor, he has allowed Antonius to have the girl for a few days for free and, to make this possible, has even urged everyone in the praesidium to dispense with the girl’s services for this time. Antonius, however, has not yet returned the girl, prompting Cornelius to write this harnessed letter in which he threatens to take Iulia away and make Antonius pay for the days the girl has not worked. At the same time, Cornelius emphasizes that even money would not stop him from simply taking Iulia away from Antonius, who is burning with desire. The metaphorical language Cornelius uses to express his anger is noteworthy (cf. notes). The final greeting was certainly omitted on purpose. [2.90] P.Turner 18 (TM 15688) Letter from Petronius Valens to Ptolemaios

Greek papyrus, written and found in Egypt, sent to Alexandria/Egypt (TM Geo 100), 89–96 CE Ed. H. M. Cockle 1981 (P.Turner 18, image: plate X). – Addenda/Corrigenda: D. Hagedorn 2004, “Bemerkungen zu Urkunden,” ZPE 149:159–61: here 159.  –  Cf. *Reinard 2016, 1018–19.

Petronius Valens to Ptolema[ios] his most honored father, greet[ings]. Above everything else I pray that y[ou are] healthy as I also p[rayed] at Alexandria |5 to Sarapis that you will live for many years until I have grown older and will pay thanks; for you are worthy of these benefits. I want you to know that on the 20th I returned to barracks before the start of my 10 days’ |10 leave. Therefore, I ask you, father, to make Alima hurry up with the clothes and give her purple worthy of you for a single tunic since for my pay […]. Therefore, |15 I request that when this is forthcoming [… For I ho]pe to gain promotion if the lord S[arapis is willing], and I will pay [you thank]s. I will send you by N[…] […] and wool […] |20 […] … […] […] … […] (Right margin, upwards)

[…] Sabinus.1 Know that I got for you […]. […] … So do not do otherwise in order that [… Farewell (?)]. [(Year) … of Domitian]us Caesar the lord, on the 25th of the month Germanicus.2

(Back)

|25 [De]liver to Ptolemaios, the father.

270

Chapter 8

Notes 1 The name is written in the accusative here. 2 To which day this date may be converted depends on the year; the 25th of the month Germanicus can be converted to 22 September if the letter was written in 89, 90, 92, 93, 94 or 96 CE but to 23 September if written in 91 or 95 CE. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–7 health wish and prayer report (pp. 102–12), 7–8, 22 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 10–14 request “ask” (pp. 143–46), 22 secondary greetings? (pp. 164–68), 23 reminder of request (pp. 161–62), 23 final greeting? (pp. 171–76), 24 date (pp. 184–85), 25 address (pp. 185–86).

The author of this letter is possibly identical with Caius Petronius Valens, a beneficiarius of the cohors II Thracum who is recorded by an inscription from Thebes, CIL 3.12074 (TM 121989), and it is at least “worth noting that no other example of the name has so far turned up in Egypt” (H. M. Cockle in P.Turner, p. 89). The writer uses some standard formulas of the period: two disclosure formulas (lines 7–8, 22), the introduction to a request by “so I ask you” (line 10), the reminder “so do not do otherwise” (line 23), and a prayer report (lines 3–4), personalized by adding that Petronius prayed for his father on a particular occasion and with a particular intention (lines 4–7); in this way the formula itself serves as an introduction to more individual expressions (cf. p. 108). To pray to Sarapis in Alexandria, that is in the god’s temple there, is also mentioned in the proskynema formula of BGU 2.451.3–6 [2.102] (late I–II CE). [2.91] P.Fay. 110 (TM 10775) Letter from Lucius Bellienus Gemellus to Epagathos

Greek papyrus, Euhemeria/Egypt (TM Geo 675), 11 Sep 94 CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1900 (P.Fay. 110, image: plate V). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:131; 6:37; 12:68; *Olsson 1925, 153–54 no 52.  –  Cf. *Olsson 1925, 153–56 no 52; *Salonius 1927, 28–34; *White 1986, 148–50 no. 95; O. Montevecchi 1988, La papirologia, ristampa riveduta e corretta con addenda, Trattati e manuali (Milan: Vita e Pensiero), Tav. 44; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 232–34; P. Arzt-Grabner 2008, “Christlicher Alltag anhand der Papyri aus dem 2. Jahrhundert,” in Das ägyptische Christentum im 2. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Pratscher, M. Öhler, and M. Lang, SNTSU Neue Folge 6 (Vienna: Lit Verlag), 101– 23, here 121–22; *Reinard 2016, 511–13, 521, 523, 530; M. Leiwo 2017, “Confusion of Moods in Greek Private Letters of Roman Egypt,” in Variation and Change in Ancient Greek Tense, Aspect and Modality, ed. K. Bentein, M. Janse, and J. Soltic, Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 23 (Leiden: Brill), 242–60, here 249–50; *Sarri 2018, 132–34, image: 132 fig. 25. – Online image: http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.fay;;110/images. Archive of Epagathos, estate manager of Lucius Bellienus Gemellus (TM Arch 134; *Reinard 2016, 508–31; *Sarri 2018, 270–71).

The Letters

271

In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and lines 31–36 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Lucius Bellienus Gemellus to Epagathus his own, greetings. You will do well, when you have received my letter, to order |5 that the manure there be removed so that the grain store, which you call magazine, may be built, and dig a deep ditch around the oil press, so that the oil press is not easily crossed, |10 and clear the manure for fertilizing, and they1 shall water all our fields so that the sheep may rest there, and they shall water the olive groves |15 a second time; and go to Dionysias and inquire whether the olive grove has been watered twice and dug up, but if not, it shall be watered and … |20 … and give … and Psellos, the sitologoi … [… and] Chairas, the se(cretary) of the [farmers, and] Heraklas 90 (drachmas) and the interest, and Chairas, the former tax collector, 24 (drachmas), |25 and Didas … the amou(nt) for the barl(ey), 240 (drachmas) and inter(ests), and Heron, the former command(er), the inter(ests) for 2 (years), 120 (drachmas). And the carpenters shall build in the doors; I send you the measurements. Make the hinges (?) to the oil |30 press double, but to the magazines single. (h2) Farewell.2 (Year) 14 of the Emperor Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, month Germanicus the 14th. |35 Do not do otherwise.

272

Chapter 8 (Back)

(h1) Deliver

to Epagathus

⪥ from Lucius Bellienus Gemellus.

Notes 1 “They” refers to the slaves who are supervised by Epagathos, himself a slave. 2 The farewell is written in the same line as the previous text, but after a gap. Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–7 request “you will do well” (p. 146), 8–31 requests with imperative (p. 140), 31 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 32–34 date (pp. 184–85), 35 postscript (pp. 182–84), 35 reminder of requests (pp. 161–62), 36 address (pp. 185–86).

Together with other papyri of a dossier (TM Arch 134) this letter was excavated from a house in Qasr el-Banat (ancient Euhemeria in the Arsinoite nome). Except the final greeting and the dating, the letter as well as the address on the back were written “by a scribe in a well-formed uncial hand of a literary type” (B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt in P.Fay., p. 263). The first editors distinguished only the date at the bottom from this hand, but it seems clear to me that already the final greeting at the end of line 31 is different (cf. BL 12:68) and should thus be attributed to the letter sender himself who possibly also wrote the address on the back. F. A. J. Hoogendijk (BL 12:68) assumes that the farewell at the end of line 31 and the dating in lines 32–34 were written by different hands and the postscript in line 35 possibly again by hand 2; this would mean that the dating, and only the dating, was handed over to a scribe different from the one who wrote the letter. Since in any case there is not too much difference between hand 3 as identified by Hoogendijk and hand 2, I think it is more likely that the farewell and lines 32–35 were written by the same scribe, supposedly Gemellus himself, with lines 32–35 simply being written in more cursive style than the final greeting. Besides P. Fay. 110 among the papyri of this archive which have already been published in full or of which a photograph is accessible, only P.Fay. 252 displays two different hands. It is a letter from Gemellus to his brother Marcus Antonius Maximus; the complete publication of the papyrus is in preparation, but it is already clear that lines 1–8 were certainly not written by the same secretary, to whom Gemellus dictated P.Fay. 110. Since lines 1–8 of 252 are not dissimilar to the handwriting of Gemellus, which we know from other of his letters, it is possible that the upper part of this letter was written by himself. The last two lines (lines 9–10), however, are much smaller and more cursive. That cannot have been caused by a lack of space, since the lower half of the papyrus leaf has remained blank. Is this possibly the dating, which was left to another writer, or a remark by the recipient of the letter?

273

The Letters

The contents of the present letter are, like those of many others from the correspondence between Gemellus and his steward Epagathos, a good example of the manifold tasks that an estate manager had to fulfil. As a slave, Epagathos was certainly in a responsible position. [2.92] O.Did. 429 (TM 144990) Letter from Iulius Priscus to Vettius

Latin ostracon, Didymoi/Egypt (TM Geo 3125), before ca. 96 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2012 (O.Did. 429). – Online image: https://www.ifao.egnet.net/ bases/publications/fifao67/ (“n° ostracon” = “429”).

Iulius Priscus to Vettius his brother, very many greetings. Above all I pray to the gods, nay I will1 that you be well. |5 And you know how I love you like my brother, and I never ever forget the friends. Casillas […] |10 […] and Didymion and O[…] and Valerius the curator […] and Vibius Antonius […] and Dolens and Tet[…] and Iulius |15 […] (in?) the whole praesidium greet you. Farewell.2 Notes 1 I follow here the translation of the editor, who remarks: “In the translation I leave open the possibility that uolo is not simply pleonastic, but represents an intensification. It is, however, not impossible that Iulius simply got the formulas mixed up” (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Did., p. 366). 2 As usual with many ostraca, the writing space was simply filled from edge to edge, but the final greeting was deliberately placed in a separate line and centered. By writing eros in Latin, the writer certainly imitated the Greek final greeting ἔρρωσο (“farewell”). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 health wish and prayer report (pp. 102–12), 5 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 9–16 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 17 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

The writer of this letter obviously lacks solid knowledge of grammar, but nevertheless he seems to be familiar with the formulas of (Greek) epistolography (see notes). The intention of the letter sender is to assure his addressee of his love and friendship, and the long greeting list indicates that both partners must have been part of a circle of friends in the military, to which the term “brother” (lines 6–7) ascribes a family-like meaning.

274

Chapter 8

[2.93] P.Mich. 3.201 (TM 21340) Letter from Antonius to Apoleius and Valerias

Greek papyrus, sent to and found at Philadelphia/Egypt (TM Geo 1760), 11 Feb 99 CE Ed. J. G. Winter 1936 (P.Mich. 3.201). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 3:110–11; 9:159; 11:131. – Cf. *White 1986, 156 no. 100; *Nachtergael 2005, 83–84. – Online information and images: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-1335/. Archive of Thermouthas’s family (TM Arch 525; *Sarri 2018, 274–75; see below); see also SB 5.7572 [2.94].

Antoni(u)s to Apoleius and Valerias, to both, greetings and continual health. Above everything be greeted1 by letter. Now please |5 be so good, care for us about the two purple robes (?), so that no one else takes them away, and the upper cloths and your mantle. And |10 ask Api(o)n about the cloaks, and ask him: “How much will the cost of weaving be?” And Atolessia daughter of Isotas shall come down. I will write a letter. One |15 of you shall come down. Thermouthas greets you many many times, and she rebukes you2 often because you2 do not send her a letter and the reply. Ye(ar) 2 of the Emperor Nerva Trajan Augustus |20 Germanicus, Mecheir 17. And send her3 the bay3 colored pallium.3 Deliver to Phila[delphia] ⪥ to Apoleius.4

(Back)

Notes 1 The form Antonius uses here has been identified as a misspelling of an active form of the second person plural (indicative or imperative), but that does not make much sense here, because the meaning would be “you greet” (or as an imperative “greet”). Furthermore, this does not match the accusative singular “you.” The writer may also have had an infinitive in mind, which could be understood as “(I want) to send my salutation” (cf. BL 3:110). What Antonius wants to express is ultimately clear: before all else he wants to greet his addressees by letter. 2 These forms are in the singular. 3 The personal pronoun may refer either to Thermouthas or to Daphne if Daphne in lines 20–21 is a personal name. If daphne refers to (the color of) the laurel, or rather the bay-tree (cf. BL 11:131), “her” can only refer to Thermouthas. 4 In the editio princeps, the address on the back of the papyrus has been edited in two fragmentary lines and translated: “Deliver to Apuleius; deliver to Valerias.” On the digital image, however, the marking lines of a sealing (⪥) are clearly visible and traces of ink on both sides. As far as I can see, there is only one line of traces of ink on the right side and only one on the left side, whereas I consider some dark spots below the first line on the left as blurred ink or stains. The traces of ink on the right-hand side clearly match the dative of Apoleius in line 1; on the left side of the sealing, the imperative “deliver” can be restored at the beginning, but with the help

275

The Letters

of and analogy to P.Wisc. 2.69, which is another letter from Antonius, but this time addressed only to Valerias, the following fragmentary characters can be restored rather to εἰς Φιλ[αδελφείαν] (“to Philadelphia”) than to Οὐαλερ(ιᾶτι) as dative of Valerias. It is true that the parts of text on the left and right of the sealing are not exactly aligned but, in my opinion, this can be disregarded. The address can thus be restored to ἀπόδος εἰς Φιλ[αδελφείαν] ⪥ Ἀ̣π̣ολ̣ ̣ η̣εί̣ ῳ̣ ̣ . Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–2 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 4–9 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 9–12, 13–15, 20–21 requests with imperatives (p. 140), 15–16 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 19–20 date (pp. 184–85), 20–21 postscript (pp. 182–84), 22 address (pp. 185–86), 22 sealing (pp. 186–87).

Apoleius and Valerias are presumably the parents-in-law of the letter sender. They are mentioned as recipients both in the address on the back of the papyrus and in the opening greeting. Thermouthas, who is mentioned in line 16, seems to be the wife of Antonius. The whole letter is full of orthographic and syntactical errors, which sometimes makes it difficult to recognize the intended meaning. However, it is clear enough that Antonius, apart from the syntactically incorrect singular form “you” (accusative) at the end of line 3 (cf. note 1) and the singular forms in lines 16–18 (“she reproaches you often because you do not send her a letter and the reply”), addresses the two recipients throughout in the plural and thus both together. Whether the reproach of Thermouthas deliberately concerns only one of the recipients of the letter or should have been directed to both is— in view of the many spelling mistakes in the letter—difficult to decide. A final greeting is missing, which also applies to two other letters in this archive, P.Wisc. 2.69 (100/101 CE) and SB 5.7572 [2.94] (5 Oct 104 CE?), both sent to Valerias, who is addressed in both as “mother.” [2.94] SB 5.7572 (TM 27328) Letter from Thermouthas to Valerias

Greek papyrus, sent to and found at Philadelpha/Egypt (TM Geo 1760), 5 Oct 104 CE? Ed. J. G. Winter 1933, “An Illiterate Letter of the Second Century,” Aeg 13:363–66 (= SB 5.7572).  –  Addenda/Corriganda: BL 3:189; 9:247; 12:189; 13:197; G. Azzarello 2008, “Il ‘dossier di Thermuthas’: Ipotesi per la ricostruzione di una vicenda familiare nell’Arsinoites dell’età di Traiano,” in Suave mari magno…: Studi offerti dai colleghi udinesi a Ernesto Berti, ed. C. Griggio and F. Vendruscolo (Udine: Forum), 23–39, here 25–26 n. 13. – Cf. *Winter 1933, 90; *David and van Groningen 1965, 155 no. 80; *Pestman 1994, 171–73 no. 40, images: pp. 170, 173; *Rowlandson 1998, 284–86 no. 220, images: p. 285 pl. 30; *Burnet 2003a, 230 no. 160; *Nachtergael 2005, 84–87; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 283 (extended eBook 2008, B1.21 no. 158 with image); Azzarello 2008; *Reinard 2016, 598. – Online information and images: https://quod .lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-1541/.

276

Chapter 8

Archive of Thermouthas’s family (TM Arch 525; *Sarri 2018, 274–75; see p. 275); see also P.Mich. 3.201 [2.93].

Thermouthas to Valerias her mother, very many greetings and continual good health. I received from Valerius a basket in which were twenty pairs of cakes of wheat and ten pairs |5 of loaves of bread. Send me the blankets against payment and fine wool, four shearings. Do you give them to Valerius. And we have just been seven months pregnant. And I greet Artemis and |10 the little Nikarous and V⟨a⟩leris my lord—I long for him in my heart—and Dionysia and Demetrous many times and the little Taesis many times and all those in the house. |15 And send me news about how my father is doing, since he was ill when he left me. I greet grandmother. Rodine greets you. I have put her out at handwork; |20 I need her again, but I am well. Phaophi 8. Deliver to Phila- ⪥ del(phia) to Valerias, (my) mother.

(Back)

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–5 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54), 5–8, 15–17 requests with imperative (p. 140), 9–14, 17–18 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 21 date (pp. 184–85), 22 address (pp. 185–86), 22 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The letter was written probably by Thermouthas herself. It is striking that from line 8 to 17 every sentence is introduced with “and.” Thermouthas confirms to her mother that she has received the cakes and breads through the messenger Valerius and asks for blankets and wool to be sent. The secondary greetings to Valeris and from Rodine, respectively, are each accompanied by a note (cf. Rom 16:3–16). Although Thermouthas forwards greetings from Rodine, the latter is apparently not with her, for she writes that she has sent Rodine out of the house to do some handwork. Presumably, Rodine is a slave of Thermouthas who provided for her lady’s income through a learned craft. Given the advanced pregnancy of the letter sender, she is now needed back in the house. In any case, Thermouthas tries to reassure her mother with the last sentence that, even if she is in need of Rodine’s support, she is doing quite well. [2.95] T.Vindol. 2.250 (TM 114893) Letter of recommendation from -ius Karus to Cerealis on behalf of Brigionus Latin wooden tablet (diptych), Vindolanda/Britannia (TM Geo 3201), ca. 97–103 CE

The Letters

277

Ed. A.  K. Bowman and J.  D. Thomas 1994 (T.Vindol. 2.250).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: T.Vindol. 3, p. 157; C.Epist.Lat. 3, p. 197. – Cf. P. Cugusi 1992 (C.Epist.Lat. 90). – Online information and image: http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/TVII-250.

The layout of the following translation matches that of the tablet as closely as possible. […]ius Karus1 to C[e]r[ialis], [hi]s,2 g[reetings]. […] Brigionus (?)3 has asked me, lord, to recommend him to |5 you. I therefore ask you, lord, if you are willing to support him in what he has requested of you. I ask that you think fit to commend him to Annius Equester, |10 (centurion) regionarius at Luguvalium,4 [by doing which] you will, both in [his?] and [my own] name, place me in debt [to you]. I pray that |15 you have the best of fortune and are in good health. (h2) Farewell, brother. (Back)

(h1) To Cerialis, pref(ect).

Notes 1 The sender of this letter could be Claudius Karus who is also the sender of T.Vindol. 2.251 (cf. T.Vindol. 2, p. 221; C.Epist.Lat. 3, p. 197). Claudius Karus was probably a fellowprefect of Flavius Cerialis, the addressee of this letter, who is addressed without mentioning his gentilicium which occurs only here among the tablets from Vindolanda. 2 The genitive of the Greek personal pronoun can be restored at the beginning of line 2; the meaning of the above translation, which has been arranged in accordance with the layout of the opening greeting on the tablet, is of course: “to his Cerialis.” 3 The recommended person’s name in line 3 is either Brigionus preceded by a short (or abbreviated) gentilicium, or only the second part of his name (-brigionus) is preserved. There are probably traces of ink in the third line on the back with the name of the sender (cf. T.Vindol. 3, p. 157). 4 Luguvalium is modern Carlisle.

278

Chapter 8

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 5–7, 8–14 requests “ask” (pp. 143–46), 14–16 final health wish and prayer report (pp. 170–71), 17 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 18–19 address (pp. 185–86).

The addressee of this letter is Flavius Cerialis, the prefect of the ninth cohort of Batavians, stationed in the Roman fort of Vindolanda where he lived, together with his family, in the years around 100 CE. Also, his wife Sulpicia Lepidina is known from the Vindolanda tablets (cf. especially T.Vindol. 2.291 [1.49]). The sender of this letter, [Claud]ius Karus (cf. note 1), was probably a fellowprefect of Flavius Cerialis (note especially Karus’s farewell wish, written in his own hand and addressed to the “brother” Cerialis). By sending Brigionus with this tablet to the prefect of Vindolanda, Karus meets the soldier’s request to recommend him to Cerialis. The perfect tense in “what he has requested of you” refers to the soldier’s option to inform Cerialis personally and orally about his wishes, but also to the possibility that Cerialis might want to hear the letter carrier’s request before reading the letter. In any case, the main request is also verbally mentioned in the letter by Karus: Cerialis should send and commend Brigionus to Annius Equester, the centurion of the region at Luguvalium (Carlisle). Another letter from Vindolanda, T.Vindol. 4.891 (ca. 85–95 CE), is not a letter of recommendation in the strict sense because neither is it carried by the legionary, on whose behalf his fellow soldiers write this letter, nor does the letter’s text reveal anything about a recommendation. Crispus is obviously already at the place of the addressee and under his command. After all, the point here is that the addressees support their compatriot and friend so that he may have a lighter military service. [2.96] P.Oxy. 42.3057 (TM 25080) Letter from Ammonios to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), I–II CE Ed. P. J. Parsons 1974 (P.Oxy. 42.3057). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 8:264; P. J. Parsons in P.Oxy. 42, p. 145 (note on lines 4–5); C.  J. Hemer 1976, “Ammonius to Apollonius, Greeting,” BurH 12:84–91, here 91 n. 3; L.  H. Blumell 2010, “Is P.Oxy. XLII 3057 the Earliest Christian Letter?,” in Early Christian Manuscripts: Examples of Applied Method and Approach, ed. T. J. Kraus and T. Nicklas, TENTS 5 (Leiden: Brill), 97–113, here 99. – Cf. Hemer 1976, 84–91, image: 87; P. J. Parsons 1980, “The Earliest Christian Letter?,” in Miscellanea Papyrologica, ed. R. Pintaudi, Papyrologica Florentina 7 (Florence: Edizioni Gonnelli), 289, image: Tav. XII; G.  R. Stanton 1984, “The Proposed Earliest Christian Letter on Papyrus and the Origin of the Term Philallelia,” ZPE 54:49–63; *Stowers 1986, 98–99; S. R. Llewelyn 1992 (New Docs. 6.25); *Peterman 1997, 80–82; I. Ramelli 2000, “Una delle più antiche lettere cristiane extracanoniche?,” Aeg 80:169–88,

The Letters

279

images: 187–88; F. Winter 2000, “Frühes Christentum und Gnosis in Ägypten: Das Zeugnis der Privatbriefliteratur der ersten Jahrhunderte.” PzB 9:47–70, here 60–69; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 61–63; Blumell 2010; I. L. E. Ramelli 2010, “A New Reading of One of the Earliest Christian Letters Outside the New Testament and the Dangers of Early Christian Communities in Egypt,” Nova Tellvs 28:125–59; M. Minehart 2012, “P.Oxy. XLII 3057: Letter of Ammonius: The [Mis]identification of an Oxyrhynchus Papyrus [as the Earliest Christian Letter],” in PapCongr. 26, 543–48; *Cadwallader 2018, 388 n. 81, 391; A. Ricker 2020, Ancient Letters and the Purpose of Romans: The Law of the Membrane, LNTS 630 (London: T&T Clark), 40–47; *Arzt-Grabner 2022, 561–67. – Online information and images: https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21166993.v1. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–31 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Ammonios to Apollonios his brother, ḡreetings.1 I have received the crossed letter2 and the wardrobe trunk and the cloaks and |5 your3 good reeds, but the cloaks I received not as old ones but, if that’s possible, as better than new because of your intention. Yet I do not want you, brother, to burden me with these constant kindnesses, not being able to repay them, but the only thing |10 we suppose ourselves to have offered you are (our) feelings of friendship. 4 And I beg you, brother, to not concern yourself further with the key of the single room. For I do not want you, brothers, to have any |15 discord because of me or someone else. For I pray that concord and mutual affection remain among you so that you are beyond the reach of gossip and you are not like us. For experience leads me to urge you to live at peace5 and not to give a starting |20 point to others against you. Try, therefore, to do this for my sake too, favoring me, which in the meantime you will recognize as good. About the wool, if you have received it from Salvius to the full amount, and if you are satisfied with it, write me back. I wrote you ridiculous things |25 in the previous letter, which you should disregard. For my soul becomes careless whenever your name is present, and this though it has no habit to

280

Chapter 8

rest on account of the pressing troubles, 4 but it endures. I, Leonas,6 greet you, master, and |30 all your people. Farewell, most honored (friend). (Back)

To Apollonios son of Apollo(?), surveyer, brother.

Notes 1 A horizontal bar is written above the first character of the greeting χαίρειν; on the interpretation see below. 2 The “crossed letter” most probably refers to the practice of sealing (and not to a “cross” as Christian symbol; see below). If this interpretation is correct, Ammonios here refers to a sealed letter that he had previously received from Apollonios. 3 The Greek text as it is written has (in Parsons’s translation in P.Oxy. 42, p. 145) “and the reeds, not good ones” but the editor already thought of a missing sigma leading to the reconstructed text “and your good reeds”, which fits better into the overall kind and polite tone of the letter sender (cf. P. J. Parsons in P.Oxy. 42, p. 145 note on lines 4–5; this reading was also discussed by Hemer 1976, 91 n. 3, and picked up by Blumell 2010, 99). 4 In line 11, before the writer introduced his wish with “I beg,” he left a blank space between the words which seems to function as a separator. On the other hand, there is a similar gap in line 28 before “but it endures” where a separator does not make any sense. 5 The verb “to live at peace” (εἰρηνεύω) is altogether rarely preserved in the papyri and appears here only in an appeal to a letter’s addressee and his people to “live at peace” with one another like in Paul (see below). Other references for the verb in the papyri are only P.Daris 7.10–11 (first half III CE), SB 14.11957.28 (second half V CE), and P.Col. 10.290.6 (V–VI CE). 6 P. J. Parsons (in P.Oxy. 42, p. 146) assumes that “Leonas” is a proper name. Its meaning “lion” could also “be a self-characterisation by (or second name of) the author of the letter, given its content about overcoming adversity” (*Cadwallader 2018, 388 n. 81). However, in this case the author’s second name or nickname would be inserted quite abruptly, which could have been avoided by adding ἐγώ (“I”), which is not present in the Greek text, but only in the translation, or—even better—by inserting ὡς (“as”) in front of “Leonas” (similar to Paul in Phlm 9), which would then be translated as “I greet you as Leonas/Lion.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–7 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54), 7, 13 requests “want” (p. 147), 11–13 request “beg” (pp. 141–43), 15–20 other requests (pp. 140–48), 20–22, 22–24 requests with imperative (p. 140), 24–25 reference to previous letter (pp. 149–51), 30 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 31 address (pp. 185–86).

The papyrus on which this letter was written was cut from a roll which is evidenced by the heavy kollesis on the right. The letter’s language is well chosen and beautiful; there are few orthographic and grammatical errors, which

The Letters

281

indicates a high level of education of both sender and recipient. The elegant script is presumably that of a trained secretary. The horizontal bar above the first character of the greeting (cf. note 1), the reference to a “crossed letter” (cf. note 2), and several other details kindled an extensive discussion about whether this could be the earliest Christian private letter.2 To interpret the χ̄ of χαίρειν (see note 1) as a nomen sacrum for “Christ” can be discarded in favor of a more convincing interpretation already suggested by P. J. Parsons (in P.Oxy. 42, p. 145) who argued that the scribe first intended to abbreviate the greeting and write only the chi (cf., e.g., P.Sarap. 100.2 [2.113]) but then decided to write down the complete greeting. The single chi as abbreviated form of χαίρειν, with or without horizontal bar or a curved line above it, is well attested and was especially used by scribes of the Roman administration who tended to use abbreviations wherever possible. It is thus easy to imagine that the scribe of the present letter considered the already written form χ̄ as abbreviation for χαίρειν inappropriate in a letter as personal and in such style as this one. That this scribe was a member of the Roman administration is possible but, of course, far from certain (*Arzt-Grabner 2022, 561–67). Since the letter does not contain any explicit Christian markers or symbols, all arguments put forward for a Christian origin can be regarded as purely speculative. M. Minehart (2012, 546–47) argues that P.Oxy. 73.4959 [2.145] was also authored by the same Ammonios, which would underline the pagan origin of 42.3057, since Ammonios swears “to all the gods” in 4959.11–12.3 Apollonios, the recipient of the letter, is addressed several times as “brother” (lines 2, 7, 12, and in the address on the back of the papyrus), and in line 14 he 2 In addition to the Literature mentioned in the header see also E. A. Judge 1982, Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St Paul, University of Canterbury Publications 29 (Christchurch: University of Canterbury), 20–31; repr. 2008 in Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge, ed. D. M. Scholer (Peabody, MA: Henderson), 137–156; M. Naldini 2001, “Nuovi contributi nelle lettere cristiane su papiro dei primi quattro secoli,” in PapCongr. 22, 1022–23; E. Wipszycka 2001, “Les papyrus documentaires concernant l’Église d’avant le tournant constantinien: Un bilan des vingt dernières années,” in PapCongr. 22, 1310–12; E. J. Epp 2004, “The Oxyrhynchus New Testament Papyri: ‘Not without Honor except in Their Hometown’?,” JBL 123:5–55, here 26 n. 68; *Choat 2006, 142–43 n. 652 (implicitly rejecting O. Montevecchi 2000, “Τὴν ἐπιστολὴν κεχιασμένην: P. Oxy XLII 3057,” Aeg 80:189– 94); H. Chouliara-Raïos 2007, “P.Oxy. XLII 3057: ē archaioterē christianikē epistolē,” Bella: Epistēmonikē epetērida 4:687–732; *Luijendijk 2008, 29; P. Arzt-Grabner 2011, “La ricezione delle parole di Gesù nelle lettere private cristiane,” in La trasmissione delle parole di Gesù nei primi tre secoli, ed. M. Pesce and M. Rescio, Antico e Nuovo Testamento 8 (Brescia: Morcelliana), 55–69, here 59. 3 Nevertheless, Minehart still hesitates to clearly reject a Christian origin.

282

Chapter 8

and others are exhorted as “brothers” in a metaphorical sense (on the metaphorical use of “brother” see pp. 88–95). We are dealing here with a “social, religious or economic group which we cannot define with any precision” (Stanton 1984, 57). Another detail worth mentioning is the author’s switch from first person singular to plural in lines 10–11, something well-known from many passages in Paul’s New Testament letters. The insistence that the brothers should “live at peace” (line 19) is the only analogy from the documentary papyri to Paul’s exhortation in 2 Cor 13:11 and 1 Thess 5:13 (cf. Rom 12:18). Regarding Leonas and his greeting in lines 29–30 and the possible analogy to Tertius’s greeting in Rom 16:22, see pp. 61–65. [2.97] P.Oxy. 85.5522 (TM 957532) Letter from Dionysios to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), I–II CE Ed. A. Sarri 2020 (P.Oxy. 85.5522).  –  Online information and images: https://doi.org /10.25446/oxford.21186517.v2.

Dionysios to Apollonios his brother, very many greetings and good health. Before everything, |5 I send you my best regards. We suffer very much and do not sleep by night, and by day we wander around. We ask |10 those who come about your well-being. I swear to you by all the gods, if Petreus (?) had (?) not, because of Theon’s affairs, … (Back)

To Apollonios son of Theon […]

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–4 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 15 address (pp. 185–86).

Dionysios assures his friend or family member Apollonios right at the beginning that he is suffering dramatically and inquiring about the well-being of Apollonios from everyone who arrives (lines 6–11), which could lead one to assume that the author of the letter had not received any news from Apollonios for a long time. However, in P.Oxy. 85.5523, which was found together with 5522, a certain Ammonios confirms to the same Apollonios: “I received your letter through which I learned that you are well, and I was overjoyed” (lines 2–4). The fact that both letters were found together does not necessarily mean that they were also sent together or within a close period, but it at least confirms that

283

The Letters

Apollonios was not a notoriously negligent letter writer. Also, it could indicate that in close relationships, even with regular correspondence, there was always a desire for yet another letter. [2.98] SB 6.9017.10 (TM 25238) Letter from Rufus to Silvanus

Greek ostracon, Persou/Egypt (TM Geo 2837), I–II CE Ed. O. Guéraud 1942, “Ostraca grecs et latins de l’Wâdi Fawâkhir (avec une planche),” BIFAO 41:141–96, here 165–66 no. 10 (= SB 6.9017.10). – No image available.

Rufus to Silvanus, greetings. I am sending1 you the olive oil. If you have need of anything, send word. If you wish, write a |5  letter to Koptos, because there is someone here who goes there. Greet all the friends. Tell those around Sartorius, “If you have need of anything, write.” Farewell. Note 1 The form used here is an epistolary aorist (see pp. 149, 212). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–7 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 7–8 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 12 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

Besides the short note regarding a shipment of olive oil, the whole letter is concerned with encouraging the addressee to reveal if he needs anything. Likewise, he should tell people near to him to do the same (see also pp. 162– 63). That Silvanus is offered to send his letter to a different place, is illustrative for the dispatch of private letters in Greco-Roman times (cf. p. 194). [2.99] SB 14.11644 (TM 25326) Letter

Greek papyrus, Egypt, I–II CE Ed. G. M. Parássoglou 1971, “Four Papyri from the Yale Collection,” AJP 92:652–66, here 652–54 no. 1 (=  SB 14.11644).  –  Online information and images: https://findit.library .yale.edu/catalog/digcoll:2758369. The layout of the following translation reflects, more or less, exactly that of the papyrus.

[… to …] her dearest, [very many greetings]. Above everything I greet you.

284

Chapter 8

I always make obeisance for you before the lady Aphrodite. Next I wonder why you left of |5 me on the 15th Tybi as if you were going to the village for me. I was expecting you to come on the 5th of Mecheir and on the 1st1 of Pachon and Pauni. You informed me through the letter sent to me by |10 you that you2 despised me. The god knows how I love you in my soul and honor like my brother (you). You informed me that you had sent …

of oil

…3 a flask and money, but you did not inform me by whom you sent, nor have I received it.4 |15 Your friends greet you by name. Chairemon greets you. I greet all those in the house by name … […] Selaimoneus (?) [greets] you. … […] … if you have time … |20 […] … […] […] … ⪥ … Sara[…]

(Back)

The Letters

285

Notes 1 Initially the writer had written “on the 11th” or “on the 21st” but afterwards crossed out the Greek numeral for 10 or 20 respectively. 2 At this point, the author suddenly switches to the plural but returns to the singular in the next sentence. 3 It is not absolutely certain which word the writer had initially written at the end of line 12 and the beginning of line 13 and crossed out afterwards, but it presumably referred either to olives or olive oil. 4 At the end of line 14, the writer ran out of space when only the last character of the verb was left to pen down. I suspect that the writer initially left the verb form as it was and ended the sentence here. When the author (or scribe) reviewed the entire text, he or she decided to carefully insert the last two (!) characters of the verb form above the line and only afterwards realized that the pronoun “it” was missing, which now had to be inserted above (and before) the beginning of line 15. We would expect a plural pronoun to refer to the flask of oil and the money, but the writer added the singular “it.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–6 complaint (pp. 133–34), 8–14 response to addressee’s message (pp. 151–54), 15–18 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 22 address (pp. 185–86), 22 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The identity of the sender of this letter is unknown, and the name of the recipient, who was certainly a man, is not preserved. The editor of the papyrus suggests that due to “the attitude evinced throughout (one of strong affection and emotional distress), and the mention of the performance of constant supplications to Aphrodite” the author may have been a woman and “possibly, the wife of the recipient” (Parássoglou 1971, 653). It is uncertain whether this person wrote the letter herself or used a scribe. For sure, the entire text was reviewed and corrected afterwards (see notes 1, 3, and 4). At the time of writing, the two correspondents are not living in the same household (cf. line 17). The letter author wonders why the man left her on 15 Tybi (which converts to 10 Jan), pretending that he was going to the village for her, and she informs him that she had expected his arrival on 5 Mecheir (= 30 Jan), 1 Pachon (= 26 Apr), and 1 Payni (= 26 May). That is, on three occasions within a time frame of four months. In the meantime, she received a letter from him in which he informed her that not only he himself, but probably also other members of his family (see note 2) think negatively of her. Nevertheless, she affirms how much she (still?) loves him. The fact that she did not receive another letter, a flask of oil, and some money from him attests to the fact that letters and goods were in danger of being lost on their way to the recipient. Since the sender of the letter failed to provide the name of the letter carrier, there is no way for her to ask anyone about these items or to search for them. The papyrus breaks off before the final greeting.

286

Chapter 8

[2.100] C.Pap.Lat. 304 (TM 70163) Letter from Rustius Barbarus to Pompeius

Latin ostracon, Persou/Egypt (TM Geo 2837), I–II CE Ed. R. Cavenaile 1958 (C.Pap.Lat. 304 = O. Guéraud 1942, “Ostraca grecs et latins de l’Wâdi Fawâkhir [avec une planche],” BIFAO 41:141–69, here 155–57 no. 2). – Cf. R. W. Davies 1971, “The Roman Military Diet,” Britannia 2:122–42, here 135; P. Cugusi 1981, “Gli ostraca latini dello Wâdi Fawâkhir per la storia del latino,” in Letterature antiche, vol. 2 of Letterature comparate: Problemi e metodo: Studi in onore di E. Paratore (Bologna: Pàtron), 719–53, here 724 no 2, image: 725 tav. II; P. Cugusi 1992 (C.Epist.Lat. 74, image: Tav. V no. 1); J.-L. Fournet 2003, “Langues, écritures et culture dans les praesida,” in *Cuvigny 2003, 427–500, here 435–36; F. Biville 2014, “Lettres de soldats romains,” in La Lettre gréco-latine, un genre littéraire?, ed. J. Schneider, Collection de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen ancien, Série littéraire et philosophique 52 (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux), 81–100, here 97 no. 4.

Rustius Barbarus to Pompeius his brother, greetings. […?] I pray to the gods that you fare well, which are my vows. Why do you write to me so maliciously, or judge me so lightly? If you do not send me greens1 |5 as soon as possible, should I immediately forget your friendship? I am not like that, nor am I so light. I treat you, not as a friend, but as a twin brother who came out from one womb. This (term) I often |10 write you. But you have [another way] of judging me. I received a bunch of cabbages and one cheese. I send you a box through the cavalryman Arrianus, inside there is 1 loaf of coarse bread and |15 … tied in a piece of cloth. What I ask you, that you buy me a mation of salt, and send it to me without delay, because I want to make bread. Farewell, brother |20 dearest. Note 1 According to P. Cugusi (in C.Epist.Lat. 2, p. 63) these might be fresh vegetables or savoy cabbage. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 3–11 complaint (pp. 133–34), 11–12 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54), 12–13 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 15–18 request “ask” (pp. 143–46), 19–20 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

The term often used by Rustius Barbarus in his letters to Pompeius, as he emphasizes in lines 9–10, must be the address “brother,” since he calls him like this in all his four preserved letters (besides the present letter also in C.Pap. Lat. 303; 306; 307). The explicit allusion to the friendship between the two correspondents reveals that the fraternal address is to be understood metaphorically (see also p. 94).

The Letters

287

Several formulas in this Latin letter are equivalents to the Greek versions. This is especially true for the prayer report in line 2, the main request introduced by “I ask” (Latin rogo) in line 15, and the form of address “dearest brother” (Latin frater karissime) in lines 19–20, which is used in the same word order in the Greek letters P.Berl.Möller 9.1–2 (9 Jul 45 CE), P.Hombert 2.41.1–2 (late II CE), and P.Mert. 1.28.22–23 (late III CE). With the adjective in the first place, it has been restored in BGU 16.2614.1–2 (21 BCE–5 CE), but since this would be the only example, this restoration may be doubted. [2.101] SB 20.14132 (TM 26168) Letter from Ptolema to Belleous and Letter from Ptolema to Heros

Greek papyrus, written probably in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found in Egypt, late I/ early II CE Ed. J.  E.  G. Whitehorne 1991, “Two Michigan Papyri,” Aeg 71:17–23, here 21–22 (= SB 20.14132).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:227–28; N. Gonis 1997, “Ptolema’s Distress Away from Home (SB XX 14132 Revised),” BASP 34:111–18. – Cf. Gonis 1997; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 405–6, image: p. 406 (extended eBook 2008, B13.9 no. 294 with images); *Reinard 2016, 101–3.  –  Online information and images: https://papyri.info /apis/michigan.apis.2159.

[Ptole]ma to Bel⟨l⟩eous [her mo]ther and lad[y, very ma]ny greetings. [Abo]ve everything else I |5 pray that you are heal[th]y, along with Heros a-[nd …] …1 […] … […] … […] … [a]nd … |10 […] much much. [.] For I did [no]t want [to wait?] until you come because I have no one h[ere(?)]. I sent (you) |15 one [bask]et, in which there are five pairs [of loav]es. You know, [my] lady, that I have nothing [no]w. If I too |20  […] …, I’ll give [you] thanks. I greet Nemessas and Kottara. Ptolema to Heros |25 her sister, greetings. I am sorry, sister, for not having seen y[ou when] I was going to Alexandria. Up |30 until now I have (got) nothing. Send for what I [se]nt you, (a pair of) sandals and five pairs of loaves. |35 Receive these from Trophimos. Greet your sister-in-law and your husband and your brother-in-law. |41 Farewel(l). Epei\p/ 6. (Back)

(Traces of ink).

288

Chapter 8

Note 1 How to resolve the sequence of letters in line 7 is unclear. At the end of the line is αν, which could be completed to ἀν|[δρός] (genitive of “man, husband”), thus implying that the prayer for health is also performed for the husband of the mother or sister (cf., e.g., *Reinard 2016, 101). However, the interpretation is by no means certain. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3, 24–25 opening greetings (pp. 73–84), 4–7 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 17 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 21–23, 36–40 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 34–36 request with imperative (p. 140), 34–36 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 41 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 41–42 date (pp. 184–85).

Ptolema is staying away from home, probably in Alexandria. Although (by now) lacking basic necessities, she has sent bread to her mother and her sister, and to her sister also a pair of sandals, which are now to be collected from a certain Trophimos. Ptolema’s apology for not seeing her sister before she left for Alexandria brings to mind P.Oxy. 1.119 [1.1] (II–III CE), where little Theon reproaches his father for breaking his promise and not taking him to the big city. Regarding the letter form, it is noteworthy that Ptolema wrote only one “farewell” (line 41), obviously addressed to the recipients of both letters. The two letters were written one below the other on a narrow strip of papyrus, which did not offer great possibilities for a graphic design of the letter opening. That the writer, however, was familiar with the usual layouts, is demonstrated by the final greeting, which is placed in the middle of line 41. This resulted in insufficient space for the last letter of the month’s name, a problem which the scribe solved by placing the final pi in the free space above the first pi of Epeip (for Epeiph). The date of the day (the 6th) was written in the next line exactly between “farewell” and “Epeip.” [2.102] BGU 2.451 (TM 25646) Letter from Heron and Horion to Chairemon

Greek papyrus, written in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found in Egypt, late I–II CE Ed. F. Krebs 1898 (BGU 2.451). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:46. – Online information and image: http://berlpap.smb.museum/02376/. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–19 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Heron and Horion to Chairemon their brother, greetings. As soon as we got to Alexandria, we

The Letters

289

made obeisance for you and your |5 children and your sister before the lord Sarapis and for Neilos, the friend. Now that we have found the one who will sail upriver on the 4th, we thought it necessary to greet you by letter and |10 let you know that, if the gods permit, we will greet you earlier, but no later than the 8th. And if you are in need of anything, as I also told you in person, mention it to Chaireas, the co-secretary. |15 And Neilos should continually go to Demetrios, my assistant, so that Demetrios … nothing without your knowledge […] … […] … (Back)

To Chairemon … (traces of sealing?) … from Heron …

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–7 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 7–8 reference to letter carrier (pp. 191–99), 10–12 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 13 reference to previous message (pp. 149–51), 12–14 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 19 address (pp. 185–86), 19 sealing? (pp. 186–87).

The two senders of this letter report to their brother that they performed the proskynema (pp. 109–11) for him, his family, and the common friend Neilos in the temple of Sarapis immediately after their arrival in Alexandria. This Neilos is mentioned again in line 15; he is supposed to go to Demetrios, the assistant of the first-mentioned letter sender, Heron. Due to the fragmentary context, the exact reason for this is no longer discernible. As Heron and Horion have met a potential letter carrier in Alexandria, they take the opportunity to inform their brother that they will be able to visit him earlier than expected. The formula “if the gods permit” (lines 10–11) and its variant “if the gods are willing” are typically used in connection with a journey (cf. p. 160 nn. 100–101; 1  Cor 16:7; Rom 15:32), suggesting that travelers often faced obstacles and dangers.

290

Chapter 8

[2.103] O.Krok. 2.288 (TM 704573) Letter from Ischyras to Zosime and Parabolos

Greek ostracon, written at Persou (TM Geo 2837), found at Krokodilo/Egypt (TM Geo 3655), 98–117 CE Ed. J.-L. Fournet 2019 (O.Krok. 2.288).  –  Online image: https://www.ifao.egnet.net/ bases/publications/fifao81/ (“n° ostracon” = “288”). The following translation reflects the grammatical and spelling errors of the Greek text as closely as possible.

Ischyras to poth Zosime and Para\bolos/,1 greetings. Before everything, I make thae obeisance for uz2 before Athena. You wyll do wal |5 to write to me about you3. I ask you, lady: obey my ohrders which I have orderd you. To all4, rejoice, be healthy, get |10 well to all4. I send5 you 20 leecks. Receive a lakythin of perfume and the kroukia(?)6.

(Left margin, downwards) |15 Farewell.

(Top margin, upside down)7

Greet all8.

Notes 1 Due to lack of space, the second part of the personal name is written above the first part. 2 Ischyras writes ἡμον instead of ὑμων; the interchange of eta and ypsilon is a common one due to itacism, but in the case of ἡμῶν and ὑμῶν it also leads to a confusion in the spelling of the first and second person plurals. In English writing this is difficult to reproduce, since both forms—apart from the fact that an omicron was written here instead of omega—were pronounced identically: someone listening would hear a word pronounced too sharply, which could mean either “us” or “you,” and, out of context, surely had to mean “you,” while the reader had to cope with a spelling that at first glance could only mean “us.” 3 Ischyras wrote the accusative σεν instead of the genitive σου. 4 Here, Ischyras wrote πάντες (nominative plural) instead of παντός (genitive singular). 5 Presumably, Ischyras uses here the epistolary aorist (literally “I sent”; see pp. 149, 212), yet it is not impossible that he had sent the 20 leeks earlier already and is now sending only the lekythion of perfume and the krokia (on the term see following note). 6 According to the editor, the reading is not certain. The word κρόκιον is known as a diminutive of κρόκη (“wool band”) but there are two medical occurrences where the term refers to an undetermined herbal substance (cf. J.-L. Fournet in O.Krok. 2, p. 212). 7 The final greeting (line 15) is written in the left margin, line 16 in the upper margin. This order, to continue writing first in the left margin and then in the upper margin, is the usual habit of Ischyras (cf. O.Krok. 2.303; 321; 327; J.-L. Fournet in O.Krok. 2, p. 196).

The Letters

291

8 Here, Ischyras again wrote πάντες (nominative plural), this time instead of the accusative πάντας. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–6 request “you will do well” (p. 146), 6–9 request “ask” (pp. 143– 46), 8–10 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 12–14 request with imperative (p. 140), 15 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 16 postscript (pp. 182–84), 16 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

An orthographically corrected version of the letter can be translated as follows: Ischyras to both Zosime and Para\bolos/, greetings. Before everything, I make the obeisance for you before Athena. You will do well |5 to write to me about you. I ask you, lady: obey my orders, which I have ordered you. Above all, rejoice, be healthy, get |10 well above all. I am sending you 20 leeks. Receive a lekythion of perfume and the krokia(?).

(Left margin, downwards)

|15 Farewell.

(Top margin, upside down)

Greet all.

If we look at the many misspellings and other errors (see also notes 1–3 and 7), it is not easy to read this letter fluently. On the other hand, the writer has a good knowledge of formulas and steps well beyond merely mentioning the goods that have been sent together with this letter, which was certainly its main purpose. He also asks for news, reminds his companion Zosime of the orders he had given her before, and is skilled enough to express kind wishes to her in his personal way. The combination of χαίρω (“rejoice”), ὑγιαίνω (“be healthy”), and κομψὸς γίνομαι (“get well”) in lines 9–10 is unique in papyrus letters. [2.104] O.Krok. 2.296 (TM 704581) Letter from Ischyras (?) to an unknown recipient and letter from Ischyras to Kapparis

Greek ostracon, writtend in Persou (TM Geo 2837), sent to and found at Krokodilo/ Egypt (TM Geo 3655), 98–117 CE Ed. J.-L. Fournet 2019 (O.Krok. 2.296).  –  Online images: https://www.ifao.egnet.net /bases/publications/fifao81/ (“n° ostracon” = “296”). (Convex side)

[Lines 1–5 are too fragmentary to be translated. …] all the ones I had or am about to have. We want every last bit of the sister’s fingernail1 or their

292

Chapter 8

family |10 will not touch me or my sister from now on. Everyone knows her to be a “head cutter”2 and […] bringing me ¾ |15  […] she can’t do anything […] (left margin, downwards) […] others […] let her be afraid of it […]. But write to me who (?) […] the half-artaba so that |20 […]. Greet Niger. Zosime [is greeting y]ou.

(Concave side)

Ischyras to Kapparis, greetings. I make obeisance for you before the gods. Why do you reproach me by saying: |25 “Come here”? Do you not know that I can’t? You, come! Greet Martialis and all (the others). Farewell.

Notes 1 The only known meaning of this rare term is “nail clippings.” If there is no allusion here to magical practices, the term is to be taken in a metaphorical sense (J.-L. Fournet in O.Krok. 2, p. 222). 2 The term “head-cutter” is so far attested only in Strabo 11.14.14 (about some Thracians) and must surely be understood here in a figurative sense, perhaps similar to “maneater” (cf. J.-L. Fournet in O.Krok. 2, p. 222). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 18 request with imperative (p. 140), 20–21 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 22 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 22–24 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 25 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 26 request with imperative (p. 140), 26–27 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 28 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

The ostracon contains two letters, one on the convex side, the other on the concave side (written upside down in relation to the convex side). While the second letter was written by Ischyras to Kapparis, the names of the correspondents of the first letter are no longer preserved. Presumably, however, this letter was also sent by Ischyras. The variant of the disclosure formula as a question (lines 25–26: “Do you not know that I can’t?”) in place of a simple “I can’t” is a good example of the expression of greater vehemence than in the variants with the indicative, participle, and even imperative (for the New Testament analogies, see p. 136). [2.105] O.Claud. 1.158 (TM 24166) Letter from Domitius Capito to Ballion

Greek ostracon, Mons Claudianus/Egypt (TM Geo 2783), ca. 110 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 1992 (O.Claud. 1.158, image: pl. XXVI). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:295. – Cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 152, 209–10. – Online image: https://www.nakala. fr/ (search for “O.Claud. 158”).

293

The Letters

Domitius Capito to Ballion his brother, greetings. I asked Valentinus, my br lord and brother, |5 to take you by the hand for what you want, and you should be useful to him for what he wants. I wrote another letter to you through Octavius greeting you, |10 and you should send the five staters to the eranarch.1 Farewell. Note 1 The term eranarch identifies the leader of an eranos, but we do not know whether a cult association or credit association is meant here (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Claud. 1, p. 145). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 7–12 reference to previous letter (pp. 149–51), 10–12 request with future tense as imperative (p. 140), 12 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

The letter sender confirms to his addressee that he recommended him to his superior Valentinus, but we do not know whether he had sent a letter of recommendation to Valentinus on Ballion’s behalf or asked him orally. Since the names of all involved are Latin and they all seem to be military (cf. A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Claud. 1, p. 145), Ballion probably hopes for a position or promotion in the Roman army. As for the superior position of Valentinus, line 3 is significant, because the scribe first wanted to write “brother,” but after he had written the first two letters, he crossed them out and wrote “lord and brother.” [2.106] P.Mich. 8.465 (TM 17239) Letter from Apollinarios to Tasoucharion

Greek papyrus, written at Bostra/Syria (Roman province Arabia; TM Geo 2987), found at Karanis/Egypt (TM Geo 1008), 20 Feb 108 CE? Ed. J.  G. Winter and H.  C. Youtie 1951 (P.Mich. 8.465).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 8:214; 10:124.  –  Cf. V.  A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and M. Stern 1964 (C.Pap.Jud. 3.486a, only lines 38–43); *Smallwood 1966, 104–5 no. 307a; K. Strobel 1988, “Zu Fragen der frühen Geschichte der römischen Provinz Arabia und zu einigen Problemen der Legionsdislokation im Osten des Imperium Romanum zu Beginn des 2. Jh.n.Chr.,” ZPE 71:251–80, here 258–59; *Reinard 2016, 922–37. – Online information: https://quod.lib .umich.edu/a/apis/x-2580; online information and images: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk /Michigan.html (select no. 8.465). Archive of the (Gaii) Iulii Sabinus and Apollinarios (TM Arch 116; *Sarri 2018, 272–73; see below); see also P.Mich. 8.487 [2.107]; 496 [2.108]; 499 [2.109]; possibly also 482 [2.110].

294

Chapter 8

In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–50 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

[Apollinari]os to Tasoucharion his lady [moth]er, very many greetings. [Above] everything else I pray that you fare well, as it is my [wish], to pay homage to you (and find you) faring well |5 […] and life. For you … my […] you if I know in the […]. For not yet […] of (my?) parents, and it is most of all [my] wish/prayer. For whenever I remem|10 [ber you] I do neither eat nor drink but I weep. […] to me alone […] […] I am and for that […]… I give thanks to Sarapis and to [Good] Fortune that, while |15 all are laboring the whole day through at cutting stones, I as principalis1 move about doing nothing. And I received some money, and I wanted to send you a gift of Tyrian wares, and since you did not reply, I have [not] |20 entrusted it to anyone because of the length of the journey. For fine garments and ebony(?)and pearls and unguents are brought here in abundance(?). Therefore, I ask you, my lady, to be … and merrily be joyful. For it is good here. |25 For if you are grieved, I am uneasy. Do you now give yourself the trouble to make inquiry of a friend of mine at Alexandria so that you send me through him coarse-fibered linens. For there is none here, and it is going to be very hot. And I ask you much |30 not to annoy my lady Iulia in anything, since you know that she protects me doubly […]. […] I pray that I may—after the gods—pay [homage] to you (and find you) faring well. And if you received the set of … and the |35 […] from Ploutos […] I ask [you] to reply to me [without de]lay concerning your well-

The Letters

295

being so that I too have consolation. Greet Iulia, Sarapias my [lady s]ister, grandmother Sambathion, |40 […] …, Eros, little Ptolemaios, […] … my brother, Ammonous and their [childr]en, Betes, Dios, Ptollas, […], Ptolema […] …, Ptollous. And Clemens […] came with his man. I greet |45 [all] those in the household. [I pray] that you fare well and be joyful. Mecheir 25. (Back)

[For Tasoucharion,] my mother; deliver to Iulia (h2) […] … of/through […]phriminios |50 from Crete.

Note 1 A junior officer in a centuria. Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 9–10 motif of remembrance (pp. 112–15), 23–24, 29–30, 35–37 requests “ask” (pp. 143– 46), 26–28 request with future tense as imperative (p. 140), 32–33 final prayer report (pp. 170–71), 38–45 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 45–46 final greeting (pp. 171– 76) personally styled (p. 174), 47 date (pp. 184–85), 48–50 address (pp. 185–86).

Apollinarios and his brother Sabinianus (cf. [2.109]) were both the sons of Gaius Iulius Sabinus, a Greco-Egyptian who had served in the army and obtained Roman citizenship. Iulius Apollinarios is not only the author of this letter, but also of P.Mich. 8.466.3 (26 Mar 107 CE), addressed to his father, and of 487 [2.107] (ca. 100–147 CE) to his brother (cf. also 486). From the letter to his father, we learn that he was stationed in Bostra in 107 CE and had become a librarius legionis (secretary of the legion). Probably still in Bostra, but meanwhile with the rank of a principalis (see note 1), he wrote the present letter to his mother, who at that time lived in Alexandria (line 27; Strobel 1988, 258 n. 35). In lines 9–10, Apollinarios emotionally describes how much he suffers from the separation, at the same time adopting a motif of remembrance. That his filial piety is of primary importance to him is evident here from lines 32–33 (“I pray that I may—after the gods—pay homage to you”) and in the letter to the father from P.Mich. 8.466.3–4 (“above all I pray that you fare well, which is my wish since I revere you next to the gods”). His concern for his siblings is expressed in lines 29–31.

296

Chapter 8

[2.107] P.Mich. 8.487 (TM 27097) Letter from Apollinarios to Sempronius

Greek papyrus, written in Rome/Italy (TM Geo 2058), sent to and found at Karanis/ Egypt (TM Geo 1008), ca. 100–147 CE Ed. J. G. Winter and H. C. Youtie 1951 (P.Mich. 8.487). – Online information: https:// quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-2559; image: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/Michigan.html (select no. 8.487). Archive of the (Gaii) Iulii Sabinus and Apollinarios (TM Arch 116; *Sarri 2018, 272–73; see p. 295); see also P.Mich. 8.465 [2.106]; 496 [2.108]; 499 [2.109]; possibly also 482 [2.110]. In the following translation, the layout of lines 1–4 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 5–15 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Apollinarios to Sempronius his most honored brother, gree(tings). When I arrived in Rome I learned that you had departed from there before |5 I came, and I got deeply distressed be cause I did not see you. But now I beg you to make it clear to me how you are, since I am anxious. For … inasmuch as I have not yet to this moment |10 […] … […] I am sending1 our Eros. I ask therefore to assist him so that through you he may reach home safely. For I gave him to deliver … 25. If you have the opportunity, |15 give him an escort for the delivery. (Lines 16–27 are too mutilated for edition and translation, but the lower margin is partly preserved). (Back)

?2

Notes 1 The writer uses an aorist form, most likely to be interpreted as an epistolary aorist (see pp. 149, 212), indicating that he is about to send Eros at the time of writing, but from the recipient’s perspective he has already sent him before the letter arrives. 2 The editors noted that the “papyrus was already fragile when it was found, and strips of paper were pasted over the verso; these may, of course, conceal an address” (J. G. Winter and H. C. Youtie in P.Mich. 8, p. 86).

297

The Letters

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 6–8 request “beg” (pp. 141–43), 10 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 11–12 request “ask” (pp. 143–46), 14–15 request with imperative (p. 140).

Apollinarios himself testifies in the letter that he wrote it from Rome after arriving there and learning that his brother Sempronius had left before the two brothers could see each other. In a first request, Apollinarios “begs” his brother to inform him about his well-being, before mentioning that he sends (see note 1) a certain Eros, apparently to carry the letter to Sempronius. In a second request, Apollinarios “asks” him to provide Eros with everything necessary to travel on and reach his own home safely. [2.108] P.Mich. 8.496 (TM 27106) Letter from Apol… to Apollinarios

Greek papyrus, Karanis/Egypt (TM Geo 1008), ca. 100–147 CE Ed. J. C. Winter and H. C. Youtie 1951 (P.Mich. 8.496). – Cf. P. Buzi and E. Giorgi 2020, “Introduction: Bakchias and Its Geographical Context,” in P. Buzi and E. Giorgi, The Urban Landscape of Bakchias: A Town of the Fayyūm from the Ptolemaic-Roman Period to Late Antiquity, Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 66 (Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing), 1–2; *Reinard 2018, 193–94. – Online information: https://quod.lib.umich. edu/a/apis/x-2570/1. – Image in this volume: p. 299 fig. 3. Archive of the (Gaii) Iulii Sabinus and Apollinarios (TM Arch 116; *Sarri 2018, 272–73; see p. 295); see also P.Mich. 8.465 [2.106]; 487 [2.107]; 499 [2.109]; possibly also 482 [2.110]. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–24 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Apol[…]s to A[po]llina[r]ios his b[roth]er, g[reetings]. Having learned that you are in Bakchias I greet you, brother, and I already |5 urge you to write to us about your health. For I have already used up a papyrus roll in writing to you, and have received barely one letter from you, in which |10 you notified me that I should receive the cloaks and the pig. The pig

298

Chapter 8

I did not receive, but I got the cloaks. (h2) I pray that you fare well, broth-

er, |15 and be cheerful. Receive four good lettuces and a bundle of beets and bulbs, 21 in number, 16(?) vegetables, and of maeota fish1 three good semi-salted ones. Theon, the brother, greets you and he urges you

|20 (h1) Farewell. Pharmouthi 4(?).

to come to us from Bakchias. For observe that those who come from there arrive within the second hour.2

(h1) To Apolinarios, ⪥ (my) friend.

(Back)

Notes 1 The fish probably came from Lake Moiris (TM Geo 1384), which is about six kilometers west of Karanis (J. C. Winter and H. C. Youtie in P.Mich. 8, p. 110). 2 Bakchias (TM Geo 392) is located about eleven kilometers east of Karanis, which could thus be reached in “no more than two hours, clearly riding on a donkey or sailing along the canal” (Buzi and Giorgi 2020, 1). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 4–6 request (pp. 140–48), 6–11 complaint (pp. 132–33), 8–14 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54), 15–18 request with imperative (p. 140), 14–15 final greeting in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 15–19, 21–23 postscript (pp. 182–84), 18–19 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 19, 21–23 invitation to visit (p. 148), 20 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 24 address (pp. 185–86), 24 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The letter text was dictated to a secretary (hand 1) who left a blank space of 3 cm below line 14 before adding a “farewell” and the date in what would eventually become line 20. Then, the letter author (h2) added his personal final greeting in lines 14–15 and a postscript, for which, however, the remaining space above the secretary’s “farewell” was not sufficient, so that the author had to switch in mid-sentence to the line below the “farewell” to complete the postscript in lines 21–23. To make this sequence as well visible in the translation as on the original papyrus, where we find a “large and elegant” handwriting of the secretary, but “small, very cursive” letters in the handwriting of the author (J. C. Winter and H. C. Youtie in P.Mich. 8, p. 109), I have reproduced the text written by the author in smaller type.

299

The Letters

Fig. 3

P.Mich. 8.496 [2.108] (P.Mich. inv. 5849); image courtesy of the University of Michigan Library, Papyrology Collection

300

Chapter 8

[2.109] P.Mich. 8.499 (TM 27109) Letter from Sabinianus to Apollinarios

Greek papyrus, written in Egypt, sent to and found at Karanis/Egypt (TM Geo 1008), 117–147 CE Ed. J.  G. Winter and H.  C. Youtie 1951 (P.Mich. 8.499).  –  Cf. *White 1986, 182–84 no. 115  B.  –  Online information: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-2593 and …/x2540. – No image available. Archive of the (Gaii) Iulii Sabinus and Apollinarios (TM Arch 116; *Sarri 2018, 272–73; see p. 295); see also P.Mich. 8.465 [2.106]; 487 [2.107]; 496 [2.108]; possibly also 482 [2.110]. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–3 and of lines 19–23 reflect that of the edited Greek text of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Sabinianus to Apollinarios his brother and lord, very many greetings. Every day also I myself offer prayers for your |5 well-being before the gods here so that you stay well for many years. You provide and have provided more than enough for our sister, which is why I return all my thanks |10 to you before all the gods; for it has been attested to me both by our sister and mother. I have written to you often, and the negligence of those who carry the letters has slandered us as negligent. So that she may surely take me as |15 her guardian, I beg you to give heed to our sister in whatever she asks of you. I greet the most useful Abaskantos and all of your people by name. I pray that you fare well |20 together with your whole household. Mecheir 18. (Back)

To Iulius Apollinarios from Sabinianus, the brother of Apollinarios …

The Letters

301

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 4–7 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 7–10 thanksgiving report (pp. 123–28), 12–14 reference to previous letters (pp. 149–51), 12–14 reference to letter carriers (pp. 191–99), 14–16 request “beg” (pp. 141–43), 16–18 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 19–20 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 21 date (pp. 184–85), 22–23 address (pp. 185–86).

In this letter, Sabinianus expresses his gratitude to his brother Apollinarios for helping their sister, and he asks Apollinarios to support him in becoming their sister’s legal guardian. Like his brother Apollinarios (cf. [2.106]) Sabinianus seems to be an accomplished letter writer. Not only is he well acquainted with the formulas, but he is also skilled enough to render them a more personal expression. In his prayer report (lines 4–7) he uses the expression “to make (or perform) prayers” instead of the simple verb “to pray” and extends the usual formula, which would have ended after “before the gods here,” by what he prays for in particular. In lines 12–14, he may be responding to his brother’s complaint of not having received a letter from him; now he assures his brother that he had indeed written to him often, but that the carelessness of his letter carriers made him seem negligent. The “most useful” Abaskantos, who is greeted in lines 16–17, is also mentioned in the will of the correspondents’ great aunt Sambathion, P.Mich. 9.549 (117/118 CE); according to this will he was Sambathion’s houseborn slave who should be freed or bequeathed after her death (cf. line 7). As this letter testifies, he had meanwhile joined the household of Apollinarios which suggests that the letter was written after Sambathion had drawn up her will in 117/118 CE. A parallel to the “most useful” (former) slave Abaskantos is the useful slave Onesimus of Phlm 11. [2.110] P.Mich. 8.482 (TM 17241) Letter from an unknown sender to an unknown addressee

Greek papyrus, Karanis/Egypt (TM Geo 1008), 23 Aug 133 CE Ed. J. G. Winter and H. C. Youtie 1951 (P.Mich. 8.482). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 6:82; 12:123. – Cf. *Naldini 1998, 63–66 no. 1 (with addition p. 425); C. Kim 2011, “‘Grüße in Gott, dem Herrn!’: Studien zum Stil und zur Struktur der griechischen christlichen Privatbriefe aus Ägypten” (diss., Universität Trier), 107–10; *Burnet 2003a, 81 no. 27; *Schellenberg 2022b, 79–80.  –  Online information: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/ apis/x-2545/1. – No image available. The papyrus was found in granary C123 in Karanis/Egypt but its connection with the Archive of the (Gaii) Iulii Sabinus and Apollinarios (TM Arch 116; *Sarri 2018, 272–73; see p. 295) is uncertain; see also P.Mich. 8.465 [2.106]; 487 [2.107]; 496 [2.108]; 499 [2.109].

302

Chapter 8

The papyrus is broken at the top and at left. Only the ends of the last five lines of col. 1 are preserved, and a strip is missing along most of the left margin of col. 2. (Col. 1) (Traces of five lines) (Col. 2)

[…] … […] […] and if you want anything, [write me everyth]ing that you want. Your hood is still safely laid away. And they sent|5 it to Syria once again, and they brought it to me without delay. I pray that you fare well. [I have] it [in my keeping]. Peteeus, who is writing the letter for me, greets |10 you very very much as well as your wife and your daughter and Bassos your horse.1 And … for I ask you myself, brother. And if you want to come and take |15 me with you, come, and wherever you take me, I will follow you, and as I love you, the god will love me. I pray that you fare well. (Year) 17 of the Emperor Caesar |20 Trajan Hadrian Augustus, Mesore 30, according to the Greeks. And do not hesitate to write letters, since I rejoiced very very much, as if you had come. From the day |25 that you sent me the letter I have been saved. Note 1 To address also the horse of an addressee in the opening greeting or the health wish of a letter is not unusual among comrades of the Roman cavalry; cf. O.Krok. 2.164.4; 165.7; 215.6; 322.4; 324.4 (all 98–117 CE); O.Did. 399.4–5 (before ca. 120–125 CE). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 2–3 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162– 63), 7, 18 final greetings (pp. 171–76, on the double final greeting in particular see pp. 175–76), 19–21 date (pp. 184–85), 8–17, 22–26 postscripts (pp. 182–84), 8–12 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 22–26 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 24 letter as representative of its author (pp. 57–60).

The letter sender is clearly male (there is a Greek masculine personal pronoun in line 13), and since he is greeting even the recipient’s horse by name (Bassos in line 12), both may have been members of the cavalry or veterans. Assuming that “the god” in line 17 could refer to the Christian God, because the message that “God loves someone” is an eminently Christian message, this letter is considered by some to be the oldest Christian letter. A good argument against this presumption is preserved by O.Claud. 2.414, an ostracon from Mons Claudianus from the second century CE and thus more or less contemporary

The Letters

303

with this private letter; it preserves several isopsephisms, the last of which reads: “Sarapis loves always 1243,” thus testifying that also a pagan god could be associated with love (in fact, the total amount of the Greek characters in the quoted sentence, when added together as numbers, is 1243).4 The whole letter was dictated to a scribe, whose name and greetings are mentioned in lines 8–12, which offer a clear analogy to Tertius in Rom 16:22 (see p. 64). The structure of the letter is somewhat special and can provide insight into the process of its production. A first part is concluded with the final greeting in line 7, to which a short postscript, only fragmentarily preserved, is added in the following line. The writer of the letter, Peteeus, must have been in a friendly relationship with the recipient, because he now adds his own greeting, but in the third person and certainly with the consent of the letter author or even at his invitation (lines 8–12). Only now, especially in lines 14–17, the sender realizes his desire to assure his addressee of his own deep affection, which is concluded in line 18 by a second final greeting. But that is still not all: After the dating (lines 19–21), the author feels compelled to introduce a well-known convention that usually belongs to the introductory part of the letter body as a so-called report of joy (see pp. 119–23); in a second postscript (lines 22–26) and in personal words that go far beyond the respective formula, he assures his addressee of his greatest joy at receiving his most recent letter and even adds that this letter literally saved him. This second postscript is also significant because of the letter sender’s remark that he experienced the previous letter from his recipient as his personal presence (see pp. 57–60). *Koskenniemi (1956, 173) remarked that the very last words do not clearly reveal what the writer actually meant. Strictly speaking, there are two ways of interpreting the words “as if you had come.” The writer might compare the joy he feels with the joy he could have had from the eventual presence of his partner (the emphasis then being on “had come”), or he might compare the arrival of the letter with the arrival of the addressee himself, which he imagines (the emphasis then being on “you”): “as if you yourself had come, not only the letter.” In both cases, however, according to Koskenniemi, it was precisely the receipt of the letter that made its recipient rejoice, which is comparable to the personal presence of the respective person. It is thus at least noteworthy

4 The Greek sentence is αἰεὶ ὁ Σάραπις φιλεῖ. The calculation works as follows: the sum of αιει (“always”) as numerals is (1+10+5+10) 26, that of οσαραπισ is (70+200+1+100+1+80+10+200) 662, and that of φιλει is (500+10+30+5+10) 555, giving a total of 1243. – Against an identification as Christian letter as considered by *Naldini (1998, 63–66, 425 no. 1) also *Choat 2006, 142 n. 652.

304

Chapter 8

that the arrival of the letter is compared with the personal presence of the sender. [2.111] P.Sarap 85 (TM 17107) Letter from Heliodoros to Sarapion

Greek papyrus, written probably in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found at Hermopolis/ Egypt (TM Geo 816), 90–133 CE Ed. J. Schwartz 1961 (P.Sarap. 85, image: Planche V  B).  –  Cf. F. Bilabel 1923 (P.Bad. 2.36, col. 1); A. Fuks 1960 (C.Pap.Jud. 2.440); D.  P. Kehoe 1992, Management and Investment on Estates in Roman Egypt during the Early Empire, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 40 (Bonn: Habelt), 67–72; *Pucci Ben Zeev 2005, 75–76 no. 45; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 69; *Reinard 2016, 765. – Online information and image: http:// www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~gv0/Papyri/VBP_II/036/VBP_II_36.html. Archive of Eutychides son of Sarapion (TM Arch 87; *Sarri 2018, 266–67; see below); see also P.Sarap. 89 [2.112]; 100 [2.113]; CPR 5.19 [2.114] is uncertain. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–13 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Heliodoros to Sarapion his father, greetings. After I had just received your letter, I rejoiced that you fare well as per our prayers. |5 And I am always glad to greet you through anyone I find sailing upriver, even when there is nothing new out there to tell you. About our business there has not yet been anything newer made known to me, but for the |10 rest it is said that, if the going up1 is sufficient … […], the royal peasants too will be moved […] from Apion … (Back)

(h2) To Sarapion, the father.

Note 1 The Greek term ἀνάβασις is often connected with the river Nile, meaning “flood,” which may be the case also here (J. Schwartz in P.Sarap., p. 231; *Pucci Ben Zeev 2005,

305

The Letters

76; contrary to F. Bilabel in P.Bad. 2, p. 57, and A. Fuks in C.Pap.Jud. 2, pp. 240–41, who regarded it as the movement of Roman troops to quell the Jewish War of 115–117 CE). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 14 address (pp. 185–86).

The family of Sarapion owned some land near the city of Hermopolis (TM Geo 816) but also cultivated rented land in the northern part of the Hermopolite nome (Kehoe 1992, 67–72). A major source of their income was livestock, which made it necessary to cultivate fodder crops. The sender of this letter is Heliodoros, another son of Sarapion. Altogether, twelve letters from him are preserved (e.g., also P.Sarap. 89 [2.112]) but he never formulated a letter opening or the opening part of a letter body in exactly the same wording twice. The formulas he used testify to his solid knowledge of Greek epistolography, but also to his ambition to personalize the general formulas. In the present letter, he combined the brief report that he was pleased with his father’s letter (see pp. 119–23) with a short prayer report, which is a formula usually introduced immediately after the opening greeting (see pp. 102–12). In lines 10–11, Heliodoros probably refers to the flood of the Nile (see note 1), which suggests that the previously mentioned business matters were most likely related to agriculture, but further details are lost. [2.112] P.Sarap. 89 (TM 17111) Letter from Heliodoros to Phibas

Greek Papyrus, written probably in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found at Hermopolis/ Egypt (TM Geo 816), 90–133 CE Ed. J. Schwartz 1961 (P.Sarap. 89).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: A. Fuks 1960 (C.Pap.Jud. 2.441, col. 3). – Cf. F. Bilabel 1923 (P.Bad. 2.39, col. 3); A. Fuks 1960 (C.Pap.Jud. 2.441, col. 3); *Pucci Ben Zeev 2005, 73–74 no. 44; *Arzt-Grabner 2020, 80–81; *Reinard 2016, 765–66. – Online information and image: http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~gv0/ Papyri/VBP_II/039/VBP_II_39.html. Archive of Eutychides son of Sarapion (TM Arch 87; *Sarri 2018, 266–67; see p. 305); see also P.Sarap. 85 [2.111]; 100 [2.113]; CPR 5.19 [2.114] is uncertain. In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–17 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

306

Chapter 8

Heliodoros to Phibas his brother, greetings. More than you when you receive the letters that |5 I send you, I am glad writing them and greeting you. That is why I have been waiting anxiously for anyone who is sailing up to |10 transmit to you the assurance that I have not forgotten what is befitting. […] but may the gods preserve us from harm |15 and—ạṃọṇg̣ ẹṿẹṛỵ ḍạṇg̣ẹṛ— ṃạḳẹ ụṣ p̣ṛọṣp̣ẹṛ1 […] … […] Note 1 This line is very fragmentary, and only ink traces are preserved of the following line. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–12 (reference to) report of joy (pp. 119–23), 13–16 final health wish and prayer report? (pp. 170–71).

This copy of a letter is preserved as col. 3 of a papyrus sheet. The first twelve lines are completely preserved, after another four incomplete lines the papyrus breaks off. The other two copies of letters that are preserved on the same papyrus, are P.Sarap. 87 which is poorly preserved, and P.Sarap. 88. Another of the altogether twelve letters from Heliodoros is, for example, P.Sarap. 85 [2.111]. [2.113] P.Sarap. 100 (TM 17125) Letter from Amphion to Heliodoros

Greek papyrus, written in Hermopolites (TM Geo 2720), found at Hermopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 816), 90–133 CE Ed. J. Schwartz 1961 (P.Sarap. 100).  –  Cf. R. Karst 1948 (P.Stras. 3.140).  –  No image available. Archive of Eutychides son of Sarapion (TM Arch 87; *Sarri 2018, 266–67; see p. 305); see also P.Sarap. 85 [2.111]; 89 [2.112]; CPR 5.19 [2.114] is uncertain.

307

The Letters

Amphion to Heliodoros, the most honored, g(reetings).1 Before everything I pray that you are healthy. It would have been entirely necessary to console |5  us until you come back happily to us, who are greeting you by letters and obtain-ing the equivalent in your answer. But since you are distracted by |10 unsettled matters,2 to express myself in this way, we console ourselves by writing to you and by learning from others about your well-disposed well-being. I pray that you fare well |15 and prosper. Greet …

(Lines 16–20 are indented in the same way as lines 14–15 but too fragmentary to be translated).

|21 To Heliodoros from ⪥ Amphion.

(Back)

Notes 1 The greeting χαίρειν in line 2 is abbreviated; only the first character chi was written. For examples of the abbreviated greeting formula see *Arzt-Grabner 2022, 562–66. 2 Or “uncertain conditions.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 14–15 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 15–20 postscript (pp. 182–84), 15–? secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 21 address (pp. 185–86), 21 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The contents of the letter are simple: Amphion waits for letter(s) from Heliodoros but instead of complaining (as many letter writers do, cf. pp. 132–33) he tells his addressee that he himself is writing again to keep up the correspondence. The whole letter does not disclose any news but is rich with sophisticated and eloquent kindness expressed by a well-educated letter writer. [2.114] CPR 5.19 (TM 24981) Letter from Herm… to Serapion

Greek papyrus, Egypt, I–II CE Ed. J. R. Rea and P. J. Sijpesteijn 1976 (CPR 5.19, image: Tafel 18). – Cf. G. H. R. Horsley 1976 (New Docs. 1.16); *Stowers 1986, 28; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 133–34; *Kreuzsaler 2010a, 17–20, image: p. 18; C. Kreuzsaler 2010b, “Kat.-Nr. 154: Grüße an Sarapion,” in *Kreuzsaler, Palme, and Zdiarsky 2010, 132–33. – Online information and images: http://data.onb. ac.at/rec/RZ00002532. Whether this letter is part of the Archive of Eutychides son of Sarapion (TM Arch 87; *Sarri 2018, 266–67; see p. 305) is uncertain (cf. J. R. Rea in CPR 5, p. 45); see also P.Sarap. 85 [2.111]; 89 [2.112]; 100 [2.113].

308

Chapter 8

Herm… [… to Serapion]1 and [….] greetings, and (may you) always remain in wellbeing in all your body |5 for a long time, since your genius permitted us to pay our respects to you and greet you. As you also commemorate us on every occasion by |10 letter, so I too make obeisance here for you before the lords Dioscuri and before the lord Serapis, and I pray for you for well-being |15 in your entire life and for the health of your children and of your entire household. And may you fare well in everything, my patron and fosterer. Greet your people, all the |20 men and all the women. All gods and all goddesses2 here greet you. Farewell. Thoth 16.3 (Back)

To Serapion, the lord.

Notes 1 In the opening greeting, the name of the addressee can only be restored from the address on the back. 2 “Gods and goddesses” refers to persons (not real gods) at the sender’s place. 3 Line 22 consists of only one word and thus ends only a few cm from the left margin. The line with the final greeting and dating follows a little bit deeper and is indented. Thoth 16 is 13 September in our reckoning (or 14 Sep in a year before a Julian leap year). The regnal year is not mentioned, thus making a more exact dating of the letter impossible. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–5 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 10–17 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 17–19 final health wish (pp. 170–71), 19–22 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 23 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 23 date (pp. 184–85), 24 address (pp. 185–86).

The letter consists solely of greetings and courtesies, which is why its editor characterized it as “almost entirely made up of deferential greetings to the recipient” (J. R. Rea in CPR 5, p. 45). G. H. R. Horsley (in New Docs. 1, p. 57) added further: “This letter entirely lacks circumstantial content. So taken up is it with fulsome greeting of the addressee and his family and with prayers for their good health that one may even wonder what gave rise to it at all.” The sender’s neat language is evident, containing formulas that are elaborated far beyond the usual standard as well as sophisticated and highly stylized formulations, which, in several details, are even unique. For example, although the popular Egyptian-Greek god Serapis is often invoked in the so-called proskynema formula (see pp. 109–11), the mention here of the Dioscuri Castor and Pollux is unique, as is the form of the forwarded greetings by “all the gods and goddesses here” (cf. note 2). With his efforts to formulate a particularly “literary” text, the writer has probably gone a bit too far and produced a sentence that could, at best, be understood metaphorically by the ancient reader (Kreuzsaler 2010b,

309

The Letters

133). The sun (or star?) drawn in front of the address on the back of the papyrus may well match the letter author’s whole style. Similar examples are SB 24.16334 (II CE?) and TM 140706 (P.Laur. inv. PL III 978; II–early III CE). [2.115] O.Krok. 2.203 (TM 704488) Letter from Tiberia to Priscus

Greek ostracon, written at Phoinikon? (TM Geo 5036), sent to and found at Krokodilo/Egypt (TM Geo 3655), 98–117 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2019 (O.Krok. 2.203, image: p. 92). – Online images: https://www. ifao.egnet.net/bases/publications/fifao81/ (“n° ostracon” = “203”). Archive of Philokles (TM Arch 621; see pp. 93, 311); see also O.Krok. 2.208 [2.116]; 155 [2.117]; 193 [2.118]; 233 [2.119]; 227 [2.120].

Tiberia to Priscus, her lord and brother, g(reetings). Above everything else, night and day I pray for |5 nothing but your health. This letter I write to you as the fifth, but you (have not written) a single one. You all but |10 said this to me. Greet Apollinaris. Sknips and Daddy greet you. Farewell. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–6 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 6–9 complaint (pp. 132–33), 10–14 secondary greetings (pp. 164– 68), 14 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

The sole purpose of this ostracon letter is to rebuke the addressee for his shortcomings in letter writing and to remind him that this behavior is not at all in accordance with his promise to the letter sender. The second element raises the conventional rebuke beyond being merely formulaic, just as the prayer report is given a personal touch by Tiberias’s emphasis that she performs her prayers night and day. This aspect is also attested in the prayer report of 2 Tim 1:3 (prayers performed day and night, but not mentioned in the context of a prayer report at the beginning of a letter, are referenced in 1 Thess 3:10 and 1 Tim 5:5). [2.116] O.Krok. 2.208 (TM 704493) Letter from Antoninus to Secunda

Greek ostracon, written at Persou (TM Geo 2837), found at Krokodilo/Egypt (TM Geo 3655), 98–117 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2019 (O.Krok. 2.208). – Online images: https://www.ifao.egnet .net/bases/publications/fifao81/ (“n° ostracon” = “208”).

310

Chapter 8

Archive of Philokles (TM Arch 621; see pp. 93, 311); see also O.Krok. 2.203 [2.115]; 155 [2.117]; 193 [2.118]; 233 [2.119]; 227 [2.120].

Antoninus to Secunda. Until now I have considered you a woman, but you are not a woman. You have caused the whole praesidium to be untrustworthy. |5 I feel no shame at all coming to you, but now I am going to be ashamed1 because of the pig. If you do not come here, he does not give it to us. |10 Well, you shall bring the half-artaba of bread, do not send it to me. I have written this ostracon instead of the small one.2 Notes 1 Antoninus probably wants to express that he was not ashamed when he was seen with Secunda before her crime, whatever it was, but now and in the future he will be. 2 The meaning of this last sentence is presumably “that another letter, written on a small ostracon and with different instructions, had preceded this one” (A. BülowJacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 98). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 10–11 request with imperative (p. 140).

This is undoubtedly one of the angriest letters from Greco-Roman times. Although we do not learn the exact reason for this, which is somehow related to a pig, it must have been a serious one, since Antoninus even denies his addressee her womanhood. The remark that he could “come to her” without being ashamed makes one think of a sexual relationship, but the whole text does not provide sufficient evidence that the anger of the letter sender was connected to Secunda’s sexual morals (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 98). [2.117] O.Krok. 2.155 (TM 704440) Letter from Philokles to Kapparis and Didyme

Greek ostracon, written at Phoinikon? (TM Geo 5036), sent to and found at Krokodilo/Egypt (TM Geo 3655), 98–138 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2019 (O.Krok. 2.155).  –  Online images: https://www.ifao.egnet .net/bases/publications/fifao81/ (“n° ostracon” = “155”). Archive of Philokles (TM Arch 621; see p. 93 and below); see also O.Krok. 2.203 [2.115]; 208 [2.116]; 193 [2.118]; 233 [2.119]; 227 [2.120].

Philokles to Kapparis and Didyme, both his brothers, very many greetings. I beg you1 |5 to look after my child and her mother and everything in the house as always, for |10 you2 know also now, that we have no one

311

The Letters

but ourselves. I consider that I am there. Receive a bunch |15 of cabbage from Maximus. Write1 to me about the matters concerning which I write to Sknips |20 at once. Farewell.3 Notes 1 A plural form is used here, which refers to both addressees. 2 In this instance Philokles uses the singular, with only Kapparis in mind. 3 As usual with ostraca, the writing space was simply filled from edge to edge, but the final greeting was deliberately placed in a separate line and centered. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–4 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–2 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 4–9 request “beg” (pp. 141–43), 10 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 14–20 requests with imperative (p. 140), 21 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

Philokles, the central figure of the archive to which this letter belongs, seems to have been a Greek-speaking Egyptian who had a vegetable garden and whose main residence was in Phoinikon (TM Geo 5036). He made his living selling vegetables and renting women to the Roman soldiers in the camps of Krokodilo and Didymoi. This letter was sent to his business partner Kapparis and the latter’s companion Didyme, addressing both as “brothers,” that is as “brother and sister” (see p. 97). Apparently Sknips, the first wife of Philokles, is also there. The child mentioned could be one of Hegemonis, who—as other ostraca in the archive suggest—is probably his second wife; both women were obviously on good terms. A noteworthy detail of this ostracon is found in lines 12–13, where Philokles expresses his confidence that he can be in the presence of the addressees through his letter (“I consider that I am there”; cf. A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 46; for further information on this topic see pp. 57–60). [2.118] O.Krok. 2.193 (TM 704478) Letter from Menandros to Gallonia

Greek ostracon, written at Persou (TM Geo 2837), sent to and found at Krokodilo/ Egypt (TM Geo 3655), 98–138 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2019 (O.Krok. 2.193, image: p. 83) – Online images: https://www .ifao.egnet.net/bases/publications/fifao81/ (“n° ostracon” = “193”). Archive of Philokles (TM Arch 621; see pp. 93, 311); see also O.Krok. 2.203 [2.115]; 208 [2.116]; 155 [2.117]; 233 [2.119]; 227 [2.120].

312

Chapter 8

(Convex side)

Menandros to Gallonia his daughter, greetings. I make obeisance for you, child, before all the |5 gods. Why, child, do you reproach me, that I have not written a letter to you? … … I said: “I am ashamed that I have nothing to send you.” You write that you [pray?] to the |10 gods. For we have no one but you. If I had been able, I would have come to you. Now you may see neither your home nor your mother. Your mother is Didyme, and Kapparis |15 is a second father. So, do not, child, be distressed as if you were among strangers.

(Concave side)

If you are able, child, |20 to buy a half-artaba of wheat there and to make it into bread for us there, you will do well, child. Greet the |25  curator many times. Greet Didyme and Kapparis and Barbarion and Mousa and everyone in the |30 praesidium. Farewell.1 Say to Barbaras: “I shall send you the whetstone after tomorrow.” (Traces of two lines from the previous text ending with “farewell”).

Note 1 The final greeting is written in a separate line to the right of the line’s center, with a blank space remaining to the right of it. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 11–12 explanation for a postponed visit (pp. 129–31), 16–18 request with imperative (p. 140), 19–24 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 24–30 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 31 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 32–34 postscript (pp. 182–84).

The ostracon letter was sent by a certain Menandros to his daughter Gallonia, who currently had to stay with other people. It illustrates that a correspondent did not always accept the accusation of not having written. In lines 5–7, Menandros dismisses the rebuke and, after a clause that is unfortunately illegible, adds: “I said, ‘I am ashamed that I have nothing to send you’” (lines 7–9). On the other hand, he expresses his understanding of the girl’s pain at being separated from her parents and tries to comfort her by, first, assuring her that he would have come if it had been possible and, second, asking her to see her current hosts not as strangers but as second parents. The request for bread may not only be based on a need on the side of the parents, but also on an effort to distract the daughter from her homesickness by giving her an assignment.

313

The Letters

[2.119] O.Krok. 2.233 (TM 704518) Fragmentary Letter

Greek ostracon, written at Didymoi (TM Geo 3125), sent to and found at Krokodilo/ Egypt (TM Geo 3655), 98–138 C E Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2019 (O.Krok. 2.233). – Online images: https://www.ifao.egnet .net/bases/publications/fifao81/ (“n° ostracon” = “233”) Archive of Philokles (TM Arch 621; see pp. 93, 311); see also O.Krok. 2.203 [2.115]; 208 [2.116]; 155 [2.117]; 193 [2.118]; 227 [2.120].

[… and I/we make obeisance for you] before the gods here, the Dioscuri. Since you went away, |5 here, I haven’t yet not been unthinking of you, for every day I [make] obeisance |10 [for you …] half mation of salt. Greet Barbara. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–4, 8–9 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–7 motif of remembrance (pp. 112–15), 12–13 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

The opening greeting and the beginning of the proskynema are not preserved. The bottom end is complete, and the blank space below line 11 confirms that a final greeting was never written. In addition to the unique form of a motif of remembrance emphasized by the double negation (“I haven’t yet not been unthinking of you” or “I have never once not thought of you”), the double proskynema is significant for this ostracon letter, the first performed “before the gods here, the Dioscuri,” the second before another god or goddess whose name is not preserved. [2.120] O.Krok. 2.227 (TM 704512) Letter from Serapias to Apolo[narios?]

Greek ostracon, written probably in Persou (TM Geo 2837), found at Krokodilo (TM Geo 3655), 98–138 CE? Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2019 (O.Krok. 2.227).  –  Digital image: https://www.ifao.egnet .net/bases/publications/fifao81/?id=227_728_1IR.

The letter is incomplete, but 21 fragments could be identified as being part of it, and some could be joined to form two coherent groups. Archive of Philokles (TM Arch 621; see pp. 93, 311); O.Krok. 2.203 [2.115]; 208 [2.116]; 155 [2.117]; 193 [2.118]; 233 [2.119].

314

Chapter 8

Sera[pia]s to Apolo[narios?]1 his master2 and brother, very many greetings and through all good health. And I, too, am well … |5  … daily … whenever anything about your [health], my master,2 know … |10 … |15 the lady (Athena?).3 I pray to the gods that I will sometime kiss you in good health. My master,2 do not forget me. [For] you know |20 [that] you are [my] brother, and [my] father, [and my] mother … I have [no one but you?] … |25 … leky- … Notes 1 Referring to O.Krok. 2.225, the editor argues that the addressee’s name should either be Apolinarios or Apollos (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 118). Αccording to the image, Ἀπολω̣[ ̣ ̣ ]̣ seems possible; as Apollos (or Apolos) seems to be too short for the lacuna, the recipient’s name could be Apolonarios. 2 Serapias calls her addressee κύριος, which is also often used for real brothers and is usually translated as “lord.” Since Serapias is a prostitute, the translation “master” seems to be more appropriate. 3 The “lady” is most certainly the goddess Athena whose worship in Persou is certain (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, pp. 69, 119). The letter was probably sent from there.

The handwriting could be identified as that of Philokles who is known from many ostraca from Didymoi (O.Did. 376–399) and Krokodilo (O.Krok. 2.152– 235).5 He seems to have been a Greek-speaking Egyptian who had a vegetable garden and whose main residence was in Phoinikon (TM Geo 5036). He made his living selling vegetables and renting women to the Roman soldiers in the camps of Krokodilo and Didymoi. Serapias is one of his prostitutes whom we know by name. She had obviously fallen passionately in love with one of her clients and wanted to send him a love letter. Although she was, supposedly, not literate herself, she managed to find help in writing this letter. But since it was her pimp Philokles who wrote it, the editor of the ostracon suspects him of not having hesitated to send “her on another contract to another praesidium,” (i.e., to a camp other than the one where her lover was serving; A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 116). Also, another letter, O.Krok. 2.225, is authored by Serapias and written by Philokles; maybe it refers to the same love affair. A special detail of this letter is the comparison of the addressee with brother, father, and mother in lines 20–22. Metaphorical family terminology is 5 On the dossier of Philokles see also TM Arch 621; on prostitution in the Roman camps of the Eastern Desert see H. Cuvigny in O.Did., pp. 24–28, and in O.Krok. 2, p. 29, as well as A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, pp. 33, 39.

The Letters

315

used quite often in the papyrus letters (see pp. 88–96), but this combination is unique. Serapias obviously wants to express that her lover is as important and close to her as if he were her whole family. Since it is indeed possible that, as a prostitute, she no longer has a family of her own, these lines are without doubt the emotional core of the whole letter. It is tempting to reconstruct the last letters of line 25 to ληκύ|[θιον], a small oil-flask, but the letter traces in front of it cannot be completed to the correct definite article. Another love affair between a prostitute and a Roman soldier, namely that of Iulia and Antonius, is attested by the letter O.Did. 333 [2.89] (before ca. 88–92 CE). Antonius is stationed at Didymoi, not far from Krokodilo and, being passionately in love with Julia, is late in returning her. In the letter, the pimp Cornelius rebukes Antonius in an unusually harsh manner. [2.121] P.Mich. 8.476 (TM 27089) Letter from Claudius Terentianus to Claudius Tiberianus

Greek papyrus, written in Alexandria (TM Geo 100) or nearby, found at Karanis/Egypt (TM Geo 1008), early II CE Ed. J.  G. Winter and H.  C. Youtie 1951 (P.Mich. 8.476; image: plate VI).  –  Addenda/ Corrigenda: BL 7:112; 13:137; S. Strassi 2008, L’archivio di Claudius Tiberianus da Karanis, APF Beiheft 26 (Berlin: De Gruyter), 47–48.  –  Cf. *White 1986, 173–75 no. 110; B. Pferdehirt 2002, Die Rolle des Militärs für den sozialen Aufstieg in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Forschungsinstitut für den sozialen Aufstieg in der römischen Kaiserzeit 49 (Bonn: Habelt), 188; Strassi 2008, 46–49 no. 11, 90–96 (see also index p. 185); P. M. Head 2014, “The Letters of Claudius Terentianus and the New Testament: Insights and Observations on Epistolary Themes,” TynBul 65:269–90; *Reinard 2016, 695, 739–41. – Online information: https://quod.lib. umich.edu/a/apis/x-2451; online information and images: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/ Michigan.html (select “8.476”). Archive of Claudius Tiberianus (TM Arch 54; *Reinard 2016, 693–768). In the following translation, the layout of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–33 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Claudius Terentianus to Claudius Tiberianus his lord and father, very many greetings. Above everything else I pray that you are healthy and of good fortune, that everything is going well for you, which is my wish. And I am healthy too and making obeisance for you every day |5 before the lord Serapis and the gods worshipped in the same temples. I want you to know, father, that

316

Chapter 8

I have received a basket from Achillas. Likewise, also another basket was given me by the soldier, in which I found two large loaves of bread and dates, and from the father of Iulius a small basket and my saddlebags and a container of papyrus rolls.1 He sent me word about a woman; having heard my opinion |10 he would introduce her to me(?). As far back as two years ago I would have had one in the house, but I didn’t allow myself to, and I won’t take one without your consent, and again you will have no occasion to hear word from me on the subject. If in any case, however, the woman whom it seems to me to take, be the one who may please you more for my sake (?), and care for you more than for me, the |15 outcome is that I do you a favor rather than that you blame me. Therefore, until today, a woman has not come into my house unless one whom you approve. You for your part know well, in turn, that with settling your affairs I have … [If] you remain immobile for your whole life, I renounce a woman of my own. If not, the one whom you approve, I want her too. |20 I wrote you this letter at night, when I found the opportunity, but I could not send it to you. Please be so good as to write to me a reply about your well-being and a response to my letter. Greet all those in the Caesareum,2 each by name. Greet Didymos, the notary, together with his entire household. You will tell Longinus |25 that I hope to go upcountry again. For one thing I thank the gods, that, of the eight drachmas, I gave most of it to you. If not, it would have been the same. And if you go up to the Arsinoites, go to Cursilla’s and get the five logs of wood and bring them down, when you come, along with whatever else you can bring for us for the |30 winter. Epitynchanon greets you.

(Left margin, downwards)

Greet all those who love [us]3 by name. Deliv to Claudius Tiberianus ⪥ […] … […] … his son from Claudiu[s Tere]ntianus, sol le.4

(Back)

Notes 1 Reading according to Strassi (2008, 47–48) who translates “un contenitore di fogli di papiro” (a container of papyrus sheets); since χάρτης means “papyrus” and, when referring to the format, “papyrus roll,” which was the format bought in a shop and transported in containers, the meaning here may as well be “a container of papyrus rolls,” as suggested in the above translation. 2 According to Strassi (2008, 93–94), the phrase refers to a group of veterans and military personnel (cf. *Reinard 2016, 695).

317

The Letters

3 The phrase “all those who love us” may also be interpreted as “all our friends.” 4 The abbreviations of the address have not been resolved in the translation due to lack of space; it reads: “Deliv(er) to Claudius Tiberianus […] … […] … from Claudiu[s Tere]ntianus \his son/, sol(dier) of the le(gion).” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 health wish and prayer report (pp. 102–12), 21–23 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 5, 17 disclosure formulas (pp. 136–38), 23, 30–31 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 24–25 request with future tense as imperative (p. 140), 27–30 requests with imperative (p. 140), 32–33 address (pp. 185–86).

As mentioned in the address on the back of the papyrus, Claudius Terentianus wrote the letter while on service as a legionary. His remark that he is writing at night suggests that he wrote the entire letter himself in his own handwriting. At the beginning of the letter body, Terentianus confirms to have received several deliveries of various goods but since he writes that he received something “from Achillas” (not “through Achillas”) etc., it seems that these were not sent to him by the addressee, his father, at least not all of them. Why he mentions all these shipments in the letter to his father is unclear. Perhaps for lack of opportunities to write several letters to the persons in question (cf. line 20), he expected his father to inform them. The main purpose of the letter is to persuade the father to allow him to take a wife into the house. The fact that Terentianus is extremely unsure of the father’s approval and tries to make him believe that he could even take advantage of it, even more than the son himself, indicates either that the father’s approval even in matters concerning the son’s own private life was of the utmost importance to the son or that the father’s attitude towards the son was very authoritarian after all, or both. A final greeting is not preserved. Since the papyrus is quite abraded in the one still legible line on the left margin, and since there would have been enough space below this line for a final greeting, it may simply not have survived. Two other letters from Terentianus to Tiberianus, P.Mich. 8.477 and 479, end with almost the same secondary greetings as here (“greet all your friends by name”), to which is then appended the final greeting “I pray that you fare well” (in 479 “… for many years”). [2.122] O.Claud. 1.174 (TM 29818) Letter from Isidoros to Isidoros and Paniskos

Greek ostracon, Mons Claudianus/Egypt (TM Geo 2783), early II CE Ed. L. Rubinstein 1992 (O.Claud. 1.174, image: pl. XXVIII). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 13:271. – Cf. I. Bonati 2016, Il lessico dei vasi e dei contenitori greci nei papiri: Specimina

318

Chapter 8

per un repertorio lessicale degli angionimi greci, APF Beiheft 37 (Berlin: De Gruyter), 300–301 no. 3. – Online image: https://www.nakala.fr/ (search for “O.Claud. 174”).

Isidoros to Isidoros and Paniskos his sons, greetings. I wrote to you through another ostracon that you should send me the |5 small pillow for my elbow because I suffer pain while sleeping, and you did not send it. So, send it and the ink and 2 sticks of eye salve, and take half of the small (?) and put them in a piece of cloth and send them, because your ink leaves stains (?) |10 on the hand when I start (?) writing, and I will send you recompense. About the money I wrote another time that I will send it as soon as I sell the barley. Send me all the letters that may have been brought to me from Egypt. I have |15 decided that you should not shave because you are in the {in the} desert. Do not neglect to provide … what I write to you. Farewell. Phaophi 22. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 3–6, 11–13 references to previous letters (pp. 149–51), 6–11, 13–17 requests with imperative (p. 140), 18 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 19–20 date (pp. 184–85).

Both the letter sender and his sons live in the Eastern Desert, but the sons presumably reside in the main camp, as they are asked to forward to their father the letters that have arrived for him from the Nile Valley. What exactly Isidoros was trying to explain in lines 9–10 remains unclear, since the meanings of some of the words used seem unusual. I suspect that his sons should wrap the ink in an extra piece of cloth so that their father’s hand would not be stained when opening the package. [2.123] O.Did. 402 (144963) Letter from Veturius to Panisneus and Theanous

Greek ostracon, Didymoi/Egypt (TM Geo 3125), before ca. 110–115 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2012 (O.Did. 402).  –  Cf. *Reinard 2016, 598–99; *Heinz et al. 2020, 183 no. 78; A. Tabone 2020, “Frauen und Prostitution in den Ostraka aus der östlichen Wüste Ägyptens,” in *Reinard 2020, 107–19, here 108–9. – Online images: https:// www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/publications/fifao67/ (“n° ostracon” = “402”). (Convex side)

Veturius to Panis[neus an]d Theanous both of them, greetings. I pray that you1 are well and healthy. The moment I heard that you2 had |5 given birth, I rejoiced greatly and lit lamps for Aphrodite. If it seems right to

319

The Letters

you2 to come here with the caravan, you2 will not be distressed. If you2 come, being healthy3, you yourself3 should bring me the |10  leather ground sheet, and if not, send it to me through someone trustworthy for I cannot stay without it. I thank … |15 Farewell.

(Left margin, downwards)

…

(Concave side)

Demetra greets you2. She asks you2 to come here and don’t you2 come4 via Kaine.

Notes 1 The form is plural and thus referring to both recipients. 2 These forms are singular and referring to the woman Theanous. 3 These forms are feminine singular and thus clearly referring to Theanous. 4 The Greek term for “come” is the last of the entire text and is centered in the middle of line 20. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–2 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 3–4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–6 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 6–9 invitation to visit (p. 148), 7 request “if it seems right” (p. 141), 8–13 requests with future tense as imperative (p. 140), 15 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 16–20 postscript (pp. 182–84), 17 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 18–20 invitation to visit (p. 148).

According to the opening greeting and the health wish (lines 1–4) the letter is addressed to Panisneus and Theanous, but the entire rest of the letter, including the final greeting (line 15) and a postscript (lines 16–20), is only directed to Theanous, who was probably the woman of Veturius. The editor further assumes that Veturius was forced by his duties as a soldier to leave Theanous behind while she was highly pregnant and therefore unable to travel, but that now, after she had given birth, he asked her to come to him if her health already permitted (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Did., p. 333). [2.124] O.Claud. 1.151 (TM 24162) Letter from Sabinus to Zosimos

Greek ostracon, Mons Claudianus/Egypt (TM Geo 2783), ca. 100–120 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 1992 (O.Claud. 1.151).  –  Cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 60.  –  Online image: https://www.nakala.fr/10.34847/nkl.f5deiyj5. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the ostracon as closely as possible.

320

Chapter 8

Sabinus to Zosimos his dearest,1 very many greetings. Please2 keep an eye on my slaves so that no |5 harm comes to them. I pray that you fare well, sweetest.1 Notes 1 On the epithets “dearest” (Greek φίλτατος) and “sweetest” (Greek γλυκύτατος) see p. 85. 2 The writer used the passive participle of “to ask,” so literally “asked (by me)” or simply “please.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 request “please” (p. 141), 6–7 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

[2.125] P.Mich. 3.203 (TM 21342) Letter from Saturnilus to Aphrodous

Greek papyrus, written in Pselkis (TM Geo 1949), sent to Karanis (TM Geo 1008), found in Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), 114–116 CE Ed. J.  G. Winter 1936 (P.Mich. 3.203).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 3:111; 7:109.  –  Cf. *Winter 1933, 50–51; H. C. Youtie 1976, “P.Mich. III 203,” ZPE 20:288–92; M. P. Speidel 1985, “Furlough in the Roman Army,” YCS 28:283–93, here 291–93; *Rowlandson 1998, 93–94 no. 74; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 163–64; *Zerbini 2014, 297–98. – Online information and images: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-1636; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document /21342.

Saturnilus to Aphrodous his mother, very many greetings. Above everything else I pray that you are healthy and prosperous. I want you to know that I sent you three letters this month. I have received in full the monthly allowances which you sent to me through Iulius and |5 a basket of olives through the lad of Iulius. I want you to know that another male child has been born to me, whose name is Agathos Daimon. The gods willing, if I find an opportunity of putting my plan into effect, I am coming to you1 with letters. I want you to know that, look, it is three months since I came to Pselkis, and I have not yet found |10 an opportunity to come to you.1 I was afraid to come just now because they say that the prefect is on the road, lest he take the letters from me and send me back to the troops, and

The Letters

321

I incur the expense in vain. But this I want you to know that if another two months pass and I do not come to you1 before the month Hathyr, I have eighteen more |15 months of sitting in garrison until I enter Pselkis again and come to you.1 All those who come will bear witness to you1 how I seek daily to come. If you1 want to see me a little, I (want it) greatly, and I pray daily to the gods that they may quickly give me the good chance to come. Everything in the army works |20 with the right opportunity. If I have the opportunity, I am coming to you.1 Take1 care of my children’s pigs for me so that if my children come, they may find them. At the next opportunity please be so good as to send to Ioulas son of Iulius, whatever allowance you can, and let him be as a son of mine, even as you love me and I [love] my children. |25 [If] his brother is at leisure, send him to me at once [so that] I may send my children and their mother to you by him. And [send] me an extra jar of olives for a friend of mine; do not [do] otherwise. You know that whatever you give to Iulius he brings me, which he indeed promised me to do. Write to me [whatever] he does. Greet Sokmenios and his children and |30 […] and Sabinus and Thaisas and her children and my brothers and Tabegka, my sister, and her husband and her relations-in-law. And if she has had a child, write to me. Greet Tasokmenis, my lady sister, and Sambas and Soueris and her [children] and Sambous and all the relations and friends, |35 [each by name]. Gemella greets you1 all, as do Didymarion and the [newly born] Agathos Daimon and Epiktetos. Greet1 Gemellus [and …] the wife of […]lianus. And it was no great matter […]. I pray that you1 all fare well. [(Year) … of Trajan], most Excellent, Caesar, the lord. Phaophi 25. |40 To Karanis ⪥ to his mother (?) Aphrodous daughter of […] from Saturnilus, soldier [of? …].

(Back)

Note 1 In these cases the plural form is used, thus referring not only to the mother of the letter sender, but probably to the entire household. Other forms of the second person are singular. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–2 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 2–3, 5–6, 8, 13, 28 disclosure formulas (pp. 136–38), 3 reference to previous letters (pp. 149–51), 3–5 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54), 7–21 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 21–22, 22–29 requests with imperative (p. 140), 22–23 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 28 reference to named letter carrier, but not of current letter (pp. 196–98), 29–37 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 38 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 39 date (pp. 184–85), 40–41 address (pp. 185–86), 40 sealing (pp. 186–87).

322

Chapter 8

This letter from the soldier Saturnilus to his mother Aphrodous in Karanis was written in a very regular handwriting and thus certainly by a skilled scribe. Saturnilus has already been stationed in Pselkis in Nubia (TM Geo 1949) for three months, more than 900 km south from his hometown (*Zerbini 2014, 296), and hopes for an early opportunity to visit his mother and family. As the text indicates, the best chance of accomplishing this would be for him to pay a considerable sum of money to an authorized superior to be dispatched as an official letter carrier, and thus within the scope of the cursus publicus (cf. p. 193), with letters to the prefect in Alexandria; in this way, he hopes to be able to make a detour to his own people in Karanis. However, now he has learned that the prefect is currently on his way from Alexandria to Pselkis, which foils the cunning plan. If he had been set on the march now, he would inevitably have encountered the prefect on the way, who would have taken the letters from him, declared his mission accomplished, and sent him back to the troops before the detour to Karanis had even become possible; and the entire investment would have been in vain. In the military, as Saturnilus writes in lines 19–21, everything depends on the right opportunity, and as soon as he finds one, he will come (cf. Youtie 1976; Speidel 1985, 292–93). The detailed description of his longing and the repeated emphasis on his efforts to visit his mother go far beyond a mere account of the situation. It is noteworthy that the formula “if the gods are willing” (line 7) and its variant “if the gods permit” are typically used in connection with a journey (cf. p. 160 nn. 100–101; Rom 15:32; 1 Cor 16:7), suggesting that travelers often faced obstacles and dangers. The errands he asks his mother to perform occupy a comparatively small amount of space. The relatively extensive list of greetings once again underscores the great importance Saturnilus attaches to the connection with his people back home. He even forwards the greetings of his newly born sun. [2.126] SB 10.10277 (TM 16754) Letter from Heras to Epaphroditos

Greek papyrus, written in Hermopolites (TM Geo 2720), found at Hermopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 816)?, 26 Apr–24 Jun 116 CE? Ed. H. Maehler 1966, “Zwei neue Bremer Papyri,” CdE 41/82:342–53, here 343–47, image: p. 344 (= SB 10.10277). – Addenda/Corrigenda: *Nachtergaele 2023, 337. – Cf. *Pucci Ben Zeev 2005, 26–27 no. 21, 171; *Reinard 2016, 648–50, 677–78. – Online information and images: https://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/urn/urn:nbn:de:gbv:46:1-1282. Archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Arch 19; *Reinard 2016, 563–692; *Sarri 2018, 262–63; see p. 329); see also P.Brem. 56app [2.127]; 20 [2.128]; 5 [2.129]; PSI 4.308 [2.130] is uncertain.

The Letters

323

In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–3 and of the final greeting in lines 23–24 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 4–22 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Heras to Epaphroditos—1 his lord father,—1 greetings.—1 After [find]ing only with difficulty the |5 one going to —1 you, I was able to greet you. And I know that this is —1 what you desire. So I beg you to write back to me regarding both your well-being |10 and my brother’s health. Now please be so good, lord, as to send for my mother and my sister, |15 since a duplicarius came to Chenoboskia2 and told Archias that Hermoupolis is in extreme danger. Greet Chresimos and |20 Kastor and Sarapion, the thin one, and Hierakion and Phibas and those [… ] our [most] beloved ones. [Farewell, my] lord fa[ther]. Notes 1 For aesthetic reasons, Heras used line fillers at the end of lines 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. 2 On Chenoboskia see TM Geo 5089. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 4–5 reference to letter carrier (pp. 191–99), 8–11 request “beg” (pp. 141–43), 11–19 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 19–23 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 23–24 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

After referring to the difficulty of finding a letter carrier, Heras chose his own short expression in lines 6–7 to let his father know that he is somehow familiar

324

Chapter 8

with basic epistolary conventions otherwise expressed in the form of a health wish (see pp. 102–5), a prayer report (see pp. 102–12), or a motif of remembrance (see pp. 112–15). Or Heras thought of the cliché that receiving a letter often caused the addressee to rejoice or be grateful, and that this would be the case with his father as well (on the report of joy see pp. 119–23, on the thanksgiving report pp. 123–28). The main subject of the letter is the author’s concern for the health of his family members, triggered by particularly bad news related to the Jewish War of 115–117 CE (see *Pucci Ben Zeev 2005). [2.127] P.Brem. 56app (TM 19641) Letter from Asinnius Secundus to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, Hermopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 816), 113–120 CE Ed. Ulrich Wilcken 1936 (P.Brem. 56app). – Cf. F. Preisigke 1915 (SB 1.4630). – No image available. In 1915 F. Preisigke published a transcription by W. Schubart of this hitherto unpublished papyrus (SB 1.4630), which was then in the private possession of G. Bergfeld in Bremen. U. Wilcken only re-edited Schubart’s transcription in 1936 (P.Brem. 56app) and noted that he himself had not seen the papyrus. Instead of a translation and a detailed commentary (as usual with the other papyri edited in P.Brem.) Wilcken merely added a kind of romantic description of the supposed situation in which this letter was written (see below). The current whereabouts of the papyrus are unknown. Archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Arch 19; *Reinard 2016, 563–692; *Sarri 2018, 262–63; see p. 329); see also SB 10.10277 [2.126]; P.Brem. 20 [2.128]; 5 [2.129]; PSI 4.308 [2.130] is uncertain. The layout of the following translation reflects, more or less, that of the papyrus as presented in the edition.

Asinnius Secundus to Apollonios his brother, greetings. Until just now we have been expecting (you), and when we received your letter by which you |5 apologized for a foot malady, …yet we are confident because of your sweetness of mind towards the brother Theon that it will not occur to you to be separated from us. But as you have |10 not come to us today, it is a must for us to welcome you tomorrow.

The Letters

325

And we are indeed heartbroken until we learn how your foot is doing. From what was prepared for us for dinner, |15 you, brother, take your small portion— namely, half a piglet, and two chickens, and two pigeons. (h2) I pray that you fare well, most honored brother |20 and lord. (Back)

(Traces of address)

Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 9–11 invitation to visit (p. 148), 18–20 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 21 traces of address (pp. 185–86).

Whether the strategos Apollonios can actually be identified with the addressee of this letter is a matter of controversy. Since the papyrus comes from the same find as numerous papyri in the archive, W. Schubart considered it very likely that this letter was addressed to the well-known strategos, although neither Asinnius Secundus nor Theon are mentioned elsewhere in the archive (cf. SB 1, p. 395). For U. Wilcken (in P.Brem., pp. 128–29), who published another letter of Asinnius, P.Brem. 56, this identification was rather problematic, because the address on the back of P.Brem. 56 (“from Asinnius, decurio”) differs from those of all other letters addressed to the strategos insofar as his name is regularly mentioned there either alone or before the name of the sender. Wilcken, therefore, concluded that both letters were addressed to one of the numerous Apollonii in the area. It should be noted, however, that the special address on the back of P.Brem. 56 is not a convincing argument for two reasons: First, the address is on a letter of Asinnius; in what form other letter writers addressed a letter to Apollonios is ultimately irrelevant. Second, since only this letter from Asinnius has a readable address, there is no possibility of comparison with other letters from the same author. It seems more important to me that only here in the whole archive a “brother” Theon is mentioned, but the form of address “brother” could be meant metaphorically (note that Asinnius speaks of “the brother,” not “your brother”), and Theon anyway seems to belong to the circle of Asinnius, which makes it understandable that he is only mentioned in this letter. If we compare the present letter with other letters addressed to the strategos Apollonios, we can observe, in favor of the strategos as the recipient of

326

Chapter 8

this letter, that he—as here in the final greeting written by Asinnius Secundus himself—is also by other letter senders addressed as “most honored brother” (cf. P.Brem. 5.15–16 [2.129]; 21.13; 22.14); in fact, only the strategos Apollonios is addressed in this way.6 In his re-edition of this letter, U. Wilcken (in P.Brem., p. 130) described the situation in which the letter was written as follows: The Roman decurio Asinnius Secundus has invited Apollonios to his house; his wife has already made great preparations for the evening meal, the family is waiting for the guest. There is a letter from him instead, in which he apologizes for suffering from a foot problem. So Asinnius immediately sits down and writes him this letter. Wilcken adds (p. 131): This is a picture from the social life in these circles, obviously from the times of peace, which we could hardly wish for to be any fresher and more vivid. [2.128] P.Brem. 20 (TM 19605) Letter from Apollonios to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, Hermopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 816), second half 116–120 CE? Ed. U. Wilcken 1936 (P.Brem. 20). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 13:49. – Cf. *Reinard 2016, 591–92. – Online information and images: https://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/papyri /content/titleinfo/770784; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/19605. Archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Arch 19; *Reinard 2016, 563–692; *Sarri 2018, 262–63; see p. 329); see also SB 10.10277 [2.126]; P.Brem. 56app [2.127]; 5 [2.129]; PSI 4.308 [2.130] is uncertain. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and of lines 15–20 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–14 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Apollonios to Apollonios his most honored, greetings. When I arrived at Lykopolis on the 2nd and received your letter,1 I re joiced, |5 brother, that you are faring well together with your people, for this is what I am praying for. I did not find Ploution present here,2 but it is 6 This is also supported by letters in which the strategos is greeted at the beginning as the “most honored” Apollonios, but in the course of the letters or in the final greetings is addressed as “brother” (P.Brem. 10.2, 5, 15; 20.2, 5 [2.128]; P.Giss. 1.69.1, 4, 16; 75.2, 3, 10; 88.2, 5; 89.2, 4). Within the archive this combination is also only found in letters to the strategos Apollonios.

The Letters

327

said that he fulfilled your order. This2 will now |10 be sent up to you immedi ately after his arrival. That I have not come to you, I beg you to forgive me, for the pending businesses held me fast. But after a few days, if the |15 gods preserve me, I will come to you. (h2) I pray that you fare well, my lord Apollonios, togeth er with your unenchanted3 children. (h3) Farewell. |20 (h1) To Apollonios, strategos ⪥ of Apollonop(olites) (Hepta)komias.4

(Back)

Notes 1 The writer used the plural here (literally “letters”) which can also refer to a single letter, the meaning preferred by the editor in his translation (cf. U. Wilcken in P.Brem., p. 58). 2 The letter sender was supposed to meet Ploution in Lykopolis to fetch from him what was to be sent to the strategos. “This” in line 9 refers to the corresponding item. 3 The Greek term ἀβάσκαντος is not easy to translate into English; it means that the person described as such may not be struck by the evil eye (i.e., may remain immune from any harm caused by spells etc.). 4 As a kind of abbreviation, Heptakomias is written with zeta as Greek numeral for 7 (Greek hepta), followed by komias. Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 6–7 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 11–14 explanation for a postponed visit (pp. 129–31), 14–15 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 16–19 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 20 address (pp. 185–86), 20 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The letter is addressed to the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias and was sent by another Apollonios who does not show up elsewhere in the archive. If the strategos owned property in Lykopolis, where the letter was written (see line 3), the letter sender could be one of the managers or agents of that estate (U. Wilcken in P.Brem., p. 57). Anyway, he disposes of a good style and knows how to skillfully combine several epistolary formulas (the report of joy over the received good news is combined with a prayer report, the apology for the failed visit leads directly into the announcement to make up for it as soon as possible). The second final greeting in line 19 is written by a third hand, which means that someone from the letter author’s immediate environment was present when the letter was completed and also wanted to send a

328

Chapter 8

personal greeting to the addressee, which of course only made sense if there was a good chance that the addressee could identify this person’s handwriting (cf. U. Wilcken in P.Brem., p. 28). [2.129] P.Brem. 5 (TM 19590) Letter of recommendation from Faberius Mundus to Apollonios on behalf of Ulpius Malchus

Greek papyrus, Hermopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 816), 117–119 CE Ed. U. Wilcken 1936 (P.Brem. 5, image after p. 178).  –  Cf. J. Hengstl 1978 (C.Pap. Hengstl 154); *Jördens 2006, 425 no. VIII.9.7.1; *Luttenberger 2012, 151–52; A. Łukaszewicz 2016, “Double Greetings in P. Brem. 5 and Some Other Remarks on Hadrian’s Egypt,” in PapCongr. 27, 1751–59; *Reinard 2016, 572; *Sarri 2018, 179, image: fig. 47.  –  Online information and image: https://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/papyri/ content/titleinfo/770789; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/19590. Archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Arch 19; *Reinard 2016, 563–692; *Sarri 2018, 262–63; see below); see also SB 10.10277 [2.126]; P.Brem. 56app [2.127]; 20 [2.128]; PSI 4.308 [2.130] is uncertain. In the following translation, the layouts of lines 1–3 and of lines 14–17 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 4–13 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Vaberius Mundus to Apollonios the strategos, greetings. Ulpius Malchus, a beneficiarius of our illustrious prefect Rammius, |5 who will take care of the area under your jurisdiction, an excellent man, I re commend to you.1 But I hope that he too will make an effort to stand by your side as such |10 a person, as which I have guaranteed him. And I have written also to him, so that when you have contacted him, he will be even more eager to make himself available to you. (h2) I pray that you fare |15 well, most honored brother.2

(h3) Farewell.

The Letters

329

Notes 1 The author mentions the person to be recommended, Ulpius Malchus, in first place and “I recommend you” only at the end of the whole sentence. 2 Although the farewell, written by a different hand, follows after a small gap in line 14, the subsequent two lines are indented, as if the writer had planned to indent the entire text written by him. A similar case is attested by P.Oxy. 73.4959.20–24 [2.145] (II CE). Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 14–16 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74).

The whole matter described in the letter seems very different from the usual letters of recommendation which appeal to the recipient to help and support the recommended person. By this letter, Malchus is deployed to support the letter’s recipient himself which is most probably due to the destructive effects of the Jewish War of 115–117 CE. As we know from other documents of the archive, Apollonios was serving his duties as strategos of the Egyptian nome Apollonopolites Heptakomias from 113 to 119 CE, thus longer than the usual three years, which was certainly due to the war and its aftermath. The mention of the Egyptian prefect Q. Rammius Martialis, who was in office in 117–119 CE, indicates that the letter must have been written after the end of the war, and Malchus was thus supposed to provide administrative support to the strategos in the context of the restorations. As U. Wilcken (in P.Brem., pp. 25–27) has highlighted, Malchus bears a Semitic (Arabic) name and, according to his nomen gentilicium Ulpius, must have been granted citizenship by the Emperor Trajan. He probably knew enough Aramaic to be considered a specialist in Jewish affairs by the Roman administration and army, especially during the Jewish War (Łukaszewicz 2016, 1756). Since he was a beneficiarius in the staff of the prefect, his presence in the nome of Apollonios must have been on a special order of the prefect and in the interest of the administration. This is confirmed by P.Brem. 6, another letter of recommendation on behalf of Malchus, sent to Apollonios by Flavius Philoxenos, the epistrategos of the Thebaid. Since the epistrategos mentions right at the beginning that Malchus should already be known to Apollonios as one of his people, P.Brem. 6 must have been written after P.Brem. 5. The central request of Philoxenos in P.Brem. 6.4–6 to Apollonios is short and to the point: “Behave towards him as if he were a part of me” (cf. Paul’s request to Philemon in Phlm 17; see also p. 39). Of further special interest are the two final greetings. The first one in lines 14–16 is without doubt from the letter author’s own hand, but by whom was the second one (in line 17) added? U. Wilcken (in P.Brem., p. 28) assumes that someone in the vicinity of the letter writer, who was present when the letter was completed, wanted to add his own greeting. This only makes sense, of course, if the addressee could already identify the person in question because

330

Chapter 8

of his handwriting (i.e., he must already have known it). In the case of the present letter, we may therefore conclude that Faberius Mundus had already written to Apollonios on several occasions and had established personal relations with him (after all, he calls him “brother” in his own final greeting), so that someone from his circle could—not for the first time—have had the idea of sending a greeting to Apollonios. Similar examples are (all from the Archive of Apollonios): P.Brem. 9.23; 22.12; P.Giss. 1.75.11 (all 113–120 CE); P.Brem. 20.19 [2.128] (second half 116–120 CE?); 50.10 (117–120 CE). [2.130] PSI 4.308 (TM 31135) Letter from Sarapas to Eudaimonis

Greek papyrus, written in Upper Egypt, found at Hermopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 816), late I/early II CE Ed. G. Vitelli 1917 (PSI 4.308). – Addenda/Corrigenda: G. Messeri 2001, “Suggestioni da PSI IV 308,” ZPE 135:165–68, image: 165 (= BL 12:250). – Online information and image: http://www.psi-online.it/documents/psi;4;308. It is uncertain whether this letter is part of the Archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Arch 19; *Reinard 2016, 563–692; *Sarri 2018, 262– 63; see p. 329); see also SB 10.10277 [2.126]; P.Brem. 56app [2.127]; 20 [2.128]; 5 [2.129].

Sarapas to Eudaimonis his most honored, greetings. Above ev[erything else] I pray that you are he[althy and through] all [for]tunate; |5 and I make obeisance for you every day before the lord Sarapis. Greet Haliyn (?)1 and Apollon Ammonous. I pray that you fare well. Note 1 The writer wrote Aliyn, which was probably meant to represent Halinoun (as an accusative of the female name Halinous), but was perhaps intended as an accusative of Aline (Messeri 2001, 166–67 with n. 8). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–7 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 7–9 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 9 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

The epithet “most honored” which Sarapas uses for his addressee expresses veneration, respect, and a real social and hierarchical distance; its use, from inferior to superior, denotes a considerable distance between correspondents, which is almost always effective and is sometimes simulated as a sign of devotion. For G. Messeri (2001, 165–66), this epithet is the basis for her suggestion

331

The Letters

that this letter could be part of the Archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Arch 19; see p. 329). The addressee of this letter could indeed be identical with the mother of Apollonios because it was quite legitimate for an outsider or inferior to call her “most honored” from the moment her son, as a strategos, usually received this epithet. If this is correct, the first name mentioned in line 8, written in accusative as Aliyn, could well be identified with Aline, the wife of Apollonios (cf. note 1). The second name in line 8 has been deleted by the writer before finishing writing it. Messeri (2001, 167) argues that Sarapas first intended to send greetings to the married couple (i.e., to Aline and Apollonios), but suddenly remembered that at that moment Apollonios was not at home with Eudaimonis and deleted the name of the absentee. Ammonous, mentioned in lines 8–9, could be a daughter of Aline and Apollonios or a daughter of Eudaimonis. Be that as it may, the whole letter contains nothing but letter formulas: the most common form of the opening greeting, a prayer report containing a health wish, followed by a proskynema phrase, greetings to be passed on to other people, and a final greeting. [2.131] P.Wisc. 2.73 (TM 26688) Letter from Didymos to Hephaistion

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchites/Egypt (TM Geo 2722), 122/123 CE Ed. P.  J. Sijpesteijn 1977 (P.Wisc. 2.73, image: pl. XXVIII).  –  Cf. *Reinard 2016, 800– 803. – Online information and images: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-5433.

Didymos to Hephaistion my lord brother, greetings. As our very good brother Phabanon writes to you we very much rejoiced |5 and had a party when we received your letter. All our people are well and even more so after they received your letter. Now do this without delay |10  knowing that this is our expectation. Phabanon wrote to you about everything, also about the mixed produce. Nothing has been done about that because Theon |15 will tell you in person how cheap it is. Hurry quickly to come to us as you wrote. All those in the house greet you. Buy a tunic for Thermouthis, |20 she is naked.1 Receive the suit from Theon, the most honoured. I pray that you, lord, fare well, (my) worthy one. To Hephaistion, secretary of Philonikos,  ⪥ strategos of the Oxyrhynchites.

(Back)

332

Chapter 8

Note 1 This is not to be taken literally, but certainly means that Thermouthis has nothing suitable to wear. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 9–11, 19–22 requests with imperative (p. 140), 10 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 14–15 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 16–17 invitation to visit (p. 148), 18–19 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 23 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 24 address (pp. 185–86), 24 sealing (pp. 186–87).

According to the address on the back of the papyrus, the recipient of this letter is a secretary of the strategos of the Oxyrhynchite nome. The letter author is a member of a group that had received a letter from Hephaistion with very good news. After a certain Phabanon (line 4), Didymos is already the second person to report to Hephaistion about the great joy his good news had generated; they even had a party. The other possibility would be that Phabanon is the writer of the present letter (note the present tense “he writes”; lines 11–12, however, seem to refer to an earlier letter by Phabanon: “he wrote”). “Now do this without delay” in lines 9–10 seems cryptic at first glance, but obviously refers to a visit of Hephaistion, which he had announced in his letter, and which is mentioned only afterwards (in lines 16–17). A certain Theon, who is mentioned by name in lines 14–15, is to deliver this letter to Hephaistion and provide him with further information on behalf of the entire group. [2.132] P.Bingen 74 (TM 78042) Letter from Heraïs to Lucretias

Greek papyrus, written probably in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found in Egypt, after 130 CE Ed. R.  C. Caldwell and L. Koenen 2000 (P.Bingen 74, images: plates 44 and 45).  – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 12:36.  –  Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 367–68 (extended eBook 2008, B8.4 no. 260). In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–3 and of the address in line 19 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 4–18 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Heraïs to Lucretias her sister, greetings. Above everything I pray that you are healthy together with your unenchanted1 children. I too am healthy together with my (children), making obeisance for you before the lord Sarapis. |5 Do not be concerned about Antonius. Until tod2 now, he has not yet enlisted in the army. I want you to know that those who

The Letters

333

sojourn in Egypt are under the authority of the epistrategos. If you travel upriver to Antinoo(polis), write me at once so that […] I come to you. But if you are not going, then write me too |10 so that I won’t go in vain from here to there. Know that I arrived downriver and found Eros locked up, and I went to your brother. And How much I asked him, and he did not want to set him free,3 but said, “If he wishes to go upriver, he shall pay dues to the orphans.” On the fourth day after I came to the city, also |15 Nephotianus came. And write us whether you have received the purple dye from Peteesios the boatman. Greet Lucretius4 and Eutychos and Apphys and Apollonia and.5 Antonius greets you, and Koprous and Nephotianus. (Traces of ink) Deliver to Lucreti- ⪥ [as] from Heraïs.

(Back)

Notes 1 The Greek term ἀβάσκαντος is not easy to translate into English; it means that the person described as such may not be struck by the evil eye (i.e., may remain immune from any harm caused by spells etc.). 2 The editors suspect that the scribe first wanted to write “until today” but then changed his mind and wrote “until now.” 3 The meaning, of course, is: “No matter how often I asked him, he did not want to set him free.” 4 The editors as well as Bagnall and Cribiore translate—probably inadvertently, because unlike the Greek text—“greet Lucretias.” 5 “And Apollonia and” was crossed out again, perhaps because Heraïs somehow became aware that Apollonia was in fact not staying with Lucretias. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 5, 15–16 requests with imperative (p. 140), 6, 10 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 8–9 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 16–18 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 19 address (pp. 185–86), 19 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The original text was corrected at three points by crossing out words, as also displayed in the translation (see also note 2). The wrong and thus cancelled “and” in line 12 is, according to the editors, probably caused by a misunderstanding between the letter author and the scribe. If this is correct, Heraïs dictated this letter to a secretary. The handwriting is interpreted differently: The editors (in P.Bingen, p. 322) attribute it to “a professional and experienced scribe … with sense for both aesthetics and clarity,” while *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 367; extended eBook 2008, B8.4 no. 260) suggest that Heraïs did not afford a professional secretary but “someone used to writing in a faster—but

334

Chapter 8

not very regular—hand, deliberately trying to produce a letter hand.” In any case, Heraïs herself was responsible for the entire content. The ink traces at the end of the last line can hardly be reconstructed as a farewell wish; the editors consider it “safer to disregard these spots of ink” (R. C. Caldwell and L. Koenen in P.Bingen, p. 328). Sometimes a final greeting is deliberately omitted, and if so, this does not necessarily mean that the relationship between the correspondents is in trouble (cf. pp. 172–73). With a friendly letter like this, it is also possible that the farewell was simply forgotten—perhaps contrary to the author’s original intention to add the closing words herself. The fact that the proskynema is performed before the god Sarapis (line 4) probably refers to the temple of Sarapis in Alexandria, which would imply that the letter was written there. Heraïs writes about a journey, which presumably led her from a place up the Nile to Alexandria, her alleged place of residence. On the way, she tried—so far in vain—to obtain the release of a certain Eros, who may have been a slave or a freedman. In fact, the brother of the addressee, who was responsible for the incarceration of Eros, does not want to release him until he has paid the required, but unspecified, dues to certain orphans about whom we have no further information. The whole issue is probably related to disputes over an inheritance, and the death of the parents of the orphans may well have much more to do with the purpose of this letter than its text reveals. Be that as it may, Heraïs presents herself as a confident and powerful woman. That she was a dealer in purple dye is possible, but by no means certain. In general, this letter is a good example of the many ancient private letters, the details of which were most probably clear to the correspondents of the time but are often difficult for us today to comprehend. The editors of the letter have dedicated nine and a half pages of their 16-page edition to the various possibilities of understanding. The opening greeting addresses the recipient of the letter as “sister” which could be meant literally, in the sense of a sisterin-law, or metaphorically for a dear friend. In lines 11–12, Heraïs speaks of an unnamed person as “your brother” as if she and Lucretias were not real sisters, but this could simply be caused by her disappointment with this “brother.” Ultimately, the family relationships remain unclear here, and this is not the only aspect of this letter which remains obscure for us today, but which was obviously clear enough for Heraïs and Lucretias; also the “geographical indications of this letter are difficult to disentangle” and, eventually, only allow us to conclude that “the family had connections either with Alexandria (most likely) or with Antinoopolis or with both” (R. C. Caldwell and L. Koenen in P.Bingen, p. 315). Also, the possibly imminent recruitment of a certain Antonius for the army, which—as it seems—Heraïs tries to avert by approaching the epistrategos together with Lucretias, raises questions in some details.

335

The Letters

[2.133] P.Oxy. 14.1757 (TM 22005) Letter from Horeis to Horion

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), after 138 CE Ed. B.  P. Grenfell and A.  S. Hunt 1920 (P.Oxy. 14.1757).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:336.  –  Online information and image: https://www.sydney.edu.au/museums/collec tions_search/ (search for “NM39.1”).

Horeis to Horion his brother, very many greetings. Above all I pray that you are healthy. I am writing you the second |5 letter {you} and you have written me none back. I always love you, but you see me as worthless. When I come up, I will bring |10 you the turquoise (jars?), and whatever you notify me through Euripatos, who is bringing you the letter. If it is not burdensome to you in any way, transfer |15 to Sarapas the money until I come up. For the feast I am sending1 you five pomegranates. If it is not burdensome to you in any way, and from write me a letter |20 through the one who is bringing you the letter about your health. Receive from Theon two mania2 and watch over them for me until I come up, [and] notify |25 me. Greet the best Claudia and all who love you. I pray that you fare well. On the 5th of the month Hadrianos. (Back)

|30 Deliver to Horion from Horeis his brother.

Notes 1 The form used here is an epistolary aorist (see pp. 149, 212). 2 The mania are “vessels of some kind” (B.  P. Grenfell and A.  S. Hunt in P.Oxy. 14, p. 181), perhaps earthenware vessels (cf. P.Hib. 1.121.50). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–5 reference to previous letter (pp. 149–51), 4–9 complaint (pp. 132–33), 9, 15–16, 24 announcements of visit (pp. 159–60), 11–12, 20–21 reference to (named) letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 13–16, 17–22, 22–25 requests with imperative (p. 140), 25–27 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 28 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 28–29 date (pp. 184–85), 30 address (pp. 185–86).

The sender of the letter complains about the recipient’s failure to keep up mutual correspondence, and he expresses his disappointment at the onesidedness of the relationship by assuring his brother of his love but accusing him of treating him as worthless. The actual purpose of the letter is to ship some goods and to ask Horion to take care of some things until Horeis himself will arrive at the addressee’s. The bearer of the letter is mentioned by name. If possible, he should take back a letter from Horeis in which the latter is not

336

Chapter 8

only to write about his state of health, but also to confirm that he has indeed received the goods mentioned. [2.134] BGU 3.846 (TM 28097) Letter from Antonius Longus to Neilous

Greek papyrus, written probably in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found in Arsinoites/ Egypt (TM Geo 332), II CE Ed. F. Krebs 1903 (BGU 3.84).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:72–73; 2.2:21.  –  Cf. *Milligan 1910, 93–95 no. 37; *Deissmann 1927, 187–92 no. 14, image: fig. 34 (before p. 187); A. S. Hund and C. C. Edgar 1932 (Sel.Pap. 1.120); *Winter 1933, 106; *Lietzmann 1934, 3, 5 no. 2; *Finegan 1946, 329, image: plate 139 (after p. 318); *Metzger 1974, 41–42 no. 49; *White 1986, 181–82 no. 114; *Burnet 2003a, 270–71 no. 210; *Kotsifou 2012b, 84; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 177 no. 212; L.  H. Blumell, E. Cole, and W. Wendrich 2018, “Another Letter from Antonius Longus to His Mother Nilous,” BASP 55:45–57. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/01968/.

Antonius Longus to Neilous his mother, very many greetings, and I continually pray that you stay healthy. I make obeisance for you every day before the |5 lord Sarapis. I want you to know that I did not hope that you go up to the metropolis; on this account I myself did not come to the city. And I was ashamed to come to Karanis, because I go about in filth. I wrote to you that I am |10 naked. I beg you, mother, be reconciled to me. Now well, I know what I have done to myself. I was taught a lesson in the necessary way. I know that I have sinned. I heard from […]1 who found you in the Arsinoite nome, and he reported everything accurately |15 to you. Do you not know that I prefer to be maimed than to be conscious that I still own an obol to a man? […] come yourself […] I have heard that … […] I beg you |20 […] I almost […] I beg you … […] also I myself wish […] … […] do not do |25 otherwise. […] [To Neilous] ⪥ his mother from Antonius Longus, her son.

(Back)

Note 1 *Lietzmann (1934, 5) and *Deissmann (1927, 187, 189 n. 21) argued that the personal name Postumus could fill the lacuna which was rejected in BL 1:72, but also the suggestion “from [my friend]” does not solve the problem since this would be too short. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–5 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 9–10 reference to previous letter (pp. 149–51), 5, 15 disclosure

337

The Letters

formulas (pp. 136–38), 10, 19, 21 requests “beg” (pp. 141–43), 24–25 reminder of requests (pp. 161–62), 26 address (pp. 185–86), 26 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The mention that the proskynema is performed before the lord Sarapis every day (lines 3–5) could be a reference to the temple of Sarapis in Alexandria, which would imply that the letter was written there. The main reason for writing this letter was the fact that Longus had heard from someone, whose name is only fragmentarily preserved in line 13 (see note 1), that this person had met his mother and informed her about his miserable situation. He is poorly clothed and going about in filth. Through his letter, Longus now tries to make his mother understand why he had avoided her seeing him that way. Without mentioning the details, he confesses that he knows now what he has done to himself and that he was taught a lesson in the necessary way. The way Antonius Longus describes his situation in lines 8–12 gave reason to compare this passage with Luke 15:11–32, The Parable of the Prodigal and His Brother. Another letter by Antonius Longus was identified and published by Blumell, Cole, and Wendrich 2018 (TM 764354 [FY10-18718-da]). The formulas in the opening section of this fragmentary letter (lines 1–5) are obviously the same, and even the letter body starts with the identical disclosure formula “[I want you] to know.” The only surviving content, however, is that the son complains to his mother that she has not written to him. Which of the two letters from Longus was written first remains unclear. [2.135] BGU 3.892 (TM 28104) Letter to a landowner from Perousis

Greek papyrus, Hermopolites/Egypt (TM Geo 2720), II CE Ed. W. Schubart 1903 (BGU 3.892.v).  –  Addenda and Corrigenda: BL 1:78; 6:13; 11:21; 13:28. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/02595/. The letter was written on the verso of the papyrus (i.e., the text runs against the fibres), and the address on the recto.

To my lord, the landowner. P[ero]usis. Very many greetings […] … I heard from Onnophris and [Th]eon from Pake1 about your |5 visit to Pake,1 and I was attentive for two days to welcome you, and because of that I could not get to Toou Pasko.2 Now, if you are occupied with the |10 wedding, because you could not come back to me, notify me through the […] about the day, on which the wedding takes place, so that I come up to you, and write to Kollouthos |15 […] … |16 […] … before I come up. And [I sent]3 you forty half-amphorae (of wine?) through Pachounis, the chief of police

338

Chapter 8

[…] and sixty pigeons, |20 safe and healthy ones. And send me quickly the half-amphorae (of oil) from the oil-press of Eus from Thallou.4 And about what you want from me here outside to do (it for you), notify me so that I do it |25 quickly before I come up. I pray that you fare well, my lord, for many years and are of good cheer and in vigorous health. (Back)

|30 To my brother.

Perousis.

Notes 1 See TM Geo 6201. 2 See TM Geo 10139. 3 The aorist form “I sent” could be reconstructed here, but it is unclear whether this should be understood as a real aorist, which would mean that Perousis had sent the half-amphorae before, or as an epistolary aorist (see pp. 149, 212), which would indicate that he is sending them just now together with the letter, which would also mean that Pachounis is the letter carrier. 4 See TM Geo 4386. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 9–17, 20–22 requests with imperative (p. 140), 13–14, 16–17, 25 announcement of visit (pp. 159– 60), 17–18 reference to named letter carrier? (pp. 196–98), 23–25 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 26–29 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 30 address (pp. 185–86).

Perousis wrote this letter to his superior, a landowner, who is mentioned right at the beginning of line 1, that is, before the letter sender’s own name. The name of the addressee is not mentioned; he is addressed as “lord” in line 1 and as “brother” in the address, which is probably to be understood metaphorically. The reason for the letter is the sender’ s unsuccessful attempts so far to meet his addressee. Either his information from the people mentioned in lines 3–4 was unreliable or the addressee was not able to come. Anyway, Perousis tries to find out and suggests that his superior might have been delayed by the preparations for a wedding. Now he hopes to meet him on the day of the wedding. The offer to meet the addressee’s needs (lines 23–25) is similar to that of P.Oxy. 47.3356.21–23 [2.82] (28 Jan 76 CE); the final greeting is unique. [2.136] P.Leid.Inst. 42 (TM 27729 and 43134) Letter from Heras to Taphes, letter from [Taphes] to Heras

Greek papyrus, Philadelphia/Egypt (TM Geo 1760), II CE Ed. F.  A.  J. Hoogendijk 1991 (P.Leid.Inst. 42, image: plate XXVII).  –  Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 36 (only summary; complete translation and commentary included

The Letters

339

in extended eBook 2008, B13.4 no. 289 with image); *Reinard 2016, 108–10. – Online image: http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.leid.inst;;42/images.

Heras to Taphes her sister, many greetings. Before everything I pray that you are healthy along with your people. You should |5 know that I have written to you twice and you have not written to me in response to either of the letters. Receive from […]ios sandy-colored sandals and a hair shirt |10 and […] of a fruitcake and […| and dates … |15 … that you make the account (?) … you will write to |19 me. [… ?] |20 [Farewell].1 To her sister Heras, very many greetings. Before everything I pray that you are healthy. I am writing to you, until |25 I come up, to thank you for the clothing. I make obeisance for you. (Back)

To Philadelphia, deliver to my sister Heras.

Note 1 The middle part of lines 8–19 is lost. Only one word of line 19 has survived, and it is possible that the letter body ended here. Traces of ink a bit lower and towards the middle of the sheet indicate that the final greeting was indented. For sure, this line with the reconstructed farewell should already be numbered as line 20 (contrary to the edition). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2, 21–22 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4, 23–24 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–5 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 4–7 complaint (pp. 132–33), 7–10 request with imperative (p. 140), 27–28 final prayer report (pp. 170–71), 20 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 21–29 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54), 24–25 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 29 address (pp. 185–86).

This papyrus contains two private letters, the first from Heras to her sister Taphes, the second from an unnamed person to her sister Heras. As the second letter is a reply to the first one, its sender can almost certainly be identified with Taphes. Both letters seem to have been written by the same scribe, although with different pens, which suggests that the writer was, in both cases, the letter carrier whose orthography is extremely phonetic (e.g., no distinction between omicron and omega). Taphes uses the blank space of the papyrus to reply immediately to her sister, most of all thanking her for the clothes that she has just received. *Bagnall and Cribiore (2008, B13.4 no. 289) argue that the reply was “hardly the newsy letter that Heras was hoping for, being the barest of acknowledgments and

340

Chapter 8

omitting the usual greetings” but as it seems that Taphes used the letter carrier as scribe and messenger for her reply, she may have done so in a hurry; she simply took the chance to have her reply delivered to her sister in Philadelphia without any delay, and would settle anything else during a personal and explicitly promised visit. It is also noteworthy that Taphes used—most likely by intention—the opening greeting “very many greetings” (line 21–22: πλεῖστα χαίρειν) in her reply, rather than simply copying the sister’s “many greetings” (line 2: πολλὰ χαίρειν). [2.137] P.Mert. 2.80 (TM 28782) Letter from Achillas to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), II CE Ed. B. R. Rees, H. I. Bell, and J. W. B. Barns 1959 (P.Mert. 2.80, image: pl. XXVIII after p. 104). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 4:50; 6:79; 11:129. – Cf. *Kruse 2002, 1070–71. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and of lines 16–17 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–15 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Achillas to Apollonios his father, greetings.

have come up

I wonder how, although so many even with unladen beasts, you have not sent |5 Sarapammon, knowing that there is need of him here. Up to now, no one has inquired about you. The one who gave me the letter declared and said that Areios will get you out1 by handing over the rolls |10 to the royal scribe; he did not have them sent. Therefore, I am writing to you so that you know. If there is anything necessary, what you should do, you know that— if you are not present—this (matter) finds no solution. So do not neglect |15 this.

I pr(ay that you) fare well.

To Apollonios from ⪥ Achillas his son. ∻2

(Back)

341

The Letters

Notes 1 The matter from which Areios will get Apollonios out is not specified. 2 The ornamental ∻ is used as “a space-filler to make the two parts of the line equal in length” (B. R. Rees, H. I. Bell, and J. W. B. Barns in P.Mert. 2, p. 105). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6 complaint (pp. 133–34), 11–12 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 14–15 reminder of request (pp. 161–62), 16 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 17 address (pp. 185–86), 17 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The addressee Apollonios seems to have left his home due to some difficulties, perhaps with the authorities, and to be somewhere downriver, possibly in Alexandria. His son Achillas, the sender of this letter, first expresses his astonishment that the father had not sent a certain Sarapammon so far, although there would easily have been the possibility for this, since many “have come up even with unladen beasts” (lines 3–6). Now there would be no reason at all to make up for it or, best of all, to come himself, because until now no one had made inquiries about him and, in addition, a certain Areios will clarify everything when he hands over certain official documents to the royal scribe. We do not learn any further details, neither about the circumstances in which the father is involved, nor about what Sarapammon is so urgently needed for. This is typical for a letter because the letter partners knew enough about it anyway. [2.138] P.Messeri 47 (TM 901319) Letter from Sarapion to Theon

Greek papyrus, Egypt, II CE Ed. G. Bastianini 2020 (P.Messeri 47, images: tavv. XLI–XLII).  –  Online information and images: http://www.psi-online.it/documents/p-messeri-47.

Sarapion to Theon his father, greetings. Receive from Epitynchanon the boatman 16 (drachmas) and ten pine-cones, |5  by which you will soon see that you you are well from infirmity. Greet your spouse Dionysia and Theodora and her unenchanted1 children. Farewell. Mecheir 6. |10 I have received from Epity[nchanon (?)]the basket and its contents. Dionysios greets (you). To Theon the physician, ⪥ from Sarapion.

(Back)

Note 1 The Greek term ἀβάσκαντος is not easy to translate into English; it means that the person described as such may not be struck by the evil eye (i.e., may remain immune from any harm caused by spells etc.).

342

Chapter 8

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 3–6 request with imperative (p. 140), 6–8, 12 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 9 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 9 date (pp. 184–85), 10–12 postscript (pp. 182–84), 13 address (pp. 185–86), 13 sealing (pp. 186–87).

At the beginning of this cover letter, a certain Sarapion lists the goods he is sending to his father Theon through the boatman Epitynchanon, and in the postscript he confirms having received a basket and its contents. The items contained in the basket are not listed, but since their deliverer is presumably the same Epitynchanon who is now sent back, the family may have used his services on several occasions and trusted him anyway. Since the letter sender greets Dionysia as Theon’s spouse (lines 6–7) and not (at the same time) as his mother, Dionysia could be a second wife of Theon, thus Sarapion’s stepmother, but the form of address “father” (line 2) could also be a sign of respect from Sarapion towards a person who is not actually his father but still someone in the family (e.g., his father-in-law), or it indicates a subordination on a professional level, for example between master and student. [2.139] P.Mich. 8.490 (TM 27100) Letter from Apollinaris to Taesion

Greek Papyrus, written in Portus/Italy (TM Geo 30631), sent to and found at Karanis/ Egypt (TM Geo 1008), II CE Ed. J.  G. Winter and H.  C. Youtie 1951 (P.Mich. 8.490).  –  Cf. *Winter 1933, 39–42; M. Reddé 1986, Mare nostrum: Les infrastructures, le dispositif et l’histoire de la marine militaire sous l’Empire romain (Rome: École française de Rome), 687; *White 1986, 161–62 no. 104a (the image on p. 163 is not of no. 104a but of no. 104b = P.Mich. 8.491 [2.140]); A. Martin 1994, “Archives privées et cachettes documentaires,” in PapCongr. 20, 569–77, here 572–73; *Rowlandson 1998, 138 no. 104; *Palme 2006, 288–90. – Online information and images: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-2220. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and of lines 19–26 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–18 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Apollinaris to Thaesion his mother, many greetings. Above everything fare well and be healthy, and I make obeisance for you before all |5 the gods. And when I found from Kyrene the one traveling to you,1 I felt the necessity to notify

The Letters

343

you about my well-being. And do you notify me even faster about your safety and that of my brothers. And now I notify you |10 from Portus, for I have not yet gone up to Rome and been assigned. When I’m assigned and know where I’m going, I’ll notify you at once; and do not delay to write about your well-being and that of my brothers. And if you do not find anybody traveling |15 to me, write to Sokrates, and he will forward it to me. I greet many times my brothers, and Apolinaris and his children, and Kalalas as well as his children, and all those loving2 you. Asklepiades greets you. Farewell and stay healthy. |20 I arrived in Portus on Pachon 25. (h2) Know that I have been assigned to Misenum, for later I learned it. (h1) Deliver to Karanis, ⪫⪪3 to Taesion from Apolinarios, |25 her son. ⪫⪪3

(Back)

Notes 1 On the interpretation that Apollinaris found a man from Kyrene to travel to Karanis and serve as the carrier of this letter, see *Palme 2006, 289. On a different interpretation, namely, that Apollinaris, while staying in Kyrene himself, had utilized a man to carry a previous letter to his mother, see J. G. Winter and H. C. Youtie in P.Mich. 8, p. 92. 2 Assuming that line 18 would be the last line before the final greeting (see also below), the scribe wrote the last three characters of the participle “loving,” which in the Greek text represents the last word of the line, above the line—apparently because he wanted to end the text here instead of requiring another line for only three characters. 3 The two sealings do not look identical, but it appears that the first sealing, which extends from line 24 into line 25, has been altered. Perhaps Apollinaris or the scribe had already sealed the letter before he wanted to add the second postscript in lines 22–23, which is indeed written by a different hand. In this case, the letter would have been reopened to add the second postscript, and then sealed again, perhaps trying to cross out the first sealing. However, this could be contradicted by the fact that the other letter of Apollinaris, P.Mich. 8.491 [2.140], also preserves the marks of two sealings on the back, but without the possibility of such a rationale. It is

344

Chapter 8

therefore possible that Apollinaris or the available scribes in Rome and surroundings simply tended to put two sealings on letters, one on each side of the folded letter. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3 health wish (pp. 102–5), 4–5 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 5–6 reference to letter carrier (pp. 191– 99), 7–9, 12–14 requests with imperative (p. 140), 14–19 secondary greetings (pp. 164– 68), 20 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 21–23 postscript (pp. 182–84), 24–25 address (pp. 185–86), 24–25 sealing (pp. 186–87).

After arriving at Portus, the port of Rome, to serve in the imperial fleet, the Greco-Egyptian recruit Apollinaris found someone from Kyrene, who was about to travel to his mother’s place, Karanis in Egypt. Therefore, Apollinaris took the chance to notify his mother about his safe arrival and current situation, and he dictated the letter to a scribe. Some details provide an insight into the letter-writing process. First, Apollinaris communicates that he has not yet gone to Rome and received his assignment to a unit and registration in its matricula, but that he will notify his mother immediately as soon as he knows anything specific (lines 10–12). This is the situation while dictating lines 1–18, to which the scribe adds the final greeting (line 20) and a short postscript (line 21), which indicates the exact date of the recruit’s arrival in Portus. The address on the back of the papyrus was also written by the same scribe. The form of the end of line 18 (see note 1) and the smaller script of line 19 indicate that the greetings of a certain Asklepiades were inserted above the final greeting later, whether only after the final greeting or even after the postscript of line 21 and the address on the back cannot be determined anymore. It is indeed remarkable that, therefore, the greetings of Asklepiades, although inserted later, do not appear as a real postscript, but as part of the letter closing. Before sending the letter carrier on his way, Apollinaris received word of where he had just been assigned, namely Misenum, and so he added a second postscript, or rather had another scribe add it, to inform his mother. It is noteworthy that Apollinaris advised his mother to have her letter of reply carried by a certain Sokrates, which allows for the speculation that Apollinaris had found a way to have his private mail carried via the military postal service (*Palme 2006, 289). One final observation is worth noting. This and the following letter of Apollonaris, P.Mich. 8.491 [2.140], are written by different scribes, whereby it is remarkable that also the final greetings, which in such cases were written by the letter author him- or herself if possible, are in each case from the hand of the scribe to whom the letter text was dictated. This makes it very likely that

345

The Letters

also the secondary greetings of Asklepiades in P.Mich. 8.490.19 were not written by Apollinaris. Was Apollinaris perhaps illiterate? [2.140] P.Mich. 8.491 (TM 27101) Letter from Apollinaris to Taesion

Greek Papyrus, written in Rome/Italy (TM Geo 2058), sent to and found at Karanis/ Egypt (TM Geo 1008), II CE Ed. J. G. Winter and H. C. Youtie 1951 (P.Mich. 8.491). – Cf. A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar 1932 (Sel.Pap. 1.111); *Winter 1933, 39–42; *White 1986, 161, 164 no. 104b, image: p. 163 (the image is not of no. 104a but of this letter); *Rowlandson 1998, 138 no. 105; A. Martin 1994, “Archives privées et cachettes documentaires,” in PapCongr. 20, 569–77, here 572–73; *Schubert 2000, 101–2 no. 22; *Palme 2006, 290–91; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 175–76 no. 209. – Online information and images: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-2221. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 as well as of the final greeting in line 21 and the address on the back reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–20 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Apolinaris to Taesis his mother and lady, many greetings. Above everything else I pray that you are healthy. And I myself am healthy and make obeisance for you before the gods here. I want you to |5 know, mother, that I arrived in Rome faring well in the month Pachon on the 25th and was assigned by lot to Misenum. However, I have not yet learned my century, for I had not gone to Misenum when I wrote you this letter. Now I ask you, mother, look after yourself, |10 do not worry about me, for I have come to a fine place. Please be so good as to write a letter to me about your well-being and that of my brothers and of all your people. And I myself, if I find someone, will write to you; I will not delay to write to you. I greet my |15 brothers many times, and Apolinaris and his children, and Karalas1 and his children. I greet Ptolemaios, and Ptolemais and her children, and Heraklous and her children. I greet all those loving you by na|20 me.2

346

Chapter 8



I pray that you fare well.

Deliv(er) to Karanis, ⪥ to Taesis from Apolinarios, her son from Misenum. ⪥

(Back)

Notes 1 In P.Mich. 8.490.17 [2.139], the name is spelled Kalalas. Interchange of lambda and rho was typical for Greco-Egyptians (*Gignac 1976, 102–7; *Palme 2006, 291 n. 42). 2 In the translation, this line break was chosen to simulate the line break on the papyrus, where line 20 contains only the last syllable of the phrase κατ’ ὄνομα (“by name”), i.e., μα. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–5 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 9 request “ask” (pp. 143–46), 10–11 request with imperative (p. 140), 11–13 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 14–20 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 21 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 22–23 address (pp. 185–86), 22–23, 24 sealings (pp. 186–87).

The entire letter, including the final greeting, was dictated to a scribe clearly distinct from the scribe (or scribes) of the first letter, P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139], as the different handwriting and style (e.g., different formulas in the letter opening and closing) indicate (see also p. 344). The letter was written not long after the first one, but already from Rome. The essential news is simply repeated (arrival in Portus and the assignment to Misenum). Obviously, Apollinaris wanted to make sure that at least one of the letters reached his mother. In fact, both letters were successfully delivered and carefully kept by the mother, as evidenced by the fact that they were both found tied together in a house in Karanis. In addition to P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139], this letter proves that the assignment to the units did indeed take place in Rome, and probably by lot, as suggested by the Greek verb κληρόω used in line 6. The exact classification into a centuria and the entry into the corresponding matricula, however, was still pending for Apollinaris, because both obviously took place only in Misenum, where he had not yet arrived. The fact that he already identifies himself as a “Misenian” in the address on the back is probably indicative of the prestige of serving in Misenum compared to serving in other units of the fleet (*Palme 2006, 291).

347

The Letters

[2.141] P.Mich. 8.502 (TM 27112) Letter from Valerius Gemellus to Valerius …

Greek papyrus, written in Koptos (TM Geo 1159), found at Karanis/Egypt (TM Geo 1008), II CE Ed. J. G. Winter and H. C. Youtie 1951 (P.Mich. 8.502). – Cf. M. Matsumoto 2013, “Divine Intervention: Invocations of Deities in Personal Correspondence from Graeco-Roman Egypt,” CW 106:645–63, here 654. – Online information: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/ apis/x-2258. – No image available.

(h2?) Epeiph (h1) Valerius Gemellus to Valerius […], very many greetings. Above all else I pray that [you are healthy] and I make obeisance for you unceasingly |5 before the hair at Koptos. I ask [you to write to me] and the gods ask you for the same thing. Even if […] I do not know, you ought to grant me [this one favor. As] begged, brother, be reconciled with me so that [I may enjoy—even while I am in] the service—your confidence. Bes[ides, you have not even treated me] |10 as befits a brother since I left, have you? [I treat you, however, in the manner] of a pious brother, as I treat Sarapis. Above all, there is [no other] hope like the confidence of brother[s and of] one’s own people. So do not do otherwise, but notify [me of] your well-being, and persuade mother. (h2) [Please be so good as to] |15 write to me as I ask[ed] you. I pray [that you are healthy]. Before all else, I give thanks to my … s[ister and] lady Thermoutharion before the gods, and … […] your well-being. Greet Isa- […] |20 Farewell. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 date (pp. 184–85), 2–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 5–6 request “ask” (pp. 143–46), 7 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 13 reminder of requests (pp. 161–62), 7–9 request “beg” (pp. 141–43), 13–14 requests with imperative (p. 140), 14–15 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 15–16, 20 final greetings (pp. 171–76, on the double final greeting in particular see pp. 175–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 17–19 postscript (pp. 182–84), 17–18 special form of thanksgiving report (pp. 123–28), 19 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

Valerius Gemellus, the sender of the letter, addresses a disagreement between him and his brother, about which we learn no details. He asks his brother to write and underlines his request with the unique statement: “And the gods ask you for the same thing” (line 6). As far as the brothers’ mother is concerned,

348

Chapter 8

we read nothing more than a simple request to persuade her (line 14). Perhaps Gemellus is concerned for the mother’s welfare, but she does not listen to him. Gemellus reports that he performs the proskynema for his addressee before the “hair at Koptos.” Although he “does not explicitly mention the deity’s name, this soldier in the Roman army is most likely referring to this icon as a metonym for Isis” (Matsumoto 2013, 654). Plutarch, Is. Os. 14 (356D), derives the Greek place name Koptos from the verb “cut off,” referring to the tradition that Isis mourned at that very place for her brother-husband Osiris and cut off a thick tuft of hair as an expression of her grief. [2.142] P.Oxy. 1.113 (TM 28405) Letter from Corbulo to Herakleides

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1898 (P.Oxy. 1.113). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:142; 13:145; S. Russo 1999, I gioielli nei papiri di età greco-romana (Florence: Istituto Papirologico “G. Vitelli”), 190 no. 1. – Cf. *Laudien 1912, 6–7, 39–40 no. 8; *Schubart 1912, 55–57 no. 47; *Schubart 1923, 70–72 no. 51; M. Vandoni 1964 (Feste 159); *Head 2009b, 291–93.  –  Online information and images: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy.1.html (Select “1.113”).

Corbulo [to Herakleides] his master, g[reetings]. I send1 you through Hor[ion] the key and through Onnophris \the cameldr(iver) of Apol(lonios)/ the piece of the lock. I attached |5 to that letter2 a sample of white-violet color. Now, please be so good as to buy me 2 (drachmas’) weight of it and send it to me quickly through whoever you find, for the tunic is to be woven. I received |10 all you wrote to me to receive intact from Onnophris. I send/sent1 you through the same3 Onnophris six quarts of apples, good ones. I give thanks to all the gods that that I came upon |15  Ploution in the Oxyrhynchite nome. Do not think that I was neglectful of the key, but the reason is that the smith is far away from us. Regarding what I had written to you to send to me |20 through Corbulo, I wonder how you didn’t manage to send it to me, especially since I needed that for the festival. Please buy me a signet-ring of silver and send it to me even more quickly. Do your |25 utmost until

(Left margin, downwards)

Onnophris buys for me what (she)4 has said to him. I told him \(the) moth(er) of Eirene/4 that Syntrophos said not to give any more to Amarantos on my account from now on. Let me know what you have given him so that I settle accounts with him. But if not, I will come together with my son for that purpose.

The Letters

349

(Back)

I received the large cheeses from Corbulo; however, I did not want large ones, but |30  I wanted small ones. But also about whatever you want, notify me and I will gladly do it. Farewell. Payni 1. Send me an obol’s worth of cake for the child of my sis(ter).

(Upside down)

To Herakleid(es) son of Ammo(nios), the master.

Notes 1 The form used here seems to be an epistolary aorist (see pp. 149, 212), but see also below in the commentary. 2 “That” refers to an earlier letter. 3 The scribe first wrote “I send/sent you through Onnophris” and then added “the same” in the left margin, in any case before arriving there to continue the text of the letter (lines 26–28), because these lines are interrupted by “the same.” The passage should therefore read: “I send/sent you through the same Onnophris.” 4 Due to lack of space above “what has said,” the subject of the relative clause (i.e., “Eirene’s mother”) was written above the line only after “I told him” but certainly should be inserted before it. The correct syntax of lines 24–26 is therefore: “Do your utmost until Onnophris buys for me what Eirene’s mother has said to him. I told him that …” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4, 12 reference to named letter carriers (pp. 196–98), 6–9 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 9–11 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54), 16 disclosure formula (p. 138), 19–20 reference to previous letter (pp. 149–51), 19–22 complaint (pp. 133–34), 23–24 request “please” (p. 141), 28 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 30 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 30 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 31 date (pp. 184–85), 31 postscript (pp. 182–84), 31 request with imperative (p. 140), 32 address (pp. 185–86).

The sender of this letter is a servant or agent of a certain Herakleides, the addressee. *Schubart (1912, 56–57; 1923, 71–72) described this letter as a good example of the quite artless scribbling of a simple man, and the contents as a confused jumble of all sorts of messages and orders, expressed in a clumsy, inept language. It looks at first from lines 3–5 as if Corbulo is reporting here that he has already sent (real aorist in line 3) two camel drivers with different deliveries before he starts to write this letter. Line 5, on the other hand, may indicate that he has already sent Horion off with the key and a sample of white-violet color along with a first letter (“that letter”) and is now sending Onnophris off with the piece of the lock and the present letter (*Head 2009b, 292). The aorist form in line 3 (literally “I sent”) would in this case be used as a real aorist (i.e., “I

350

Chapter 8

sent you through Horion”) and as an epistolary aorist (i.e., “I send you through Onnophris”; cf. note 1) at the same time. Lines 16–18, however, contradict this interpretation, since Corbulo insists there that he was not neglectful of the key and adds that the smith is far away from his place. This only makes sense if it is to provide an explanation for an accusation made by Herakleides, namely why Corbulo did not send the key earlier. In this case, Corbulo would have sent Onnophris earlier—presumably in a hurry and with only a short letter—to deliver the piece of the lock and would just now send Horion with the key and the present letter. If this is correct, we may reconstruct the sequence of events as follows: Herakleides had asked Corbulo to have a lock, including the key, made by a blacksmith who had his workshop closer to Corbulo’s place than to his master’s residence. The lock was ready earlier than the key; perhaps Corbulo could only pick up the lock at the set time and was asked by the blacksmith to come back later to get the key. Trying his best, Corbulo sent the piece of the lock along with a short letter to his master through Onnophris, the camel driver of Apollonios, who had just arrived from Herakleides with the delivery of various items. On this occasion, Onnophris was ordered by Corbulo to deliver not only the piece of the lock, but also six quarts of good apples. Somewhat later, Corbulo learned, most likely through Ploution (mentioned in line 15), that his master was unhappy with him because he had only sent the lock, but not the key. Thereupon Corbulo went to the smith once again, picked it up successfully, and sent it on, together with the present letter, in which he now also confirmed that he had already received from Onnophris everything that Herakleides had listed in his letter (lines 9–11) and that he had sent him back not only with the piece of the lock, but also with six quarts of good apples (lines 11–13). With the present letter, Corbulo also takes the opportunity to send a sample of whiteviolet color and to ask his master to send him two drachmas’ weight of this color, which he needs for the weaving of a tunic (lines 4–9). The concerns dealt with in lines 19–30 can be considered separately and understood without further difficulty. As for the other Corbulo, the messenger mentioned in lines 19–22 and 29–30, it can be assumed that the large cheeses delivered instead of small ones are indeed the cause of the letter sender’s annoyance expressed in lines 19–22. A significant aspect of this letter is the fact that it refers to a total of three different messengers who are called upon by the two correspondents to fulfill various tasks. At least Onnophris is not in the service of Herakleides, because he is explicitly referred to as the camel driver of a certain Apollonios. He has already been and still is not only employed to deliver goods and letters, but also to transmit oral messages (cf. lines 26–27). In whose service Horion and Corbulo are, is not mentioned.

351

The Letters

[2.143] P.Oxy. 1.115 (TM 28407) Letter of Condolence from Eirene to Taonnoophris and Philo

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1898 (P.Oxy. 1.115). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:142. – Cf. *Milligan 1910, 95–96 no. 38; U. Wilcken 1912 (Chrest.Wilck. 479); *Deissmann 1927, 176–78 no. 11, image: fig. 31 (after p. 176); *Finegan 1946, 327, image: fig. 137 (after p. 318); *Metzger 1974, 45–46 no. 55; *Stowers 1986, 145–46; *White 1986, 115–16 no. 116; *Chapa 1998, 59–64 no. 2, image: plate II; *Trapp 2003, 119, 271–72 no. 46; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 172–73 (extended eBook 2008, A9.1 no. 64 with images); *Palme 2007, 211–13. – Online information and image: http://hdl.handle.net/10079/digcoll/2756814; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/28407. Archive of Eirene (TM Arch 660). The layout of the following translation, which is based on *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Eirene to Taonnophris and Philo, be of good courage.2 and1 I grieved wept as much over the fortunate one as I wept over Didymas. |5 And everything that was fitting, I did it and all my people—Epaphroditos, and Thermouthion, and Philios, and Apollonios, and Plantas. But all the same, one can do nothing in the |10 face of such things. Therefore comfort one another. Keep well. Hathyr 30.3 To Taonnoophris ⪫⪪

(Back)

and Philo.

Notes 1 The “and” has been inserted in smaller characters above the line between the two verbs; it is thus directly before the opening greeting, but slightly lower than it. 2 As *Chapa (1998, 62) noted, the infinitive εὐψυχεῖν (“to be of good courage”) “is written at the right hand side of the page, as if Eirene had desired to place it immediately after the names in a single line.” 3 The indented line is again aligned to the right margin. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 11 request with imperative (p. 140), 12 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 12 date (pp. 184–85), 13 address (pp. 185–86), 13 sealing (pp. 186–87).

352

Chapter 8

In his comments on this letter, already *Deissmann (1927, 178) referred to 1 Thess 4:13, 17, 18. As a form of the opening greeting, the infinitive εὐψυχεῖν (“to be of good courage, to take heart”) is used as such only here, but often as farewell in funeral inscriptions (*Weima 1994, 34) and on mummy labels (see pp. 35, 77). Further references for the verb in the sense of “to be in good spirits/ of good heart” are preserved in private letters: the author of BGU 4.1097.14–15 [2.77] (41–67 CE) tries to assure the addressee that she is “not disturbed but in good spirits”; in P.Oxy. 38.2860.16–17 (II CE?), a father asks his son to “write soon so that I may be in good spirits” (cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 307; extended eBook 2008, B3.2 no. 185); the fragmentary lines 3–4 of SB 20.14262 (I/early II CE) probably concern the hunger or famine mentioned in line 5, in spite of which the addressee is asked “to be in good spirits.” Probably in analogy to the opening greeting, Eirene also wrote a final greeting different from the usual and simple “farewell,” namely, “keep well.” [2.144] P.Oxy. 42.3059 (TM 26811) Letter from Didyme to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, found at Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II CE Ed. P. J. Parsons 1974 (P.Oxy. 42.3059). – Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 275 (extended eBook 2008, B1.15 no. 152); M. Parca 2021, “‘For I Have no Other Sun but You’: Emotions and Married Life in Greek Papyri,” in Married Life in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. C.-E. Centlivres Challet (London: Routledge), 185–208, here 192; R. Hatzilambrou 2022, “‘Asexuality’ in the Greek Papyrus Letters,” in Sex and the Ancient City: Sex and Sexual Practices in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. A. Serafim, G. Kazantzidis, and K. Demetriou, Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes 126 (Berlin: De Gruyter), 487–507, here 491–92. – Online information and images: https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21167002.v1. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Didyme to Apollonios her brother and sun, greetings. Know that I am not seeing the sun because you are not seen by me.1 |5 For I have no other sun but you. I am grateful to Theonas, your brother. [Receiv]e what I sent to your father [from (?)] Theon son of Athenaios, the friend (Back)

From Didy[me …]

353

The Letters

Note 1 The meaning is obviously “because it’s impossible for me to see you”; cf. “because you are out of my sight” (*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 275), or “… out of my view” (P. J. Parsons in P.Oxy. 42, p. 148). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 9 fragmentary part of address (pp. 185–86).

The first eight lines of this letter, which was written by a woman with a good letter hand, are almost completely preserved, then the papyrus breaks off. Now and then spaces appear between the words, the letters are well designed, perhaps with an attempt to write elegantly, and corrections and blunders are not visible. The line level, however, wanders a little. *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 275) described Didyme’s skills as follows: The style of expression is notably more literate than most letters, with an indirect statement using the participle, an articular infinitive as object of preposition, good use of connectives, and above all the extraordinary expression of affection which occupies most of the surviving papyrus. The pretensions of language thus match those of handwriting.

No doubt this is the letter of an educated woman who obviously enjoys corresponding with her loved ones. Didyme addresses Apollonios as “brother” and as “sun.” We cannot be sure if “brother” is used here for a biological brother or metaphorically as Didyme speaks (in line 6) of Apollonius’s brother Theonas only as “your brother” (not “our brother”). According to P. J. Parsons (in P.Oxy. 42, p. 148), the closest parallel for the designation of the recipient of a letter as “sun” is in Galen (19.680 K), who addresses a friend as “sun of my soul.” But the image used by Didyme, that she does not see the sun because it is impossible for her to see her beloved, probably cannot be attributed to any single author, but originates from a general pool of human images related to love. [2.145] P.Oxy. 73.4959 (TM 118649) Letter from Ammonios to Demetria and Dios

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II CE Ed. M. Malouta 2009 (P.Oxy. 73.4959).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 352–53. – Cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2010a, 20–23; M. Minehart 2012, “P.Oxy. XLII 3057: Letter of Ammonius: The [Mis]identification of an Oxyrhynchus Papyrus [as the Earliest Christian Letter],” in PapCongr. 26, 543–48; *Sarri 2018, 358, image: fig. 63.  –  Online image: https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21180532.v1.

354

Chapter 8

The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Ammonios

to Demetria

and Dios his father,

his

mother

greetings.

The letter of my brother Theon was sufficient, in which he informed you that, having got a chill |5 deep within and a weakness of the body and, which made us all worry greatly, he, thanks to the gods, immediately recovered, and was in perfect form again, so that he even bathed on that very same day, and no remainder of what happened to him (h2) So that … [you do not assume from] his

|10 is left. That this now 1the whole and only truth1

letter that he (only) sent it to do you a favor, I too have written.

we communicate to you, I swear to all the gods.

However, in case you hear about this from one of those who have the habit of not telling the truth, we thought it necessary to make it clear to you before they |15 did. Therefore, do not be upset, since Theon, my brother, is in perfect condition and carries out all his usual activities. 2 Your daughter sends you greetings as does my brother Sotas. 2 Greet Ptolemaios and Antiochos, my brothers, from

The Letters

355

|20 us. 2 (h2) I pray that you fare well,3 most honoured,4 and are fortunate together with the whole house, and (?) … I swear that my brother Theon is very well and doing the usual activi ties. (Back)

|25 (h1) (Illegible remains of the address followed by) (h2) fr(om) Ammoni(os), (former?) gymn(asiarch).

Notes 1 The phrase “the whole and only truth” is to be understood in a differentiated way, depending on which version we read, the original one (which translates “as the whole and only truth”) or the corrected one (which translates “is the whole and only truth”; see also below). 2 At these three places there are blank spaces. Maybe the writer wanted to separate the different greetings. 3 Although the farewell, written by a different hand, follows after a small gap in line 20, the subsequent four lines are indented, as if the writer had planned to indent the entire text written by him. A similar case is found in P.Brem. 5.14–16 [2.129] (117– 119 CE). 4 With great respect Ammonios addresses his parents here as “most honored.” Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–2 multiple addressees (pp. 98– 102), 6 analogy to thanksgiving report but not regarding addressees (pp. 123–28), 13–14 disclosure formula (p. 139), 15 request with imperative (p. 140), 17–20 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 20–22 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 22–24 postscript (pp. 182–84), 25–27 address (pp. 185–86).

The papyrus preserves a letter which was presumably never sent, especially since the whole text is crossed out; a fair copy that was probably sent, is not preserved. M. Minehart (2012, 546–47) suggested that the author of this letter is the same as of P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96], but both texts were for sure written by different scribes. The language is again sophisticated and elegant and “borders on the literary” (M. Malouta in P.Oxy 73, p. 155). The reason for the letter is the illness of the letter sender’s brother Theon, which he has overcome, and about which Theon himself has already informed his parents as Ammonios mentions at the very beginning (line 3). But Theon’s own letter obviously could not completely relieve the parents of their worries, which is why Ammonios for his part now writes in detail about Theon’s illness and recovery. A probable scenario to explain the overall appearance of the papyrus is the following: Ammonios dictated his letter to a scribe, personally

356

Chapter 8

added his final greeting (lines 20–21), folded it, and added the address on the back. Before having it sent, Ammonios thought that his message was not convincing or comforting enough, opened the letter again, and made two major corrections. He changed the dictated text of lines 10–12 (“that this now we communicate to you as the whole and only truth, I swear to all the gods”) by cancelling “we communicate to you” in line 11 and inserting the following remark above lines 10 and 11: “So that [you do not assume from] his (i.e., Theon’s) letter that he (only) sent it to do you a favor, I too have written.” Now the whole passage reads: “So that [you do not assume from] his letter that he (only) sent it to do you a favor, I too have written. That this is now the whole and only truth, I swear by all the gods.” Ammonios thus emphasized that not only the previous letter of Theon was true, but also his current letter. This was also important because the parents might have heard something contrary from anyone “of those who are used to not telling the truth” (lines 12–13). The other correction made by Ammonios regards lines 15–17 where he cancelled the whole clause about Theon’s perfect condition, and that he carried out all his usual activities. It no longer fitted in so well at this point of the letter. Now, Ammonios underscored that fact by adding as a postscript (lines 22–24): “I swear that (my) brother Theon is very well and doing the usual activities.” In the end, Ammonios was obviously satisfied with the wording of his letter but not with its physical appearance which made him cross out the whole text, and order his scribe to produce a fair copy which was eventually sent to his parents but is not preserved (see also p. 47). [2.146] P.Princ. 3.165 (TM 27135) Letter to Horion

Greek papyrus, Egypt, II CE Ed. A. C. Johnson and S. P. Goodrich 1942 (P.Princ. 3.165). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 3:153. – Online image: https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/99105017293506421.

May you rejoice, Horion. Send us tomorrow, which is the |5 fourteenth, a tasty fish. For you know |10 that it is (my) official birthday. Farewell. The 13th. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–8 request with imperative (p. 140), 9–10 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 12 final greeting (pp. 171– 76), 13 date (pp. 184–85).

This short letter is one of the few examples with the optative “may you rejoice” as the opening greeting. Further examples were collected by D. Martinez in

357

The Letters

P.Mich. 18, pp. 272–76. See further PSI Com. 9.10.1 (mid III CE). The form of the optative plural is only attested in P.Pintaudi 55.1 [2.186] (late III/early IV CE). The request to send a tasty fish is related to the upcoming birthday party of the letter sender the following day. Most likely, the letter was handed over personally by a slave or servant of the sender, since the addressee had to be informed about the ordering person, whose name is not mentioned. It is not impossible that it was delivered on the same route as eventual party invitations, as these too were distributed by a messenger and usually the day before the event (cf. PNT 1, pp. 198, 216). A fish for a birthday party is also ordered in P.Fay. 114.17–20 with BL 3:54 and 4:29 (14 Dec 100 CE). [2.147] P.Ryl. 2.235 (TM 27906) Letter from N.N. to N.N. alias Philon

Greek papyrus, Egypt, II CE Ed. J. de Monins Johnson, V. Martin, and A.  S. Hunt 1915 (P.Ryl. 2.235).  –  No image available.

[…] … […] finding out that Ammonous is going to you, I thought it necessary to greet you |5 and all who love you.1 But I wondered why you did not inform me through Lupercus of your good health and how you are so that we too may |10 be free of care about you, but it is not the first time that we learn about your heedlessness. Therefore, remember us too, even if you have something else to do all the time. Greet |15 Philon. I pray that you fare well. (Back)

[To …] alias Philon.

Note 1 Based on the relationship of the words φίλος (“friend”) and φιλέω (“to love, like”), the phrase “all who love you” is often used to represent “your friends.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 3–4 disclosure formula (p. 139), 6–12 complaint (pp. 132–33), 14–15 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 16–17 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 18 address (pp. 185–86).

The name of the sender of the letter is not preserved, and the recipient is known only by his alias, Philon, from the address on the back of the papyrus. Another Philon is greeted at the end of the letter. As is the case for many other letters, the fact that someone is on his way to the addressee is the motivation to write this letter. In the present case, it

358

Chapter 8

is a woman named Ammonous. The letter writer is primarily concerned with maintaining the correspondence, emphasizing that this has repeatedly been pursued only one-sidedly, since Philon—in contrast to the present letter sender—had not taken advantage of a comparable opportunity to have a letter delivered (namely, by a certain Lupercus) and had already been noticed as negligent several times. In lines 12–14, the letter sender refers to the motif of remembrance by asking the addressee to perform an act of remembrance, that is to write about his health (pp. 112–15). [2.148] SB 14.11900 (TM 26549) Letter to Herakleides

Greek papyrus, Egypt, II CE Ed. G. M. Parássoglou 1973, “Five Private Letters from Roman Egypt,” Hellenika 26:271– 81, here 277–79 no. 4, image: plate 35 (=  SB 14.11900).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:214. – Online information and images: https://hdl.handle.net/10079/digcoll/2758451.

[…] to Herakleides [his father], greetings. [Above everything else] we pray that you are healthy and [we ma]ke o[beisance for you] every day bef[ore the] |5 [gods here w]ishing you the most beautiful and [best … We wonde]r why you neither [sent] us any o[ral message nor any l]etter. As we enjoi[ned you in] person about this matter, now too we be[g you to] come [to us quickly], as you promised to. |10 […] when you are with us […]. […] … Know that we m[iss] you eve[ry day], and so does Zois, our sister, [and … our br]other who enjoined you to s[end] him [a …, …], my lord father, the … of which ought to be of ir[on …]. |15 [… but do not n]eglect it. [My brother] also begs you, father, [to sen]d him some cloth[es], either purple [or … And abou]t this, f[ather, we en]treat you [not to forget]. Greet your most ho[nored br]other, […] …, Theonis t[he most hono]red, |20 […] her father. […] and[…] Archidas and Hero[…] … [and Aphrodisia and … [greet you … b]ecause [of …] existin[g …] … […] Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 health wish and prayer report (pp. 102–12), 6–7 complaint (pp. 132–33), 7–8 reference to previous message (pp. 149–51), 7–9 request “beg” (pp. 141–43), 7–9 invitation to visit (p. 148), 11 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 15, 17–18 reminders of requests (pp. 161–62), 18–22 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

A son, whose name is not preserved, is wondering why his father does not send any messages. This is backed by an urgent wish that his father come to visit soon. The sender of the letter is writing this not only on his own behalf,

359

The Letters

but also in the name of his brother and sister, which is expressed by the firstperson plural forms used several times. [2.149] O.Claud. 1.147 (TM 29813) Letter from Apollos to Mikkalous

Greek ostracon, written in Raima (TM Geo 2643), found at Mons Claudianus/Egypt (TM Geo 2783), II CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 1992 (O.Claud. 1.147, image: planche XXIII). – Online images: https://www.nakala.fr/ (search for “O.Claud. 147”). The layout of the following translation reflects that of the ostracon as closely as possible.

Apollos to Mikkalous his sister, greetings. I considered it necessary, coming into Raima, to greet As I enjoined you, re|5 you. strain yourself. Do not quarrel with anyone. And also I myself worry about you. As I instructed you, do not worry. |10 Greet Aplonous, Festus greets you. (h2) Farewell. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–3 disclosure formula (p. 139), 5–6 reference to previous message (pp. 149–51), 5–9 moral instructions (pp. 154–57), 10–12 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 13 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

The instruction not to quarrel with anyone (lines 6–7) sounds like a general ethical instruction. In this case, the brother probably feels responsible for his sister, which is also suggested by the two reminders of previous instructions. By leaving an empty space before the first reminder, Apollos emphasizes the seriousness of his concerns. Although not indicated by the editor, the final greeting seems to have been written by another writer, which is also supported by the empty space before

360

Chapter 8

line 13. This would mean that Apollos employed a scribe to write the letter and added the final greeting in his own hand. [2.150] SB 14.11580 (TM 27489) Letter to Thesis from Didyme

Greek ostracon, Upper Egypt/Egypt (TM Geo 2766), mid or second half II CE (after 138 CE) Ed. J. C. Shelton 1976, “Four Private Letters on Ostraca,” ZPE 21:261–64, here 261–62, image: Tafel V  a after p. 288 (= SB 14.11580).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 9:274.  –  Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 284 (extended eBook 2008, B1.22 no. 159 with image); *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 174–75.

The translation below reflects the linguistic peculiarities and orthographic errors of the Greek text as closely as possible; quotation marks (which are usually not present in ancient Greek texts) have also not been inserted. To Thesis from Dityme,1 greetings. I was pripeireng to kom. Apollos hiseelf set to me as he reft, as long as you are in good helth, go |5 too your house to chive birth. Eef you like, write to mi and I will conme. The one who kives you dis ostracon |10 he hes sedh to me, stay thered.2

According to my own interpretation an orthographically corrected translation would read (with inserted quotation marks) as follows: To Thesis from Didyme,1 greetings. I was preparing to come. Apollos himself said to me as he left, “As long as you are in good health, go |5 to your house to give birth.” If you like, write to me and I will come. The one who gives you this ostracon |10 has said to me, “Stay there.”2 Notes 1 If Didyme wrote the letter herself, which is likely, she misspelled her own name (it should read “Didyme”). The addressee is mentioned in the first place, which is not very common in private letters, and in any case represents a gesture of reverence. Thesis is, therefore, very likely to be the sender’s mother. Her mention in the first place may indicate that Didyme is appealing to her in a matter of great concern. 2 The term “there” (Greek ἐκεί) usually refers to a place which is distant from the subject and thus cannot be identified with Didyme’s current location (in the sense

The Letters

361

of “here”) but refers to the same place which is described as “your house” (i.e., the house of the addressee) earlier in the letter. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2 mention of postponed visit (pp. 129–31), 6–7 request with imperative (p. 140), 7–8 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 8–10 reference to letter carrier (pp. 191–99), who is also to serve as the author’s representative (pp. 198–99).

As mentioned in the notes above, the structure of the letter opening hints at a great concern on the side of Didyme, and the only wish that is expressed by her throughout the letter is to visit her mother and give birth to her baby there. Didyme’s husband Apollos had probably been forced to leave earlier to do business. Maybe Didyme found it hard to simply ask her mother if she would be willing to take her into her house. Instead, she hides, so to speak, behind the recommendations of her husband and the messenger delivering the letter who could have been ordered to explain, personally and more extensively, Didyme’s request after his arrival at the mother’s house (see also p. 12). A different translation and interpretation were presented by J. C. Shelton in his editio princeps (Shelton 1976, 262). According to him, Didyme is to travel to her mother, following the advice of her husband Apollos, to give birth to their child. However, the bearer of the ostracon advised her against it so that she now wants to leave the decision to her mother. *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 284) have come to a similar conclusion although their translation is slightly different, and the direct speech of Didyme’s husband Apollos is extended: “Apollos himself told me as he was leaving, ‘If you are well go to your home to give birth; if you want, write to me and I will come.’” Contrary to Shelton’s and my own interpretations, Bagnall and Cribiore have Apollos tell his wife to write to him if he should come to her (instead of Didyme telling her mother that she should eventually write to her daughter to come to her mother’s house). On the other hand, Bagnall and Cribiore follow Shelton’s interpretation that the letter carrier had voted against Didyme’s planned travel to her mother. But in connection with Didyme’s personal desire and the recommendations of her husband, it does not seem conclusive that it was the messenger who advised the letter sender against her own plan. If we take “there” at the end of the letter as referring to the addressee’s house (see note 2), there is no contradiction between the letter sender’s wish, her husband’s suggestion, and the letter carrier’s advice to not only travel to the mother’s house but also stay there until she has given birth to the baby and recovered.

362

Chapter 8

[2.151] PSI 12.1241 (TM 17409) Letter from Maximus to Chairemon and Eudaimon

Greek papyrus, written in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found in Egypt, 14 Jul 159 CE Ed. M. Norsa 1951 (PSI 12.1241).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 4:90; 8:408–9.  –  Cf. G. Vitelli 1931, “Lettera di Maximos a Chairemon ed Eudaimon suoi figliuoli,” Studi italiani di filologia classica N.S. 9:8–11 (= SB 5.7562). – Online information and image: http:// www.psi-online.it/documents/psi;12;1241. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–3 and of lines 37–43 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 4–42 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Maximus to Chairemon and Eudaimon his sweetest1, greetings. [Above] everything else I pray |5 that you1 are healthy. I want you1 to know that under the gods’ safe-keeping I arrived in the city on the 17th, and the prefect |10 arrived in the city on the 16th, Titus Furius Victorinus. Please, just as I asked you1 face to face to tolerate each |15 other and love each other, out of necessity I am also writing now. You1 should care also for Thermoutharion, so that when I come, I will |20 be assured of your1 tranquility. As for the works in the vineyard, as I have instructed you1, do1 not be|25 negligent insofar as you1 have power. And do1 not take the risk. Whatever I do,2 I will immediately make it known to you1. |30 I am

The Letters

363

staying, I myself and the one who is sailing with me, Sarapion son of Demetrios, the son of Apeleketos,3 in the Street of Horigenes |35 in the house of Herakleides son of {of} Kalaes. I pray that you1 fare well. (Year) 22, Epeiph 20. When you1 write to me, notify1 |40 me also about Haraous, the little (girl), how she develops. Deliver in Narmouthis ⪥ from Maximus, secretary of the weavers.

(Back)

Notes 1 Both addressees are addressed in the plural throughout the letter. 2 If the verb “to do” here refers to the author’s professional activity, it means something like “to achieve, to accomplish.” 3 Sarapion is identified as the son of Demetrios and grandson of Apeleketos. Formulas and clichés: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–2 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 4–5 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 6–7 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 12 request “please” (p. 141), 13–16, 23–24 references to previous messages (pp. 149–51), 14–21 moral instructions (pp. 154–57), 16–17 reference to current letter (pp. 149–51), 17–19, 22–27 requests with imperative (p. 140), 19 announcement of visit (pp. 159– 60), 37 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 38 date (pp. 184–85), 39–41 postscript (pp. 182–84), 42–43 address (pp. 185–86), 42 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The sender of this letter was secretary of the weavers’ guild in the village Narmuthis (TM Geo 1421; cf. line 42–43), but he writes from Alexandria, where he visits on private business (cf. line 28) or as a representative of the guild to honor the new prefect of Egypt. In any case, he informs his addressees that he arrived in the city on the 17th of Epeiph (i.e., 11 July), just one day after the arrival of the prefect Titus Furius Victorinus had arrived there. Vitelli (1931, 333) argued that the solemn indication of all three of his names, Titus Furius Victorinus, should be taken as a reference to his entry into office, whereas in the case of a prefect who had already been in office for some time, either Victorinus or Furius Victorinus might have sufficed. If so, we have here the rare opportunity to precisely date the arrival of an Egyptian prefect in Alexandria (i.e., 10 July 159 CE).

364

Chapter 8

The ethical instructions in lines 12–21 are certainly occasion-related, as indicated by the emphasis on the need to recall them now. If the sender of the letter is indeed the father of Chairemon and Eudaimon (cf. Vitelli 1931, 333), Thermoutharion could be their sister. The father’s repeated admonitions would then refer to the siblings’ behavior toward each other. The works in the vineyard that the addressees are to attend to (lines 22–26) are not specified. Maximus only reminds them of already delivered instructions and adds that they should not even risk their transgression (line 27). A New Testament parallel to the information about the letter sender’s present lodging (lines 30–36) is Acts 10:6 (cf. already Vitelli 1931, 336). [2.152] O.Florida 2 (TM 74496) Letter from Herennius Antoninus to Amatius

Greek ostracon, Upper Egypt (see introduction), mid–late II CE Ed. R.  S. Bagnall 1976 (O.Florida 2, image: pl. 1).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 8:518; 9:385; 13:274. – Cf. H. C. Youtie 1979, “O.Florida 2,” ZPE 36:67–69; G. Nachtergael 2003 (in P.Hombert 2, pp. 9–13); J.-P. Brun, H. Cuvigny, and M. Reddé 2003, “Le mystère des tours et la question des skopeloi,” in *Cuvigny 2003, 207–34, here 220–21 (wrong line numbers, actually lines 3–7); R. S. Bagnall and R. Cribiore 2010, “O.Florida inv. 21: An Amorous Triangle,” CdE 85/169–170:213–23, here 221–23; T. Fournet and B. Redon 2017, “Bathing in the Shadow of the Pyramids: Greek Baths in Egypt, Back to an Original Bath Model,” in Collective Baths in Egypt 2: New Discoveries and Perspectives, ed. B. Redon, Études urbaines 10 (Caire: Institut français d’archéologie orientale), 99–137. – Online information and image: http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_ostraka_04. According to the seller the ostracon was found at Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu; TM Geo 269) but he is probably not to be trusted (G. Nachtergael in P.Hombert 2, p. 9). It may have been inscribed in Contra Apollonos (TM Geo 2633; G. Nachtergael in P.Hombert 2, pp. 9–13) or in Thebes (TM Geo 2355; BL 9:385) or in Maximianon (TM Geo 3149; Bagnall and Cribiore 2010, 221–23). The layout of the following translation reflects that of the ostracon as closely as possible.

Herennius Antoninus, decurio, to Amatius, greetings. Since the son of the bath-man1 who is in the watchtower is a little boy, speak to the |5 decanus so that he places a young man in his stead. For I also have sent orders to him about him.

The Letters

365

And the civilian who set fire to the reeds near the prae|10 sidium at Kainon, send him to me. Farewell.2 Notes 1 The first editor thought of a personal name Balaneus but Youtie (1979, 68) argued that we are dealing here with the common noun designating a “bath-man,” mainly because the existence of a military bath in Edfu is attested and it is assumed that it was built towards the end of the first century CE. This argument of course is based on the assumption that the ostracon actually comes from Edfu but it may also apply to Thebes (see introduction; for Greco-Roman baths in Thebes see Fournet and Redon 2017). 2 The “farewell” is formulated in the plural. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6, 8–11 requests with imperative (p. 140), 11 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

The decurio Herennius Antoninus sent this ostracon letter to Amatius, possibly a curator, with two orders: to immediately have a boy in the watchtower exchanged for someone older and to transfer an arsonist to the decurio for investigation. According to Youtie (1979, 68–69), Herennius himself had probably discovered, possibly on an inspection tour, that a little boy was on duty in such a responsible post. As he himself mentions, he had already sent orders to the decanus to replace the boy with someone of a more suitable age. Now he instructs Amatius to remind the decanus of this order. Youtie (1979, 68–69) suspects that when the previous guard had either completed his term of duty or possibly simply vanished, a desperate officer might have agreed with the decanus that the bath-man’s son should be stationed at the watchtower. In any case, Herennius now demands that this grievance be corrected immediately. The second matter is, in comparison, rather a routine case: an arsonist should be transferred to the decurio for further investigation. Amatius is clearly the main addressee of the two instructions. Nevertheless, the “farewell” at the end of the letter is formulated in the plural and thus includes all those involved in the two cases to whom the letter was meant to be presented as proof of the orders (cf. p. 102). Comparable examples, which probably originate from the same military camp, are O.Amst. 22 and the fragmentary letter O.Florida 6. Similar examples from Mons Claudianus are O.Claud. 2.236 and 298 (both mid II CE).

366

Chapter 8

[2.153] SB 3.6263 (TM 27792) Letter from Sempronius to Saturnila and letter from Sempronius to Maximus

Greek papyrus, written probably in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found at Karanis/Egypt (TM Geo 1008), late II CE Ed. H.  I. Bell 1919, “Some Private Letters of the Roman Period from the London Collection,” Revue égyptologique N.S. 1:199–209, here 204–6 (= SB 3.6263). – Addenda/ Corrigenda: BL 7:190.  –  Cf. *Schubart 1923, 104 no. 75 (only letter from Sempronius to Maximus); *Crönert 1925, 499–500; *Deissmann 1927, 192–97 no. 15 and 16, image: fig. 35 (after p. 192); A.  S. Hunt and C.  C. Edgar 1932 (Sel.Pap. 1.121); *Winter 1933, 48–49; *Bell 1950, 42–43; F. Farid 1978, “Sarapis-proskynema in the Light of SB III 6263,” in PapCongr. 15 IV, 141–47; *Stowers 1986, 128–29; *White 1986, 180–81 no. 113; *Kotsifou 2012b, 78–79; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 70–73; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 177–78 no. 213; *Reinard 2016, 547. – Online information and image: https://www.bl.uk/ manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Papyrus_2102. Archive of Saturnila and her sons (TM Arch 212; *Reinard 2016, 532–47; *Sarri 2018, 300–301; see below); see also P.Mich. 3.209 [2.154]; P.Wisc. 2.84 [1.22]. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greetings in lines 1–2 as well as 18–19, of the final greetings in lines 17 and 31, and of the address on the back reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the other lines only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Sempronius to Saturnila his mother very many greetings. and lady, Above all I pray that you fare well together with my unenchanted1 brothers, and at the same time I/we2 |5 make obeisance for you daily before the lord Serapis. So many letters have I sent you and not one have you written me in reply, though so many have been sailing down here. Please,3 my lady, write to me without hesitation about your wellbeing so that also I |10 live with less concern. For this is what I continually desire. I greet Maximus and his wife and Saturnilus and Gemellus and Helena and her family. Tell her that I have received a letter of Sempronius from Cappadocia. I greet Iulius and his family |15 each by name, and Scythikos, and Thermouthis, and her children. Gemellus greets you.4 Farewell, my lady, always. to Maximus his brother, Sempronius very many greetings. Above all I pray that you

The Letters

367

|20 fare well. I was informed that you grudgingly serve our lady mother. Please,3 sweetest brother, do not grieve her in anything. But if one of our brothers speaks against her, you ought to buffet them. For you ought already to be called a father. I know |25 that you are able to please her without my letter, but do not take my letter rebuking you grudgingly. For we ought to worship the one, who gave birth to us, like a goddess, especially one who is so good. This is what I write5 to you, brother, knowing the sweetness of the |30 revered parents. Please be so good as to write to me about 6 your well-being. Farewell, brother.

Deliver to Maximus ⪥ from Sempronius his brother.

(Back)

Notes 1 The Greek term ἀβάσκαντος is not easy to translate into English; it means that the person described as such may not be struck by the evil eye (i.e., may remain immune from any harm caused by spells etc.). 2 The orthographically incorrect form can either be interpreted as first person singular middle or first person plural active (BL 7:190). 3 The writer used the passive participle of “to ask,” so literally “asked (by me)” or simply “please.” 4 The plural “you” indicates that Gemellus is greeting not only the addressee Saturnila, but also all others who are currently with her. 5 I take the aorist form as epistolary aorist (see pp. 149, 212). 6 The farewell is written slightly lower than the previous line and follows a gap, which almost certainly indicates that the scribe wanted to indent the final greeting and add it in a separate line (which would be line 32) but could not do so due to lack of space (see image). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2, 18–19 opening greetings (pp. 73–84), 3–6, 19–20 prayer reports (pp. 102–12), 6–8 complaint (pp. 132–33), 8–10, 21–22 requests “please” (p. 141), 11–12, 14–16 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 12–14, 22–23, 26–28 requests with imperative (p. 140), 24 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 30–31 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 17, 31 final greetings (pp. 171– 76), 32–33 address (pp. 185–86), 32 sealing (pp. 186–87).

Sempronius mentions that he daily performs the proskynema before the lord Sarapis (lines 4–6) which could refer to the temple of Sarapis in Alexandria and would thus imply that the letter was written there.

368

Chapter 8

The two letters were originally written on a single papyrus. Due to its contents the Archive of Saturnila and her sons has been called “Happy Family Archive” (see Sijpestijn 1976; A. Papathomas in P.Heid. 7, pp. 117–18, 120; Barrenechea 2001). The reverence expressed towards the parents and, in another letter of this archive, P.Mich. 3.209 [2.154] (late II CE), towards a brother is particularly significant for this family. After writing the two letters, Sempronius cut the papyrus in half to dispatch them; only the modern restorer pieced them together again (unlike P.Mich. 15.752, which also contains two letters of Sempronius to the identical family members but had never been severed). *Deissmann (1927, 196) may have correctly described the situation in which the letter arrived and was read aloud: “the old mother hears nothing but kindness and affection. She hears it literally; … Maximus reads the letter to her, and then surely she will at last dictate a few lines for the homesick son so far away.” [2.154] P.Mich. 3.209 (TM 28798) Letter from Saturnilus to Sempronius

Greek papyrus, Karanis/Egypt? (TM Geo 1008), late II CE Ed. J.  G. Winter 1936 (P.Mich. 3.209).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 10:123; 13:136.  –  Cf. *Winter 1933, 92; *Bell 1950, 43–44. – Online information and image: https://quod.lib. umich.edu/a/apis/x-1655. Archive of Saturnila and her sons (TM Arch 212; *Reinard 2016, 532–47; *Sarri 2018, 300–301; see p. 367); see also SB 3.6263 [2.153]; P.Wisc. 2.84 [1.22]. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and of lines 26–28 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–25 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Saturnilus to Sempronius his brother and lord, very many greetings. Above everything I pray that you are healthy and prosper, and at the same time I/we1 also make the |5 obeisance for you daily before our ancestral gods. I wonder, brother—this is the second letter I’m sending2 you since I came home, and you did not send me any reply. Now please,3 brother, write to |10 me even faster about your well-being so that I too live with less concern. For you know, brother, that I regard you not only as a brother

The Letters

369

but also as a father and lord and god. For when I reached my house, at the same hour I perforce |15 wrote you the first letter, having reached my house safely on the twenty-first, and I found everything well and our lady doing well. Our lady greets you, and Maximus and his wife and |20 the children, and Gemellus, and Iulius and his wife, and Helene and all the children, by name. Greet Valerius many times, and Celer and his people, and Iulius Serenus many times, and Serenus Sabinus and Sarapion |25 and all who love you, by name. I pray that you fare well, most lordly brother.4 (Back)

… … from to Sempronius Maximus ⪥ Saturnilus his brother.

Notes 1 The orthographically incorrect form can either be interpreted as first person singular middle or first person plural active (cf. BL 7:190 on SB 3.6263.5). 2 With reference to the current second letter, the Greek form is to be understood as epistolary aorist (see pp. 149, 212). 3 The writer used the passive participle of “to ask,” so literally “asked (by me)” or simply “please.” 4 The final greeting in line 26 is added below an empty space and indented. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 6–7, 13–15 reference to previous letter (pp. 149–51), 6–9 complaint (pp. 132–33), 9–11 request “please” (p. 141), 11 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 18–25 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 26 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 27–28 address (pp. 185–86), 28 sealing (pp. 186–87).

Saturnilus writes here to his older brother Sempronius “in terms bordering on adulation” (J.G. Winter in P.Mich. 3, p. 267), which is especially illustrated by lines 11–13, where he assures his brother that he regards him “not only as a brother but as a father and lord and god.” In expressing astonishment, Saturnilus uses a widespread convention to complain to his brother about missing news. But he almost takes back his rebuke, immediately transforming it into an expression of concern for his brother’s welfare, before exuberantly

370

Chapter 8

emphasizing the importance of the fraternal relationship with the sentence already quoted. “Our lady” in lines 17–18 and 18–19 is certainly Saturnila, the mother of the two brothers, and—typically for this family’s correspondence— Saturnilus does not finish the main part of the letter body before informing his brother about their mother’s well-being. [2.155] P.Oxy. 6.932 (TM 28343) Letter from Thais to Tigrios

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), late II CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1908 (P.Oxy. 6.932). – Cf. *Rowlandson 1998, no. 173a; *Burnet 2003, no. 157; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 297–98 (extended eBook 2008, B2.10 no. 173 with image). – Online information and images: https://www.spurlock.illinois. edu/collections/search-collection/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Thais to Tigrios her own, greetings. I wrote to Apolinarios to show up in Petne so that he measures.1 And Apolinarios will tell you how the deposits and the taxes2; the name, |5 whatever he tells you.3 If you come, release six artabas of vegetable seed to the sacks and seal them so that they are ready, and if you can come up so that you check the donkey.4 Sarapodora a(nd) Sabinos greet you. |10 Don’t sell the piglets without me. Farewell. Notes 1 Presumably he should measure out the wheat. 2 Add “stand.” 3 The meaning is: the name is to be, whatever he tells you. 4 The apodosis of the conditional clause is missing; add something like “do so.” Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), who is also to serve as the author’s representative (pp. 198–99), 5–8 requests with imperative (p. 140), 9 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 11 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

As visible from the elegant handwriting, this letter was certainly dictated to a professional scribe. Apart from a few iotacisms, the orthography is accurate,

371

The Letters

but the overall style of the text is rather poor, quite abrupt, and several times a grammatical element is missing (see notes). It is possible that the scribe took down the dictation in shorthand and then transcribed the letter into a fair copy. In any case, the “overall impression is of a skilled writer taking down exactly what is being said, rendering it faithfully but not attempting to redraft it” (*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 297; extended eBook 2008, B2.10 no. 173). [2.156] P.Petaus 29 (TM 8848) Letter from Didymarion to Paniskos

Greek papyrus, written in Arsinoites (TM Geo 332), found at Ptolemais Hormou/ Egypt (TM Geo 2024), late II CE Ed. U. Hagedorn, D. Hagedorn, L. C. Youtie, and H. C. Youtie 1969 (P.Petaus 29). – Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 276–77 (extended eBook 2008, B1.16 no. 153 with images); *Clarysse 2017, 82–83 no. 4.6.  –  Online information and images: https://papyri.unikoeln.de/stueck/tm8848. It is uncertain whether this letter is part of the Archive of Petaus, village scribe of Ptolemais Hormou and surrounding villages (TM Arch 182; *Sarri 2018, 294–95). The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Didymarion to Paniskos his most honored, greetings. Above everything else I pray that you are healthy, and I make obeisance for you before the lord Petesouchos. I rejoiced a lot to hear that you were safe together with |5 your children and what has happened has been wiped away (?). I want you to know that my daughter is badly maltreated by your mother. Because she wrote to me, saying, “If she behaves with me like this for another month, I will immediately throw myself into the sea.” |10 I am writing this to you now since you are like a father to them. Look, what is the reality? For she did not blame your brother so far, but I am saying (this) so that he will not be negligent. Greet Harpalinos many times, and Herais and your1 children and all your |15 people by name.

(h2?) I pray that you fare well.

372

Chapter 8 (Back)

Deliver to Alexan- dria2 to Paniskos, cavalryman, from Didymarion.

Notes 1 The form is plural. 2 There is a blank space in between the two parts of “Alexandria,” which is obviously since they were written to the left and right of the thread that kept the letter closed (cf. p. 187). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–3 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–6 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 6, 11 disclosure formulas (pp. 136–39), 13–15 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 16 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 17–18 address (pp. 185–86).

Didymarion writes to the horseman Paniskos in Alexandria (cf. lines 17–18) and reports to him that her daughter is being tormented by his mother. Paniskos is supposed to restore family peace, but his role as well as that of his brother (line 12) in the dispute remains unclear. The editors speculate that this brother may have been Didymarion’s son-in-law and Paniskos his presumably older brother. That Didymarion refers to Paniskos as the father of her children in line 10 probably only means that she sees him as the one responsible for their welfare. A similar threat of suicide by a helpless woman as here in lines 9–10 is found in PSI 3.177.v.8–10 [2.164] (II–III CE). As the editors have noted, the term ἐγκακέω, used here in lines 12–13, is a frequently used term of the New Testament (cf. Luke 18:1; 2 Cor 4:1, 16; Gal 6:9; Eph 3:13; 2 Thess 3:13) and other Christian writings, where it has the meaning “to lose heart, to become discouraged, to be weary”; here, however, as also suggested by the editors, the meaning is rather “to treat badly.” If we additionally take into account that the verb in the present letter is used without an accusative object (“her” is not there), then the meaning “to fail, to be negligent” probably makes the best sense; Didymarion then implicitly expresses here that the addressee’s brother, as far as is known, has indeed not yet treated her daughter badly (the daughter does not blame him so far), but she adds that he should not become negligent in this either. [2.157] P.David 14 (TM 27544) Letter from Dios to Eutychides

Greek papyrus, Egypt, II CE? Ed. J. Schwartz 1968 (P.David 14, image: pl. VIII, after p. 118). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 6:73. – Cf. *Kotsifou 2012b, 62 (including n. 134).

The Letters

373

Dios to Eutychides his most honored, greetings. You know that friendship is proved not by words but by deeds |5 and above all that mutual friendship is obvious to both (friends) and to most people when it is through deeds. And it is precisely that which is creditable and pleasing to a god and praiseworthy to |10 all men, because it is this which usually leads to loving each other again. For there is no greater or ⟨more⟩ desirable or sweeter or more pleasant |15 good than such friendship in human life. As for myself, in short words I will tell you what has happened up to now, and I want you to know |20 that I have never hesitated to write to you … every (?) day, as far as it is possible to send a message. For I’ve gotten into a lot of trouble that I probably shouldn’t dare |25 impertinently tell you about, lest I go into out-of-place detail. But I suppose you have heard of them, because for most people these are about to vanish.1 And if [the] god is willing, he will grant me victory through you, scattering |30 the turmoil around me and taking care of you on my behalf and guiding you to your most beloved city. I pr(ay) that you fare w(ell), my dearest one. Phameno(th) 16. (Back)

|35 To […]logios2 from Dios. Notes 1 This obviously means that the news about the sender’s situation has been circulating for such a long time that it is already fading for those who have heard it. As is generally the case in the letter, this is probably an understatement by the sender, who describes his misery as having occurred much longer ago than it actually did. 2 The remains of a name cannot be assigned to Eutychides. Perhaps the letter should be delivered to another person and then handed over to Eutychides. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3, 19 disclosure formulas (pp. 136–38), 33 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 34 date (pp. 184–85), 35 address (pp. 185–86).

Dios, the author of the letter, was certainly a man of culture and high education, who also had a certain knowledge of official circles, their vocabulary, and their way of expression. His letter does not lack finesse in the way the essential is said in a few veiled sentences that an attentive recipient will have been able to decipher (cf. J. Schwartz in P.David, p. 121). Right at the beginning, Dios tries to draw his addressee’s attention to his own thoughts about the high value of friendship (“you know that …” in line 3). The second part (lines 17–28) probably serves to justify his rather long silence by alluding to difficulties that Dios does not want to address in detail and that were probably of a personal nature.

374

Chapter 8

Then, in lines 28–32, the hope of effective help from the addressee is formulated. The latter seems to have been a powerful man (note “through you” in line 29) whose arrival in the common city (J. Schwartz in P.David, p. 121) could set things right (lines 31–32). The disclosure formulas in lines 3 and 19 emphasize what is of central importance to the letter sender: to convince his correspondent of his unbroken and continuing friendship and esteem, which the latter may also continue to show him, especially in the letter sender’s distressed situation. In this basic design and intention, this letter can thus be well compared to Phil (see p. 137). [2.158] P.Oxy. 55.3809 (TM 29103) Letter from Agathangelos to Panares

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II–mid III CE Ed. J.  R. Rea 1988 (P.Oxy. 55.3809).  –  Cf. *Banfi and Foraboschi 1995, 49–50, image: 48 fig. 3; *Burnet 2003a, 216 no. 145; A. Pudsey 2017, “Children’s Cultures in Roman Egypt,” in Popular Culture in the Ancient World, ed. L. Grig (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 208–34, here 218–19. – Online information and images: https://doi .org/10.25446/oxford.21174964.v1. A vertical sheet joint about 6 cm from the right edge of the papyrus confirms that the letter was written on a piece of papyrus cut from a roll, as was customary.

[Aga]thangelos to Panares the barber, very many greetings. I greet Heliodora as well. I make obeisance for you1 |5 before the gods here, and I make obeisance for you every day. If the gods are willing, I am already cutting the hair of the master and I am |10 cutting the hair of all those in the house. Every day when I am cutting hair, it is my habit to make obeisance. Greet all my fellow apprentices |14 […] Note 1 The second person plural refers to both Panares and Heliodora. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–3 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 3–7, 10–12 prayer reports (pp. 102–12), 12–13 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

The letter is almost completely preserved. In the lower margin some fragmentary characters are visible, which probably were part of the final greeting. The letter sender’s name Agathangelos (literally “messenger of good news”) is

375

The Letters

a common slave name. The fact that he is writing to the barber Panares and greeting his fellow apprentices but at the same time informing Panares that he has already become the barber or hairdresser of his own master and all the members of his master’s household, suggests that Agathangelos is an apprentice, or rather had been apprenticed, to Panares, to whom he now communicates that he is making good progress in his task. Obviously, the owner of Agathangelos had his slave trained exactly for what he now reports to Panares: to serve his owner and his whole house as a trained hairdresser. In the letter opening, the proskynema phrase is used as the usual formula, but later within the body of the letter it is repeated in connection with the letter sender’s report on his success as a hairdresser. In doing so, Agathangelos assigns a special position and meaning to the formula. While at the beginning of the letter it alludes to the usual context (Agathangelos goes “daily” to the temple to perform the proskynema for his addressee), Agathangelos later assures Panares that he always thinks of him in prayer even during his daily work. In a skillful way, he thus expresses that he owes his success to his old master; and the only way for the slave Agathangelos to express his gratitude is to make obeisance for Panares before the gods. [2.159] BGU 2.450 (TM 28143) Letter from Orsenoupis to Neilos

Greek papyrus, Egypt, II–III CE Ed. F. Krebs 1898 (BGU 2.450). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:46; 12:13; M. Malouta in P.Oxy. 73, p. 160 (comment on P.Oxy. 73.4959.21). – Cf. *Reinard 2016, 413–14. – Online information and image: https://berlpap.smb.museum/01710/.

Orsenoupis to Neilos his brother, greetings. On which day you receive the letter, get up and find out wherever |5 Thaus [is], so that you send [him] to me … […], because I have a need for him […] Because when he was … not yet in the […] |10 […], but right now there is a great need for him. Therefore, read the letter to Thaus, so that he knows that I have a need for him, |15 and urge him to come here quickly. Regarding the linen for which you say you have need, notify me so that |20  you will find it when you come. But send word again if Thaus will come to me, that I may either keep him or look around for someone else. |25 As I believe, your wife knows where Thaus is, so that you may find him. (h2) Farewell together with your whole house(hold).

376

Chapter 8

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6, 11–16, 17–20, 21–24 requests with imperative (p. 140), 25 disclosure formula (p. 138), 27 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74).

This letter is addressed to the sender’s brother Neilos, but almost exclusively concerns a certain Thaus, whom Neilos is supposed to track down because he is urgently needed. Even the addressee’s wife is brought into the concern since she may know something about the whereabouts of Thaus. Thaus is presumably illiterate, because the letter is to be read to him, but this is probably also meant as a guarantee that, as Orsenoupis writes, Thaus himself perceives the urgency of the request. As visible on the digital image, the final greeting is not formulated in the plural (as suggested in the edition which has ἔρρωσθε), but—as to be expected— in the singular; the scribe wrote ἔρρωσσω instead of ἔρρωσο, a misspelling attested in one papyrus from the second century CE and several ostracon letters written between the late first and the early third century CE.7 Traces of ink are visible in the right margin next to line 27, confirming that the letter was folded right after Orsenoupis had written the final greeting in his own hand, that is, before the ink of the “farewell” had dried. [2.160] P.Lips. 1.108 (TM 29100) Letter from Horion to Heron Greek papyrus, Egypt, II–III CE

Ed. L. Mitteis 1906 (P.Lips. 1.108). – Cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2009, 230. – Online information and images: https://www.papyrusportal.de/receive/UBLPapyri_schrift_00001080. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and of lines 10–11 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–9 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Horion to Heron his best friend, greetings. Because my son Dionysios who is with me writes1 to you that I intented to come |5 to you but am not able to1 because I feel 7 Cf. P.Fay. 124.27 (II CE) as well as O.Claud. 2.283.12 (mid II CE); O.Did. 331.21 (before ca. 77–92 CE); 332.10 (before ca. 88–92 CE); 330.15 (before ca. 88–96 CE); O.Florida 16.8 (second half II CE); SB 28.17113.9 (second half II–early III).

377

The Letters

moderately,2 I am {but} sending1 you his brother Didymos, so that he takes my place as if I were with you. Greet your unenchanted3 children. |10 I pra(y) that you fare w(ell). To Heron f(rom) ⪥ Horion his friend.

(Back)

Notes 1 The forms used here are epistolary aorists (literally “Dionysios … wrote,” “I was not able to,” “I sent”; see pp. 149, 212). 2 The meaning of lines 3–6 obviously is: “Because, although I had the intention to come, I am not able to, because I feel moderately, as my son Dionysios who is with me writes to you, I send …” 3 The Greek term ἀβάσκαντος is not easy to translate into English; it means that the person described as such may not be struck by the evil eye (i.e., may remain immune from any harm caused by spells etc.). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6 explanation for a postponed visit (pp. 129–31), 6–9 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), who is also to serve as the author’s representative (pp. 198–99), 9 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 10 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 11 address (pp. 185–86), 11 sealing (pp. 186–87).

The letter is a very illustrative example of how sending a letter can serve to redistribute pending work within a group when one of its members is unexpectedly not available. A certain Horion, for health reasons, feels unable to visit the addressee to help him with a task not further described here. Since he himself is apparently also unable to write, his son Dionysios writes for him to inform the addressee that he is sending his other son Didymos in his place. More clearly than here in lines 3–9, the deputy function of the bearer of a letter (pp. 198–99) cannot be expressed, although the sender does not even mention which specific task Didymos is to take over in his place. [2.161] P.Lond. 2.144 (p. 253) (TM 28005) Letter to Athenodoros from Alexandros

Greek papyrus, Egypt, II–III CE Ed. F.  G. Kenyon 1898 (P.Lond. 2.144, p. 253).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:266.  – Online information and image: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref =Papyrus_144.

378

Chapter 8

May you rejoice, my lord Athenodoros, I, Alexandros, greet you. I beg, since I am indisposed and without food for two days |5 so that I could not even dine with the nomarchs in particular, and since my boy from the Arsinoite nome has been sick until today and is not here with the provisions |10 for me, I [therefore] beg you to provide a little donkey so that my boy is able to come to me with the provisions. I thus entreat you, |15 my lord, not to leave me in a strange land uncared for. (Traces of one line)

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–14 request “beg” (pp. 141–43), 14–16 reminder of request (pp. 161–62).

The letter was sent by a servant to his master, who is mentioned in first place and greeted with the rare formula “may you rejoice” (Greek optative). The urgency of the sender’s request is emphasized by the repetition of “I beg” of line 3 in line 10 and by “I entreat you” in line 13. That the sender was in great distress at the time of writing and in a hurry with his request for help is not only clear from his words but may also be evident from the fact that the papyrus was folded before the ink had dried, and the writing was therefore blotted, especially on the right and lower sides of the sheet. [2.162] P.Oxy. 55.3810 (TM 29104) Letter from Kallias to Kyrilla

Greek papyrus, written probably at Memphis (TM Geo 1344), found at Oxyrhynchos/ Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II–III CE Ed. J. R. Rea 1988 (P.Oxy. 55.3810). – Cf. *Kruse 2002, 838–42. – Online information and images: https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21174967.v1. A kollesis near the right margin confirms that the sheet was cut from a scroll which was ca. 35 cm tall.

Kallias to Kyrilla his lady, greetings. Above everything else I make obeisance for you every day |5 before the lord Apis and (that) of Kyrillos son of Dioskourides (?) and of the other (?) Kyrillos … son of A… Since the royal (scribe) sent me to Athribis on account of a horse, Dioskourides got ahead of me. So, I write to you, |10 lady, about the good news that the strategos was released to his strategy. Dioskourides should not worry any more

379

The Letters

about anything. For just so a singularis1 |15 came safely to the royal (scribe) and helped to release the strategos of the Lycopolite nome and two others. Greet all those in the household. Write to me about your well-being. |20 (h2) I pray that you fare well, lady, and are fortu(nate) for many years.2 (Back)

(h1?) Deliver

to …

Notes 1 The singulares served the provincial governor as a corps of guards, but individually were often assigned special duties, here apparently that of messenger (J. R. Rea in P.Oxy. 55, p. 193). 2 Both lines of the final greeting (lines 20–21) are indented and aligned to the right margin of the sheet. Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–7 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 12–13, 18–19 requests with imperative (p. 140), 20–21 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 22 address (pp. 185–86).

The mentioned obeisance made before the god Apis suggests that this letter was written in Memphis. The different handwritings testify that Kallias had a secretary write the main text but himself added the final greeting. The editor supposed that the “very good official cursive” of the main hand, which is “firmly based on the ‘Chancery’ style,” is “that of a clerk, possibly one who usually worked in the office of the royal scribe” (J.R. Rea in P.Oxy. 55, p. 191). In fact, this observation on the script also applies to the content, for also the letter sender Kallias himself was in the service of the Roman administration, namely, in the service of a royal scribe who was the second highest official of an Egyptian nome. The main purpose of the letter is to inform the addressee about the “good news” (εὐαγγελία) that the strategos had been dismissed from his strategy which is probably to be understood in the sense that he was found blameless after a positive investigation of his conduct (or a certain detail of it) and was therefore exonerated regarding his official duties. This exoneration of the strategos may have been related to the conventus of the Roman prefect, which for the Central Egyptian regions was usually held in Memphis and which the strategos in question may have visited. According to *Kruse (2002, 839) it is possible that the royal scribe, who received the message of the singularis about the exoneration of the strategos of the Lycopolite nome and two of his colleagues, is the same one in whose service Kallias was sent to Athribis.

380

Chapter 8

[2.163] P.Oxy.Hels. 48 (TM 26658) Letter from Ammon to Dionysios

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II–III CE Ed. H. Zilliacus 1979 (P.Oxy.Hels. 48, image: plate 35).  –  Addenda and Corrigenda: N. Lewis 1981, “Notationes legentis,” BASP 18:73–81, here 80–81.  –  Cf. L. Migliardi Zingale 1992, Vita privata e vita pubblica nei papiri d’Egitto: Silloge di documenti greci e latini dal I al IV secolo d.C. (Torino: Giappichelli), 166–67 no. 96; H. Inoue 1999–2000, “The Transfer of Money in Roman Egypt: A Study of ἐπιθήκη,” Kodai 10:83–104, especially 94–5. The layout of the translation of the recto reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of the verso follows the one presented in the edition (an image of the verso is not yet available).

Ammon to Dionysios his brother, greetings.——1 Every day I inquire incessantly about your affairs with regard to your well|5 being, but you, when writing to my sister, did not remember me even—1 once. I was certainly well disposed to come to you, at the time when I was in Bubastos, but since, as I already said,—1 |10 you wrote nothing regarding me,—–1 I withheld that. So, if you know that–1 we find credit2 at your place so that–-1 the money will be transferred here,—1 I come to you for the purchase of the–1 |15 wool.3 And I believe that also the other dyers will go there for this purpose. So, when they come, have dealings with them on my behalf and write—1 to whom you want me to transfer the |20 money. Your mother Plousias greets you, and your sister Hermione and Amoi tas, your father, and Pathermouthis, your brother, and Pallas. You greet your fa ther from me as well as from them. We pray that you fare well with your |25 whole household all your life and have much success.——1

381

The Letters (Back)

Deliver to Dionysios son of Parmen f(rom) Ammon  the father.4

on

Notes 1 The scribe used space fillers (long horizontal strokes) after the opening and the final greetings (lines 2 and 27) as well as at the end of several lines (6, 9–14, 18). 2 Such a document was “sent from the issuer” (in this case a third party) “to the payee, and then the payee brings it in to the payer” (Inoue 1999–2000, 94). In this case, Ammon cannot turn to the person he normally entrusts with issuing such a document (i.e., Dionysios), since he intends to conduct business in a place unknown to him, but must ask Dionysios to find a third person who could do so. 3 The Greek phrase could also be understood as “buying up wool” (Inoue 1999–2000, 94–95). 4 As mentioned in the introduction, the layout of the verso follows the one presented in the edition, which gives no reason for the blank space between the two parts of the personal name Parmenon and the blank space between “Ammon” and “the father”; since an image of the verso is not yet available, I have not been able to verify whether there are traces of a sealing (i.e., of ⪥) in this area, which would explain the spacing. Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–7 complaint (pp. 132–33), 7–11 explanation for a postponed visit (pp. 129–31), 11–15 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 17–20 requests with imperative (p. 140), 20–24 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 25–27 final greeting (pp. 171–76) personally styled (p. 174), 28–29 address (pp. 185–86).

The correspondents are business partners, presumably both are dyers. The form of address “brother” in line 1 is probably to be understood in the sense of “colleague” or as a term of affection. In the last line on the back of the papyrus, the sender of the letter refers to himself as the “father” of Dionysios, although in the previous line he identifies a certain Parmenon as the real father of his business partner. For the same reason, also Amoitas, who is referred to as “father” in line 22, cannot be the biological father of Dionysios, which is why in these two cases the use of “father” must be metaphorical. Ammon is already seriously annoyed with his business partner Dionysios who is said to have not once thought of him (lines 3–7), and Ammon adds defiantly that he would now have been willing to come to Dionysios but has refrained from doing so because of the latter’s negligence (lines 7–11). Only the prospect of successfully purchasing some wool would change that (lines 11–15). It is probable, however, that business interests are not the sole reason for this since the forwarding of greetings in lines 20–24 indicates close private relations between the two families.

382

Chapter 8

In connection with the secondary greetings, there are blank spaces in lines 20 and 23, the first to separate this part altogether, the second to distinguish the two variants of secondary greetings. [2.164] PSI 3.177.v (TM 28065) Letter from Isidora to Hermias

Greek papcyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II–III CE Ed. M. Norsa 1914 (PSI 3.177.v).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:392; 6:173; A. Papathomas 2007, “Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Berliner Papyrusbriefen,” APF 53:182–200, here 191.  –  Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 280281, image: 394 fig. 31 (extended eBook 2008, B1.19 no. 156 with image); *Jördens 2010, 349 no. V.11.2; *Clarysse 2017, 81–82 no. 4.5. – Online information and image: http://www.psi-online .it/documents/psi;3;177.

Isidora to Hermias her lor[d broth]er, very many greetings. Do everything, put everything off and come tomorrow. The child (?) |5 is sick. He has become thin; [he hasn’t?] eaten; it’s 6 days. I am a[fraid] he dies, and you are not here. And learn that, if he d[ies] and you are not here, watch out lest |10 Hephaistion find me to have hung myself … such […] … […] … be able … […] if you are able […] |15 to come, come […| eat.1 Note 1 The edition and translations of the papyrus suggest that the entire text ended with this imperative at the beginning of line 16. However, it is not clear from the digital image whether this is really true, i.e., whether the bottom of the papyrus is preserved or not. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4, 15 requests with imperative (p. 140), 8, 9 disclosure formulas (pp. 135–39).

Isidora is probably writing here to her husband, whom she addresses as “lord brother.” She urges him to return home, since the child is seriously ill and might die. The mother’s panic is evident not only in the short-tempered style (*Jördens 2010, 349), but especially in the subsequent threat to commit suicide. The prosaic way in which Isidora announces her possible suicide is shocking, but also significant, as we know from modern suicide research. A similar threat of suicide by a helpless woman as here in lines 8–10 is found in P.Petaus 29.9–10 [2.156] (late II CE).

The Letters

383

[2.165] P.Tebt. 2.583 (TM 31374) Letter from Aurelius Polion to Heron, Ploutou, and Seinouphis

Greek papyrus, written in Pannonia (TM Geo 3174), found at Tebtynis/Egypt (TM Geo 2287), II–III CE Ed. G. Adamson 2012, “Letter from a Soldier in Pannonia,” BASP 49:79–94, images: pp. 93–94 (P.Tebt. 2.583 is only a description by B.  P. Grenfell, A.  S. Hunt, and E.  J. Goodspeed). – Addenda/Corrigenda: D. Hagedorn 2015, “Bemerkungen zu Urkunden,” BASP 52:287–88. – Cf. I. Kovács 2015, “Brief eines Legionärs aus Pannonien (P. Tebt. 2.583): Philologische und Gattungsanalyse,” in Byzanz und das Abendland III: Studia Byzantino-Occidentalia, ed. E. Juhász, Antiquitas, Byzantium, Renascentia 15; Bibliotheca Byzantina 3 (Budapest: Eötvös-József-Collegium), 257–81 (with some rather vague reconstructions of the lacunae), images: pp. 280–81. – Online information and images: https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/231360.

Aurelius Polion, soldier of legio II Adiutrix, to Heron his brother, and Ploutou his sister, and his mother Seinouphis, the bread seller and lady(?), very many greetings. I pray that you are healthy |5 night and day, and I always make obeisance for you before all the gods. I do not cease writing to you, but you do not have me in mind. But I do my part writing to you always and I do not cease loving you and keeping you in my soul. |10 You, however, never wrote to me about your well-being, how you are doing. I am worried about you because although you received letters from me often, you never wrote back to me so that I may know how you […] … […] while away in Pannonia |15 I sent (letters) to you. But you treat me so as a stranger since I departed1 … and you are glad … the army. I did not … you … for the army, but I … departed from you. |20 I wrote six letters to you. As soon as you have(?) me in mind, I will obtain leave from the consular (commander)2 and come to you so that you know that I am your brother. For I demanded(?) nothing from you … for the army. Yet |25 I charge it to you that, although I write to you, none of you(?) has … Look, your(?) neighbor … me as(?) your brother. You also, write back to me … to write to me whoever of you …, send his … to me. |30 Greet [my father(?)] Aphrodisios and Atesios … […] … his daughter … […] and her husband and Orsino[uphis] and the sons of the sister of [his] mother, Xenophon and Ouenophis |35 also known as Pro[tas(?) …] … the Aurelii […] … […]

(Left margin, upwards)

[…] the letter […]

(Back)

[…] to the sons [and] Seinouphis, the bread seller … |40 [from Aurelius] Polion, soldier of legio II Adiutrix […] … |43 [from(?)] Pannonia Inferior(?) […]

384

Chapter 8

Deliver to Acutius(?) Leon(?), veteran of legio [… from] |45  Aurelius Polion, soldier of legio II Adiutrix, so that he may send it home […] Notes 1 It is unclear whether the family treated Polion like a stranger because he joined the military and they did not want him to, or whether this was the case even earlier (cf. Adamson 2012, 88). 2 The mention of a “consular (governor)” suggests that the letter was written after 214 CE, since in that year Pannonia “was re-divided, with the two legiones Adiutrices now in Pannonia Inferior and under the command of a consular governor” (Adamson 2012, 82). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–4 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–3 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 3–6 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 6–27 complaint (pp. 132– 33), 27–29 requests with imperative (p. 140), 30–35 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 39–46 address (pp. 185–86).

The letter belongs to the papyrus witnesses, which already have a certain value due to their origin from outside Egypt, namely, Pannonia. Other private letters sent home specifically by Egyptian recruits from the western part of the Roman Empire are P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139] and 491 [2.140] as well as BGU 2.423 [1.44] and 632 [1.45] (all II CE); they have survived only because they reached their destination in Egypt and were found there in modern times. The three addressees mentioned in the opening greeting are addressed in the plural throughout, except in line 30, where the forwarding of greetings is introduced by a form in the singular. Although his letter is riddled with numerous misspellings, the soldier Polion is able, at length, to articulate his complaint about the lack of news from home, while he himself always thinks of the addressees and often writes to them. This papyrus probably preserves the most extensive example of such a complaint in the entire corpus of ancient Greek letters. One of the few places in this lengthy letter where Polion interrupts his lament is the remark in lines 20–23 that he would obtain leave as soon as he received word from home. Since it could be time-consuming and costly for soldiers to request furlough from the provincial governor or a lower-ranking commander, Polion’s remark could simply be rhetorical and, in fact, he does not write that he was granted leave or that he even requested it (Adamson 2012, 89). According to lines 44–45 on the back of the papyrus, the letter was first to be delivered to a veteran who should then forward it to the addressees.

385

The Letters

[2.166] SB 14.12026 (TM 26580) Letter from Diogenes to Didymos

Greek papyrus, Egypt, II–III CE Ed. P. J. Sijpesteijn 1971, “Fragments of Letters from the Amsterdam Papyrus Collection,” Talanta 3:74–82, here 74–75 no. 1, image: plate I (after p. 76) (= SB 14.12026).

Diogenes to Didymos his brother, many greetings. I entreat you, brother, to show your value in a time of need and come to me |5 within five days. Therefore, I beg you, as soon as you receive my letter from Sarapammon, to come with him to [… for] I too did not neglect you |10 in your time of need and because in my humanity I also came to you. Do not neglect yourself, brother, […] I too am in a state of necessity […] if on the other hand […] Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–12 invitation to visit (p. 148), 12–13 final health wish? (pp. 170–71).

In line 3, Diogenes introduces his request with the rather intensive “I entreat,” but continues with the more personal “I beg you” (lines 5–6). As the editor mentioned, the back of the papyrus “does not contain an address. This is to be explained by the fact that the letter was given to Sarapammon who received Didymos’s address at his departure” (Sijpesteijn 1971, 75). [2.167] P.Oxy. 14.1664 (TM 21964) Letter from Philosarapis to Apion

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), ca. 200 CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1920 (P.Oxy. 14.1664). – Cf. *Schubart 1923, 107–8 no. 78; A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar 1932 (Sel.Pap. 1.148); *Döllstädt 1934, 12–27 no. II; *Sarri 2018, 31–33, image: 32 fig. 1. – Online information and images: https://storeroom.its.unimelb. edu.au/ipm/?page=search&record=ecatalogue.25190. The layout of this letter is similar to that of PSI 12.1247.v [2.171]: Lines 2–3 of the opening greeting and lines 5–14 are indented; several spaces in the opening greeting serve as separators (see translation). The final greeting begins in line 14 after a blank space separating it from the preceding secondary greeting; the other lines of the final greeting (lines 15–17) are again indented.

Rejoice, my lord Apion, I, Philosarapis, greet you and pray that you are preserved together with all your house and live well.

386

Chapter 8

That not only we remember you but |5 also our ancestral gods themselves,1 that is clear to all, for all our youth carry you in their hearts and remember your good will. About anything that you need from |10 home, my lord, send to me, for whom it will be a pleasure, for I will be most pleased to accept your commands as favors. I greet the most estimable gymnasiarch Horion. (h2) I pray that you fare well, |15 my kind and noblest lord Apion, and that you pass well through life with whom it pleases you to live. (Back)

(h1) To Apion, gymnasiarch, former strategos of the Antaiopolites, (h2) [f(rom)] Philosarapis, sacrificial magistrate |20 in office of Antaiopol(is).2

Notes 1 The meaning is: “Not only we but also our ancestral gods themselves remember you.” 2 Lines 19–20 (hand 2) are written in much smaller characters Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–3 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–8 motif of remembrance (pp. 112–15), 9–12 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 12–14 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 14–17 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74) and personally styled (p. 174), 18–20 address (pp. 185–86).

The sender of the letter, Philosarapis, who serves as the priestly overseer of temples and sacred rites in Antaiopolis, addresses the former strategos of the corresponding nome, Apion, several times as “my lord” (lines 1, 10, 15) and uses an elegant style throughout this letter, which contains nothing but epistolary formulas. However, apart from the secondary greetings in lines 12–14, which are phrased in the usual and simple form, each of these formulas (see the list above) has been elaborated by Philosarapis in a uniquely personal, almost exaggerated way.

Letters from the Third and Fourth Centuries CE: [2.168]–[2.188] [2.168] P.Oxy. 7.1070 (TM 31317) Letter from Aurelius Demareus to Aurelia Arsinoe

Greek papyrus, written probably in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found at Oxyrhynchos/ Egypt (TM Geo 1524), III CE (after 212 CE) Ed. A. S. Hunt 1910 (P.Oxy. 7.1070). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 8:241. – Cf. *Schubart 1912, 94–96 no. 81; *Schubart 1923, 114–16 no. 85; *Tibiletti 1979, 158–61 no. 16; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 87–90. – No image available.

The Letters

387

Aurelius Demareus to Aurelia Arsinoe his sister, greetings. The prayer offered by me previously to all the gods for your welfare and that of our child and your brother |5 and your father and your mother and all our people now pleads even more in the great Serapeum. I beg the great god Serapis both for your life and that of |10 all our people and for the good hopes that are held among humans. To write to you about our business or also about the affairs, concerning which I have also written to you often before |15 through many letters and not less, however, have equally instructed you in person, I now considered superfluous, for even you yourself as the mother of our child will want more than I do that the care |20 and promotion of these things be done with unsurpassed solicitude. But before all be especially mindful on the care and concern for yourself, as I have often written to you about this also, |25 sparing nothing that we have. I send you through Dionysios … […] … or in the […] of the neighbor of the house of Apollonios six kotylai of |30  Siretic (?) oil in a half-chous jar and one basket full of sweets. Two petitions presented by Xenophas from Apollonios son of Scopas and |35 his son-in-law Stephanos, who is in the city, against your father and your mother—of these too I send you the copies in the bundle of letters. |40 If therefore you1 come together and something seems right (left margin, downwards) to you about it, notify me quickly; whatever I think I can do in this matter during my stay here, I will not neglect. Nothing, however, has happened 2 I pray that you fare well. … […]3 up to now about our affairs. (Back)

|45 not to send me a monthly installment at this time until I notify you4 or write about it. Salute and greet5 all our people by name. And I thank you6 very much that, while I have often written to you, you have not written at all nor have you remembered me with regard to the safety of our house, as I have often instructed you by notes and letters |50 and in person when present. Do not be negligent,7 lest indeed you want to hand over the keeping of the whole house to Heraïs, who is useless, along with yourself, and, what may not happen, one thing leads to another. Although the slave of Ptolemaios, the brother of Hermogenes, has been traveling to Alexandria and has often come to me, you8 have not been willing to give him letters |55 and have not let him come forward at all, but Eudaimon has even dismissed him, saying, “At present we don’t have time, because we are leaving for others.” Deliv(er) to Arsinoe, si- ster,9 f(rom) Demareus.

388

Chapter 8

Notes 1 From line 40 onwards, Demareus uses the second person plural, obviously addressing not only his wife, but also her parents. 2 The final greeting is not written in a separate line, but before Demareus added it to line 43, he left a space of several centimeters. It is addressed only to his wife in the singular. 3 The postscript begins in a new line (line 44), but for lack of space, only from about the middle of the final greeting. This part is too fragmentary to be translated. 4 Demareus again uses the plural here. 5 The request to greet all the people at home is addressed only to Arsinoe in the singular. 6 The ironic thanksgiving is addressed to Arsinoe and her parents in the plural. 7 This appeal is only addressed to Arsinoe in the singular. 8 The final complaint is addressed by Demareus to Arsinoe and her parents in the plural. 9 There is a blank space in between the two parts of “sister” (in Greek the dative ἀδελφῇ, i.e., ἀδ ελφῇ), which is obviously due to the fact that they were written to the left and right of the thread that kept the letter closed (cf. p. 186). However, no X was written above it, as was often the case, because signs of seal marks are not visible. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–12 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 14–15, 24–25, 49–50 references to previous messages and letters (pp. 149–51), 22–26, 40–42, 50 requests with imperative (p. 140), 26–27 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), 43 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 44–56 postscript (pp. 182–84), 46–47 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 47–56 complaint (pp. 132–33), 57 address (pp. 185–86).

In terms of style, the letter is written in an above-average manner. The author has mastered all the formulas and conventions used and knows how to express them in a personal way, which is especially noticeable in the individually formulated and detailed prayer report. Presumably, Demareus did not initially intend to append the extremely long postscript (lines 44–56) to the letter, since it extends beyond half of the back of the papyrus, which is highly unusual. The reason for this, however, is easy to identify: Demareus has held back until the very end, namely beyond the final greeting and the secondary greetings in the postscript, his anger and disappointment that his efforts to maintain continued contact with the family at home, while he is presumably staying in Alexandria, are limited to one side, his own. This disappointment may have been even more intense for him, since he honestly cares about his wife’s welfare (she should certainly provide for herself and spend some money on it; moreover, he sends along oil and sweets with the letter) and, moreover, he attends to a legal matter involving his wife’s parents. The irony with which he thanks them very much (line 47) for not sending him

The Letters

389

a single letter reveals his anger and disappointment more subtly than furious words. The analogy to 2 Cor 11:1–12:13 is evident (see p. 23). [2.169] PSI 12.1261 (TM 17418) Letter from Aurelius Apollonios to Aurelius Diogenes

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), 212–217 CE Ed. M. Norsa 1951 (PSI 12.1261). – Cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 147. – Digital information and images: http://www.psi-online.it/documents/psi;12;1261. Archive of Sarapion alias Apollonianus and his sons (TM Arch 210; *Sarri 2018, 288– 89); see also PSI 15.1553 [2.170]; 12.1247.v [2.171]. The layout of this letter is similar to that of PSI 12.1247.v [2.171]: Line 2 of the opening greeting and lines 4–21 are indented, but line 2 more than the other lines; several spaces in the opening greeting serve as separators (see translation). The final greeting begins in line 21, directly following the secondary greetings; the other lines of the final greeting (lines 22–23) are again indented.

Aurel(ius) Apollonios to Aurel(ius) Diogenes his most honored, greetings. We greatly rejoiced, and in many ways, when Gorgias came to us and informed |5 us that you are well and, according to our prayers, live safely and in good repute, as it is befitting you; to the gods, therefore, and to the Fortune of our lord, the invincible Severus Antoninus, which1 preserved you, very |10 many thanks, of which1 we, in our longing for you, wish to benefit with our own eyes and no longer only by letters—since we already have seen you once in your home staying well. As for the matter of Apollonianos, just as the good Herodiaina informed |15 you, if you have or know or can advise anything, you should do it willingly and at my expense.2 For the man is worthy of your thoughtful selection and zeal for all. So, you should not do anything different. |20 My mother and brother are greeting you many times, and they also long to see you. (h2) I pray that you fare well, staying prosperous and in good repute all your life. To Aurel(ius) Diogenes ⪫⪪ f(rom) Aurel(ius) Apoll[onios].

(Back)

Notes 1 The relative clause obviously refers to the emperor’s Fortune mentioned in line 9. 2 The phrase used here could also mean “to my honor.”

390

Chapter 8

Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–7 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 5–6 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 7–13 thanksgiving report (pp. 123–28), 13–17 request with future tense as imperative (p. 140), 19 reminder of request (pp. 161–62), 20–21 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 21–23 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74) and personally styled (p. 174), 24 address (pp. 185–86).

Since the Roman Emperor Caracalla is mentioned in line 9, this letter must have been written during his reign but after the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 CE, as both correspondents are named Aurelius. Both the sender of the letter and his scribe, to whom he dictated lines 1–21, are undoubtedly highly educated and well-read. Almost every single formula or epistolary convention is elaborated. In particular, the artful combination of prayer report and thanksgiving as well as their elaboration in lines 3–13 is in no way inferior to the corresponding formulations of a Paul of Tarsus. The instruction in line 19 not to do otherwise is formulated with an optative. The forwarding of greetings is enriched with the addition that the greeters long to meet the addressee in person. The final greeting, written by the sender himself, is—due to a personal extension—more than twice as long as the simple formula. In view of these many special forms, it is almost surprising that the letter begins only with the simple opening greeting χαίρειν (translated as “greetings”). We do not learn anything concrete about the actual occasion of the letter (a matter concerning a certain Apollonianus) but only that the addressee is asked to support him to the best of his ability, at the expense of the letter sender if lines 16–17 are interpreted correctly (see note 2). [2.170] PSI 15.1553 (TM 114331) Letter from Ptolemaios and Herodes to Sarapion

Greek papyrus, written in Oxyrhynchites (TM Geo 2722), found at Oxyrhynchos/ Egypt (TM Geo 1524), first half III CE Ed. G. Messeri 2008 (PSI 15.1553, images: tavola LXXIII–LXXIV).  –  Addenda/ Corrigenda: A. Papathomas 2010, “Notizen zu griechischen Briefen auf Papyri und Ostraka,” ZPE 172:208–12, here 210–11. – Online information and images: http://www .psi-online.it/documents/psi;15;1553. To the left of the text a kollesis is visible which confirms that the sheet was cut from a papyrus roll, presumably before the text of the letter was written. Archive of Sarapion alias Apollonianus and sons (TM Arch 210; *Sarri 2018, 288–89); see also PSI 12.1261 [2.169]; 1247.v [2.171]. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

The Letters

391

Ptolemaios and Herodes to Sarapion their most honored, greetings. After receiving your letter, we as well as the friends have turned immediately to |5 take care of the matter concerning you, and as the need for much research and another examination arose, we necessari ly do not neglect the matter in any way, but we wonder why you did not send |10 your Diogenes to us because of it, but were content with only one short letter. Know, therefore, that we all will make your case our own, and … […] … […] … … … …we are praying to god that it |15 turns out well. Also Cornelius wishes the same. The friends write to you and greet you. (h2) We pray that you fare well. Stay healthy. (h3) I pray that you fare well, brother. |20 (h4) I, Theon, pray that you fare well, my lord Sarapion, together with my whole household. (h1) Today, that is the 27th, in the evening, your Agaus has come to us, doing well, so that he follows closely the events for which |25 we as well as the friends are anxious for you. (Back)

To Sarapion alias Apollonianos, the (former?) gymnasiarch of Oxyrhynchos. Ptolemaios, the former eutheniarch of Alexandria.1

Note 1 According to this description, Ptolemaios can probably be identified with C. Iulius Ptolemaios who is mentioned as ex-eutheniarch (supervisor of the food supply) of Alexandria in PSI 13.1328.27–28 for 201 CE. Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1 multiple senders (pp. 50–53), 9–11 complaint (pp. 133–34), 12 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 16–17 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 17–21 final greetings (pp. 171–76) in the authors’ own hands (pp. 173–74), 22–25 postscript (pp. 182–84), 26 address (pp. 185–86).

392

Chapter 8

As mentioned on p. 52, this letter is one of the few in which the plural, referring to multiple senders, is consistently maintained, which is obviously because both senders are equally responsible for its contents, and moreover senders and addressee are common friends. This is explicitly demonstrated by the general promise that they will all take Sarapion’s case to heart, by the reference to Cornelius in lines 15–16, and by the confirmation that the friends write to Sarapion and greet him, which is indeed verified by their own final greetings in lines 19–21. As such, this letter ultimately resembles many contracts, at the end of which the witnesses confirm the accuracy of the content of the contract in their own handwriting. The ink traces on the left and right margins as well as on the upper and lower parts of the back of the papyrus were imprinted by the still wet ink when the letter was folded. That such traces were imprinted to the left of each line suggests that the two authors knew exactly what they wanted to dictate to their scribe, and did so without interruption before they themselves, and their friends, immediately added their final greetings and dictated a postscript. On the basis of these ink traces, even the way the papyrus was folded can be reconstructed exactly: First it was folded twice from the left, as the impressions of the wet ink are most clearly visible on the left margin of the front and on the right margin of the back; then the sheet was folded once from the right, as the faint traces on the right margin next to lines 17–20 and 22–25 reveal. The next step was to turn the sheet counter-clockwise by 90° and write the address on what is now the lower half of the folded papyrus before folding the two halves inwards so that traces of the still wet ink of the address got imprinted on the upper part.8 Strangely enough, the address was hidden in this way, so that the letter had to be unfolded at least once to see the address. Since this final folding was for sure done intentionally, the only explanation I have for this unusual procedure is that the senders of the letter wanted no one else to know to whom the letter was to be delivered except a trusted messenger and the addressee himself. No details of Sarapion’s case are revealed in the letter. However, the letter as such and its delivery to Sarapion must have been something so important that it had to be kept secret. And obviously the whole situation did not allow any further delay. All this we do not learn from the text of this very special papyrus 8 The editor assumes instead (in PSI 15, p. 335) that this part of the letter, after having been folded twice from the left, was unfolded again, and that one of the senders restarted the whole procedure by folding the papyrus first twice from left to right and then again from the left, so that the left part, on which the address was written afterwards, now covered the right part. However, due to the above-mentioned traces of the still wet ink of the address, which was imprinted on the upper part of the back, this explanation has to be discarded.

The Letters

393

but from the faint and unintentional traces of ink which did not have enough time to dry before the letter was folded. [2.171] PSI 12.1247.v (TM 30631) Letter from Ammonous to Apollonianos and Spartiates

Greek papyrus, found at Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), ca. 235–238 CE Ed. M. Norsa 1951 (PSI 12.1247.v). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 6:186. – Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 393–94, image: 394 fig. 31 (extended eBook 2008, B12.7 no. 284 with images); *Sarri 2018, 360, image: fig. 65. – Online information: http://www.psi-online .it/documents/psi;12;1247 (only image of recto); online image of verso: https://hdl.handle .net/2027/fulcrum.6t053h08c. Archive of Sarapion alias Apollonianus and his sons (TM Arch 210; *Sarri 2018, 288– 89); see also PSI PSI 12.1261 [2.169]; 15.1553 [2.170]. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible. The handwriting of the letter sender (hand 2, lines 13–18) is considerably smaller than that of the scribe.

Ammonous to Apollonianos and Sparti ates my lords and sweetest father and brother, very many greetings. I write, greeting you both and praying that |5 the good things in life be available to you, and I am addressing you with the request of writing to me regularly about your well being, because you both know that, when ever I receive a letter from you, I celebrate |10 a festival. You both greet my sweetest children and my sister Dioskou riaina. Your children are greeting you. (h2) Greet Isidora and the children

of her.

I [pra]y that you fare well and are fortunate through life always. Earlier, the soldier bothers1 us … because of … … … you instructed him. Dio genes will tell you the affair.

|15

Note 1 Presumably, the present tense should be understood as past tense.

394

Chapter 8

Formulas and clichés: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–3 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 4–5 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 8 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 8–10 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 10–13 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 14–15 final greeting (pp. 171–76) personally styled (p. 174), 16–18 postscript (pp. 182–84), 17–18 reference to named letter carrier (pp. 196–98), who also serves as author’s representative (pp. 198–99).

The sender of this letter is a certain Ammonous, who dictated the exclusively philophronetic letter to a scribe before adding some secondary greetings herself, writing down the closing greeting with well-chosen words and attaching a postscript. In it, Ammonous merely mentions the fact that she has been harassed by a soldier on a business matter. The bearer of the letter is most likely Diogenes, mentioned in the postscript, who is supposed to convey further information about this matter orally. [2.172] BGU 2.380 (TM 31263) Letter from a mother to her son Hegelochos

Greek papyrus, Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), III CE Ed. F. Krebs 1898 (BGU 2.380).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:42.  –  Cf. *Erman and Krebs 1899, 212–213; *Milligan 1910, 104–5 no. 43; *Schubart 1912, 75–77 no. 63, image: 76; *Schubart 1923, 92 no. 66, image: 93; N. Hohlwein 1927, “La Papyrologie grecque,” Le Musée Belge 31:5–19, here 16–17; *Winter 1933, 93; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 258–59, image: 259 fig. 19 (extended eBook 2008, B1.1 no. 138 with image); *Reinard 2016, 410. – Online information and image: http://berlpap.smb.museum/01974/.

The mother to Hegelochos her son, greetings. At a late hour I set off to Serapion, |5 the veteran, and inquired about your well-being and that of your children, and he told me that you are suffering at the foot from a splinter, and |10 I got worried that you were excessively slow; and when I said to Serapion: “I’ll go with you,” he said to me that you were not |15 doing too badly. But if you realize that it is getting worse, just write to me and I will come down and go with anyone I find. So do not forget, child, |20 to write to me about your well-being, for you know how to be anxious about a child. Your children greet you. Aurelius Ptoleminos to his father, greetings. Persuade |25 Dionysios. Greetings, child. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 13–14, 17–18 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 15–18, 24–25 requests with imperative (p. 140), 19–21 reminder of request (pp. 161–62), 21 disclosure formula (pp. 136–38), 22–24 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 25 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

395

The Letters

A parent’s concern for the welfare of their children is a familiar and timeless motif. It is also a commonly known phenomenon that parents can get on their children’s nerves by being overly worried. In the present letter, such motifs are extended by the mother’s plea to her son that he meanwhile knows from his own experience that one is afraid and worried about one’s own offspring. Already at the beginning of the letter, the mother inquires not only about the well-being of her son, but also about that of her grandchildren. At the end of the letter, his son Ptoleminos, who is probably staying with his grandmother, adds greetings to the father (in the form of a letter head). What the request to persuade a certain Dionysios is about, however, remains obscure to us. [2.173] P.Aegyptus Cent. 35 (TM 976594) Drafts of two letters

Greek papyrus, Hermopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 816), III CE Ed. P. Arzt-Grabner 2021 (P.Aegyptus Cent. 35, image: 88). – Online information and image: http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00009684. (Col. 1)

(Two lines of ink traces and one very fragmentary line) |4 […] but beg\ging/ you to write |5 to me about what you want, so that it will be brought to you all the more quickly. And now I ask you for the second time \to notify me/ of the same thing. Write to me about what you want; I will do it with the greatest pleasure. However, to testify about |10 Heliodoros, I consider superfluous. For you will do everything by yourself. If, therefore, it is not burdensome to you, write to the strategos \and to Apollo( ?) his scribe,/ about us, so that he is not completely hostile to us (?). |15 \However, [do not h]esitate if you care about us./ Above all I pray that you are fortunate, as you wish.

(Col. 2)

(Remnants of eight lines) |25 It is good if [… the stra]tegos, \receiving the letters,/ […] us benevolently (?) … […] the collector of revenues […] his scribe … […] |30 Therefore, whenever […] please be so good as to …(?) receive the letters … […] of friends (?). Your unfinished business, however, […] will be taken care of. Greet Chair[emon …] … as on the 16th (?) … […] |35 in the way (?) that I (?) have said […] … […]

396

Chapter 8

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 4–6 request “beg” (pp. 141–43) and offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 6–9 request “ask” (pp. 143–46) and offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 12–14 requests with future tense as imperative (p. 140) and with preceding attenuating clause in 12 (p. 141), 14a request with imperative? (p. 140), 15–16 final prayer report (pp. 170–71), 30–32 request “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 33–34 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

The papyrus preserves the fragmentary drafts of two letters, each one written in a separate column. The top of the papyrus and the lower right part are lost, but the end of the first letter is preserved completely. The space between the two columns is extremely small; in line 13, the two letter texts even overlap, so that it would have been impossible to cut them apart afterwards. The first letter (col. 1) does not end with a final greeting, but with a unique form of a final health which is rarely formulated as a prayer report (cf. pp. 170–71); a large blank space of 5.2 cm in height follows below. The fragmentary line 36 seems to be the last line of the second letter; the extant remains of this line cannot be identified as a final greeting. All in all, these indications clearly suggest that these are draft letters that the author dictated to a scribe or wrote down himself, still without final greetings. Both letters refer to a strategos, whose name is not mentioned or has not been preserved, and his secretary Apollo-(?), to whom the respective addressee should write a letter or, as probably requested in the draft of col. 2, send letters. Presumably, the common purpose of both letters was to obtain the support of friends, acquaintances, or patrons, perhaps for exemption from a liturgy, by writing to the strategos and his secretary. Lines 25–26 of col. 2, at least, mention “the letters” (plural!) to be received by the strategos. Both texts have been stylistically improved and clarified by corrections and additions. The infinitive “to notify,” which has been added above line 8, adds the necessary infinitive to “I ask you.” Between lines 13 and 14, the scribe of the strategos is added and mentioned by name; he seems to be of great importance, as indicated in the original text of the second draft (col. 2.29). The addition above line 15 (“however, [do not h]esitate if you care about us”) underscores the urgency of the request, and the one above line 26 (“receiving the letters”), which is referring to the strategos, is possibly intended to clarify that the letters in question should be given to the strategos himself. Overall, these additions underscore the importance and urgency of the request.

397

The Letters

[2.174] P.Flor. 3.367 (TM 31149) Letter from Aurelius Theoninos to Didymos

Greek papyrus, probably Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), III CE Ed. G. Vitelli 1915 (P.Flor. 3.367). – Cf. *Schubart 1923, 108 no. 79; A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar 1932 (Sel.Pap. 1.147); *Burnet 2003a, 275–76 no. 216. – Online information and images: http://www.psi-online.it/documents/pflor;3;367. The layout of this letter is similar to that of PSI 12.1247.v [2.171]: Lines 2 and 4–22 are indented, but line 2 more than the other lines; two spaces are used in the opening greeting as separators (see translation).

Aurel(ius) Theoninos to Didymos, the most honored, greeti[ngs]. I myself will not imitate you or t[he in]human letters from you, but [to you] |5  I send letters as before, “Theoninos to D[idy]mus.” For though I have often sent you letters and mailed you papyrus for letters so that you are supplied to wr[ite] to me, you have not at all deemed it worthy in |10 any way to remember m[e; how]ever, you have obviously become proud because of wealth [and] because of the great abundance of possessions you despise your friends. Don’t behave towards Theoninos, your brother,1 like this, |15 but [write] more often to us [letters, so] that through the let[ters your friend is] able to learn [how you? are doing. For] whenever people [come] to us, I am always [curi]ous |20 to inquire [ab]out your [he] alth; you are not ignorant about that either. I greet our father Souchion. (Back)

To Didymos,

a friend.

Note 1 The term “brother” is obviously used in a metaphorical way, since Didymos is addressed as “friend” on the back of the papyrus and as “most honored” in the opening greeting in line 2, which would be quite formal among family members (cf. p. 86). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–13 complaint (pp. 132–33), 13–18 requests with imperative (p. 140), 21–22 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

The letter is full of reproaches about the fact that the correspondent does not write. Whether Theoninos’s anger at his addressee—as whose “brother” he describes himself on the one hand (cf. note 1) but whom he addresses as a friend on the other—outweighs his concern for the latter’s health remains questionable. The letter lacks a final greeting, yet, as already indicated, it is

398

Chapter 8

addressed to the “friend” Didymos. The fact that the relationship between the two is not intact is made clear by the mention of the “inhuman letters” received by Theoninos, although nothing is known about their explicit content. [2.175] P.Oxy. 6.936 (TM 31325) Letter from Pausanias to Iulius Alexandros

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), III CE Ed. B.  P. Grenfell and A.  S. Hunt 1908 (P.Oxy. 6.936).  –  Cf. *Reinard 2016, 465–66.  – Online information and image: http://emuseum.toledomuseum.org/objects/43798/. The papyrus was first inscribed on the right side, which thus represents col. 1 in the edition. The editors have described the strange design as follows (B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt in P.Oxy. 6, p. 303): “The writer apparently anticipated that he would not finish his letter in a single column, but curiously began on the right-hand side of the sheet, leaving a broad margin in front of his first column. The writing of the left column, which was no doubt considerably narrower than the other, is of a reduced size.” The left margin of the papyrus (col. 2) is badly damaged.

Pausanias to Iulius Alexandros his father, greetings. Before everything I pray that you are healthy, and I make obeisance for you before the |5 gods of the country. Receive from Syros a basket of 80 eggs and a jug with three choinikes of mustard and half a chous of raphanus oil and a jug with half a chous of honey and the dagger. |10 Receive from Agathemeros a honeycomb and a pot of 10 cakes and 3 honey-sweet garlands; give these to my sister and greet her warmly. Receive from the one who is bringing you the letter a basket |15 containing 40 (eggs?) and a Canopic basket with 4 pairs of loaves and 6 pairs of …(?) The tailor says: “I give neither the money nor the hooded coat without Iustus,” for he says: “The hooded coat has not been ransomed and |20 I haven’t found Philoxenos at all.” I went to the mother of ⟨Am⟩monios, and she says: “I have no food now, and the petitions have not yet been got ready.” Bring me two hides, a wrap, and a small crate …(?), |25 five years old, and some (?) shoes. Send me now an open-work covering (?) having a … (Of col. 2, only about one third is preserved which makes a translation of lines 27–46 impossible; lines 47–48 preserve the remains of the secondary greetings of the letter sender’s mother, and lines 50–51 preserve fragments of the final greeting, “I pray that you fare well for many years,” which must originally have been written in three lines, but nothing survived of line 52).

399

The Letters

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–5 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 5–16, 23–26 requests with imperative (p. 140), 13–14 reference to letter carrier (pp. 191–99), 50–52 final greeting (pp. 171–76).

Pausanias sends several goods to his father and lists them in his letter to make sure that they all are safely delivered. The two passages that are not concerned with the delivery or order of goods, however, remain unclear and are good examples for so many passages in letters that we are helplessly confronted with today. The letter of Pausanias does not reveal anything about the tailor who is quoted in lines 17–20. We do not know the relationship between him and the letter sender or his addressee, neither do we know who Iustus and Philoxenos are, what the money should be given for, who was to ransom the hooded coat and who was to receive it or what exact role Iustus plays, nor what Philoxenos’s involvement in this affair is if he is involved at all. Also, the letter sender’s visit to “the mother of (Am)monios” and her information that she has no food and that the petitions are not ready (lines 20–23), remain obscure: Pausanias neither provides any information about the cause of the food shortage (if the mother of Ammonios does not have enough money to buy some, or if food is not available at all) and why he mentions this in the letter, nor do we hear anything about the concerns of the petitions. We can only assume that Pausanias and his addressee knew enough about what this was all about. [2.176] P.Oxy. 8.1158 (TM 31724) Letter to Diodoros from Lucius and Sarapion

Greek papyrus, written in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found at Oxyrhynchos/Egpyt (TM Geo 1524), III CE Ed. A. S. Hunt 1911 (P.Oxy. 8.1158). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 9:183; *Nachtergaele 2023, 336. – Cf. *Reinard 2016, 148–50. – No image available.

To my lord brother Diodoros, many greetings (from) Lucius and Sarapion. Before everything we pray that you are sound together with your whole house. Many times in the day we |5 expect you to come to us. Please be so good as to go to Aretion the baker and obtain from him four talents which he got from us when he was in Alexandria. But see that you do not neglect this. If |10 you get the four talents from him, when you come to us, buy us some provisions for our use and obtain fish sauces and send them to us. Look now, I have written to Aretion so that he gives you the four talents. And as |15 you said that you wish for sauces, I send them to you as soon as

400

Chapter 8

they are in. I got the Cnidian jar of vinegar from Ammonas, and I send1 you by him a basket of dainties and a slipper(?). We greet our sister and daughter Helenous |20 and her daughter.2 Greet Aphynchis and Techosis and Ptolemos from us. And if you learn that Aretion is going to accuse you about the copper (money), write to me and I send him an addition. |25 I pray that you fare well for a long time. (Back)

Deliver to Diodoros the merchant from his friend Lucius.

Notes 1 It is very likely that the aorist form (literally “I sent”) is used here as epistolary aorist (see pp. 149, 212). 2 A. S. Hunt translates: “We greet our sister and her daughter Helenous and her daughter.” The final “and her daughter” is clear from the Greek text but the Greek text at the beginning of the whole clause literally reads “we greet the sister and daughter Helenous” which I take as referring to one person, Helenous. At least “sister” could be used metaphorically—like “brother” in line 1, and I see no other solution than to take also “daughter” in a figurative sense as both senders of the letter are male. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–5 invitation to visit (p. 148), 5–9, 9–13, 22–24 requests “you will do well, please be so good as to” (pp. 146–47), 9 reminder of request (pp. 161–62), 13 disclosure formula (p. 139), 16–17 reference to named letter carrier? (pp. 196–98), 18–21 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 25 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 26 address (pp. 185–86).

The address on the back of the papyrus clearly reveals that Lucius is the main author of this letter, which is addressed to his friend Diodoros, who is metaphorically called “brother” in line 1 of the letter opening. Because of the address, we have here one of the few cases in which we can precisely identify a single author among several senders of a letter, and clearly establish that “brother” is used metaphorically to address a friend (or that a friend is metaphorically called “brother”). Both characteristics, multiple senders of a letter and the metaphorical use of family terminology, are widely attested in papyrus letters (see pp. 51–53, 88–95). Regarding the issue of multiple senders vs. one responsible author, the opening greeting of this letter is already somewhat inconsistent, because two senders, Lucius and Sarapion, write “to my lord brother Diodoros” as if Lucius had decided to add Sarapion as a further sender of the letter only after having written the first two words of the opening greeting, κυρίῳ μου (“to my lord”). The follwoing we-passage (until line 13) includes Sarapion formally, but when Lucius comes back to the main purpose of the letter (to collect a debt

401

The Letters

for him from the baker Aretion) he switches to singular forms (until line 18). The request to greet others is formulated on behalf of both senders but a final remark regarding the debts of Aretion, is authored solely by Lucius, as is— somewhat surprisingly—also the final greeting. The correspondents of this letter seem to belong to a group of business partners with friendly relations. Not only is the addressee referred to as “brother” in a clearly metaphorical sense, also Helenous, who may have been the addressee’s wife, is presumably called “sister” and “daughter” in a metaphorical way. Furthermore, Lucius and Sarapion ask their “lord brother” Diodoros to also greet three other people, two male and one female (Techosis); it is not impossible, but far from certain, that Aphynchis and Techosis were husband and wife and that Ptolemaios was their son. While only one concern (to collect the debt from the baker) is clearly central to this letter, and is addressed again and again, Lucius does not miss the opportunity to maintain and cultivate the friendly relations between here and there. [2.177] P.Oxy. 14.1681 (TM 31789) Letter from Ammonios to Iulius and Hilaros

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), III CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1920 (P.Oxy. 14.1681). – Cf. A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar 1932 (Sel.Pap. 1.152); *Tibiletti 1979, 143–144 no. 8. – Online information and image: https:// www.cheltladiescollege.org/news/recent-news/uc4-visit-archives/.

Ammonios to Iulius and Hilaros his brothers, very many greetings. Perhaps you are thinking, |5 brothers, that I am some barbarian or inhuman Egyptian. But I claim that this is not so, first, because you have received partial |10 proof of my disposition, and many reasons have urged me to go to my people: in the first |15 place, my desire to see them again after a year’s interval, and then, my wish to leave Egypt before winter. |20 I hope now to come to you as well after three (days) and tell you the news about me. Greet |25  (my) sister Hieronis with Iulius, her husband, and Isido[ra ?] with … […] … […] (Back)

|30 De(liver) to Iulius and Hilaros, the brothers, f(rom) Ammonios.

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–3 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–3 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 4 disclosure formula (p. 138), 20–22 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 24–28 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 30 address (pp. 185–86).

402

Chapter 8

Ammonios addresses Iulius and Hilaros as “brothers,” which may refer to real brothers or, metaphorically, to friends. The editors translated lines 12–14 as “many reasons have urged me to go to my friends” (P.Oxy. 14, p. 142), but the specification “friends” is not in the Greek text. As Alexandria was usually distinguished from the “land” of Egypt (called the chora), the phrase “to leave Egypt” in lines 18–19 may be understood in the sense that Ammonius intended to travel from the chora to the capital, and since “three” in line 21 presumably means “three days,” this journey may well have been not very long. The author’s desire to leave the chora before winter and travel to his people (lines 17–19) parallels 1 Cor 16:5–6, where Paul announces his visit and will perhaps spend the winter in Corinth which means that he intends to arrive there for sure before winter. Conversely, in 2 Tim 4:21 Timothy is asked to come to the letter author before winter, and the author of the Letter to Titus asks his addressee to make every effort to come to him at Nicopolis, for he has decided to spend the winter there (Titus 3:12). [2.178] P.Oxy. 77.5113 (TM 140179) Letter from Dorion to Phanias

Greek papyrus, written probably in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found at Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), III CE Ed. J. Yuan 2011 (P.Oxy. 77.5113).  –  Online information and image: https://doi.org /10.25446/oxford.21181021.v1.

Rejoice,1 child Phanias, from Dorion. I was pleased to learn that you have returned cured, and I give thanks |5 to Polieus Sarapis that he has restored you to welfare. The things that troubled me here were many, child Phanias, so that I was really restless, of which you are |10 perhaps not unaware either. But … \I pray2/ that all of us may fare according to (our) mind. For perhaps meeting better fortune we will be able … […] to fare again as we wish. |15 (Traces of ink). Notes 1 Instead of the common infinitive χαίρειν (literally “to rejoice” but commonly translated as “greetings”) the letter writer used the imperative. 2 In line 10, the scribe deleted a previously written (verbal?) form and inserted “I pray” above the line. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–6 thanksgiving report (pp. 123–28).

403

The Letters

On the back of a land survey, a certain Dorion wrote this letter to Phanias, whom he addresses as “child” which suggests that Phanias was either Dorion’s son or he was addressed as “child” in a metaphorical way (on both meanings see *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 202–3). Examples of the latter meaning in the New Testament are numerous (in Paul’s letters, e.g., Phlm 10). The papyrus was found at Oxyrhynchos but the editor argues that it could have been written in Alexandria because Dorion expresses his thanks to Polieus Sarapis (lines 4–5) who is addressed here for the first time in documentary papyri as the protector of a city (J. Yuan in P.Oxy. 77, pp. 113, 115). Most probably, the papyrus broke off at a horizontal folding so that half of the letter is missing. Reporting a joyful reaction to the receipt of good news (lines 3–4) and a thanksgiving for the addressee’s well-being (lines 4–6) are conventions well established in documentary papyri (see pp. 122, 125). In the following lines, Dorion mentions some misfortune on his side which is not explained in further details as Phanias may already have heard of it. An interesting detail is the author’s reference to “better fortune” (line 12) which led the editor to identify Dorion as a “man of letters” (J. Yuan in P.Oxy. 77, p. 113, cf. p. 115) as the respective phrase is attested in Plato (e.g., Leg. 856e) but not in other documentary papyri where only “good fortune” is common. Yet the whole concept that (divine) Fortune is sometimes good, sometimes bad, and that it can be good again, emerges from time to time in the papyrological record as, for example, in P.Ammon 1.3.2.8–20 and 5.5–18 [2.188] (Alexandria, 324–330 CE?). [2.179] P.Oxy. 78.5181 (TM 170064) Fragment of a letter closing

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), III CE Ed. M. Vierros 2012 (P.Oxy. 78.5181).  –  Online information and images: https://doi. org/10.25446/oxford.21184936.v1.

[…] … […] his … and my mother Thaesis and my mother |5 Koprous and Apollonios and Romaios and Horigenes and Moros and Diogenes and Ptolemaios, |10  your brother, and Demetria his wife, and Dionysios his son, and Cornelius and Herakles |15 and Sarapias. I want you to fare well. (Back)

[… from …]on.1

Note 1 End of the letter sender’s name.

404

Chapter 8

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–15 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 16 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 17 address (pp. 185–86).

According to the fold marks, the papyrus fragment preserves the lower half of the original letter. The accusative forms of the personal names and the final greeting at the end clearly indicate that we have here an incomplete but rather long list of secondary greetings. [2.180] BGU 4.1080 (TM 31016) Letter from Herakleides to Heras

Greek papyrus, Egypt, III CE? Ed. P. Viereck 1912 (BGU 4.1080). – Cf. U. Wilcken 1912 (Chrest.Wilck. 478); *Schubart 1912, 73 no. 61; *Schubart 1923, 88, 90 no. 64; *Metzger 1974, 46–47 no. 57; J. Hengstl 1978 (C.Pap.Hengstl 75); *Fournet 2012, 140–41; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 97–99, image: 120 Abb. 9; *Reinard 2016, 780–81. – Online information and image: http://berlpap.smb. museum/02815/; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/31016. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1 and of line 22–26 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 2–21 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Herakleides to Heras his son, greetings. Before all, I greet you and rejoice together with you in your good, pious, and fortunate marriage, which was granted to you according to our common |5 wishes and prayers, to which the gods have listened and granted fulfillment. And we, absent, were delighted with the news as if we were present in person, making vows for the future and so that, seeing you again, we could celebrate a |10 double “sumptuous feast.” And As your brother Ammonas has now made known to me about you1 and your1 affairs—as it should be, it will happen, and in this respect be confident and without grief—you too, hurry now |15 to honor us with an equal letter,2 and whatever you wish, order it from me, who will be pleased to keep myself available, and if it is not a burden to you and is possible, send me at the same time3 ten pounds of soft tow, m(akes) 10 lbs.,4 well |20 manufactured, at the price which is usual at

405

The Letters

your place and without disadvantaging you in any way.——5 Salute from me many times——5 your wife, who is dearest to you, with whom |25 (Back)

Goatee

(h2) you to fare well and thrive— I pray, my lord son————. to son Heras.

Notes 1 The plural forms “you” and “your” refer to Heras and his wife. 2 After he has received a letter from his other son about the affairs of Heras and his daughter-in-law, Herakleides obviously wants Heras to send him an “equal letter,” by which he presumably means that he expects a letter with identical contents, but is just looking forward to hearing it directly from Heras. It is questionable that this is supposed to be a “similarly extensive letter” (as J. Hengstl suggested in C.Pap. Hengstl, p. 188). 3 That is, together with the requested letter. 4 The order of the tow is written down in the proper form: First the individual items are listed (in this case only one), then the total amount is entered with abbreviations. One Roman pound (litra) is equivalent to 323 grams, which means that Herakleides ordered a quantity of 3.23 kilograms of tow. 5 In several lines, the final letter is extended by a space filler (e.g., lines 10, 12, 15, 21). At these spots in line 22, the final letters of both words are extended by space fillers, the first one obviously serving as a separator between the letter body and the secondary greeting. Formulas and clichés: 1 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 2–4 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 4–6 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 8–10 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 16–17 offer to meet the addressee’s needs (pp. 162–63), 17–22 request with attenuating clause (p. 141) and imperative (p. 140), 22–23 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 24–25 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 26 address (pp. 185–86).

A highly literate father whose name is Herakleides, but who also mentions his nickname “Goatee” in the address on the back of the papyrus, congratulates his son on his wedding. The good news he has just received is answered with a freely styled expression of joy combined with an individual form of a prayer report. His pun with the words “absent” and “present” in line 7 may be compared to 1  Cor 5:3; 2  Cor 10:11; 13:2, 10; Gal 4:18–20; Phil 1:27; Col 2:5 (cf. p. 59), and by introducing a quotation from Homer, Od. 11.415, to express his hope for a “sumptuous feast” on the occasion of a forthcoming reunion (line 10), he identifies himself as someone who knows Homer well and also trusts that his son will be able to recognize the allusion to Homer, where

406

Chapter 8

the phrase is also associated with marriage (cf. p. 15; *Fournet 2012, 140–41). The forms of the first person plural, which are scattered throughout the text, could refer to Herakleides and his wife (i.e., to both parents of the addressee; *Koskenniemi 1956, 175). The latter, however, is nowhere mentioned by name, and the greetings that Herakleides sends to his daughter-in-law (lines 22–23) are only from him alone. The final greeting in lines 24–25 is of particular interest because it was obviously important to the sender to create a syntactic link between the secondary greeting in lines 22–23 and the final greeting. After dictating lines 1–23 to his scribe, he had the scribe add the “with which” before leaving a gap of about two lines and then writing his own final greeting below it, for which he extended the widely used formula “I pray that you fare well” with the personal addition “and thrive.” An earlier example of a syntactic link between secondary and final greetings is P.Oxy. 59.3992.17–20 (II CE), where a separate “farewell” is added in the following line; see also P.Tebt. 2.418.v.17–20 (III CE; cf. p. 72). In line 5, Herakleides mentions his εὐχαί and προσευχαί (translated here as “wishes and prayers” but in Greek literally something like “prayers and additional prayers”), probably to signify the intensity and continuity of his prayers. The term προσευχή is used in the prayer reports of several New Testament letters (Rom 1:10; Eph 1:16; 1 Thess 1:2; Phlm 4) but appears only here in a pagan prayer report of Ptolemaic and Roman times.9 [2.181] P.Iand. 6.97 (TM 17331) Letter from Aurelius Zoilos to Diogenes

Greek papyrus, Egypt, 29 Nov 242 or 30 Nov 247 or 29 Nov 257 CE Ed. G. Rosenberger 1934 (P.Iand. 6.97, image: Tafel XIX).  –  Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 3:86–7; 9:112; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 447–48; C. Armoni 2020, “On Mice and Men: Bemerkungen zu dokumentarischen Texten,” ZPE 216:197–202, here 201–2.  –  Cf. *Tibiletti 1979, 135–36 no. 2; G. H. R. Horsley 1987 (New Docs. 4.17); *Burnet 2003a, 271 no. 211; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 447–48. – Online information and images: https://papyri .uni-leipzig.de/receive/GiePapyri_schrift_00005520.

[Aurelius Zoilos] to Diogenes. [I received your] letter on the 2nd and found it (?) […] … […] … when I realized your stupidity. I am serving and I am 9 The verb προσεύχομαι is used only once in a pagan prayer report, at the end of the papyrus letter P.Brem. 15 (lines 31–34; 29 Aug 118 CE?), but twice in prayer reports of New Testament letters (Col 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11).

The Letters

407

reproached for it; I am not out of |5 my mind and I am not impudent and I am not a mouse.1 You heed my lines: You should know that I myself spent my 14 years and, by the way, served your parents, and I was not impu[dent] and did not become like you or my sister. |10 It wasn’t necessary for you to do that and leave when you were 12 and go away to the Kynopolite nome. Even if you try everything, you cannot beat me up. When I was little, I often beat you up. So now, when I have become a young man, |15 you want to beat me up? I became one who continued to bear you; I will not continue to bear you. And I will also testify to [my] sister Thaesis when she comes to me, the gods [willing]. (Year) 5 // Choiak 3. |20 In fact, I thought you wanted to show me affection; when my mother was in danger, I found out that even if she gets over a hundred years old, you relentlessly intended to throw me against the door. // // // // // [To his brother] Diogenes ⪥ from Aurelius Zoilos. |25 ⪥

(Back)

Note 1 On the meaning “I’m not going to hide in a mouse hole” see G. Rosenberger in P.Iand. 6, p. 234 (with bibliography on proverbial usage). Formulas, clichés, and other features: 2–3 response to addressee’s letter (pp. 151–54), 3–4 complaint (pp. 133–34), 6 requests with imperative (p. 140), 19 date (pp. 184–85), 20–23 postscript (pp. 182–84), 24 address (pp. 185–86), 24, 25 sealings (pp. 186–87).

This papyrus letter is written without opening and closing greetings, which is probably due to the sender’s annoyance with his addressee. The relationship between the correspondents is not certain; perhaps they were two brothers, perhaps a master and his house-born slave (G. H. R. Horsley in New Docs. 4, pp. 64–65, 67). The editor of the papyrus, G. Rosenberger (in P.Iand. 6, p. 234), assumes that Zoilos and his sister Thaësis (lines 9–10, 17–18) are from the mother’s first marriage (line 21), while Diogenes is from the second, that the fathers are both dead, and that Zoilos lives with the mother in a house dominated by the young stepbrother (lines 22–23). Against this background, the sender now denies his addressee any right to criticize him, since he has taken care of everyone, and of the parents even when Diogenes was absent for years. The sharpness with which Zoilos rejects all accusations is matched by the angry postscript in lines 20–23. On the comparison with 2 Cor 11:1–12:13 see p. 22.

408

Chapter 8

[2.182] P.Flor. 2.259 (TM 11146) Letter from Timaios to Heroninos

Greek papyrus, Theadelphia/Egypt (TM Geo 2349), 249–268 CE Ed. D. Comparetti 1911 (P.Flor. 2.259, image: p. 226). – Cf. *Schubart 1912, 92–93 no. 78; *Schubart 1923, 113–14 no. 84; *Roberts 1956, 22 no. 22d, image after p. 22 (margins missing); D. W. Rathbone 1991, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-Century A.D. Egypt: The Heroninos Archive and the Appianus Estate, Cambridge Classical Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 312 (see also pp. 12–13, 21–22, 68, 99, 189); G. Messeri in *Cavallo et al. 1998, 208–9 no. 136, image: tavola CXXVI; D. Collins 2008, Magic in the Ancient Greek World (Malden, MA: Blackwell), 124–25; *Fournet 2012, 141–42, image: Tavola XI. – Note: G. Cavallo 2008, La scrittura greca e latina dei papiri: Una introduzione, Studia erudita 8 (Pisa: Serra), 109 no. [84] is not an image of P.Flor. 2.259 but of P.Ryl. 1.57.  –  Online information and image: http://www.psi-online.it /documents/pflor;2;259. Archive of the estate manager Heroninos (TM Arch 103; *Sarri 2018, 306–7; see p. 14 and below). In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and of lines 11–15 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–10 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Timaios  to Heroninos his dear(est), greetings. It is about time for you to send either the grain |5 or its price. And Kiot should learn that if he does not give the other sakkos1 or come up and pay his dues, a soldier will come down |10 to get him. But you, send it to me at any rate. I pray that you fare well.2

(Left margin, upwards)

“The other gods as well as the chariot-fighting men slept all night long, but sweet sleep did not hold Zeus.” |15 They slept all night long.

Notes 1 A sakkos (three artabas) represents approximately 116.42 liters (of wheat). 2 The handwriting of the final greeting seems to be the same, although it becomes more cursive here, probably intentionally, to give it the personal touch that is typical of final greetings written in a letter author’s own hand (cf. p. 45).

The Letters

409

Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–11 requests (pp. 140–48), 11–12 final greeting (pp. 171–76) in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 13–15 postscript (pp. 182–84).

The letter belongs to the archive of the estate manager Heroninos (TM Arch 103; see also p. 14) and was found at Theadelphia, but it was written in Arsinoe. This was the metropolis of the Arsinoite nome and location of the estate of Aurelius Appianus, where Timaios was one of the employees of the estate’s central administration offices (cf. P.Flor. 2.133, written on 29 Oct 257 CE). The letter calls for the delivery of the grain or the payment of the corresponding price by Heroninos, who was in arrears, because of both him and a certain Kiot, who had not yet delivered an additional sack of grain to him. If Kiot does not either deliver the missing sack or set out on his own to pay his debt, Timaeus will have him arrested. The mention of Kiot, who is from elsewhere and is known as the prostates10 Kastor but more often referred to by his nickname Kiot, “indicates that public taxes are meant, and the letter implies that wheat dues could be commuted into cash payments” (Rathbone 1991, 312). Timaios did not necessarily have any military authority to eventually dispatch a soldier, but he could have known the relevant authorities and could persuade them to dispatch one, if necessary, which may also be in their own interest (Rathbone 1991, 21–22). The most interesting detail of this letter is the quotation of two Homeric verses (Homer, Il. 2.1–2) in its left margin, and the writer’s own repetition of “they slept all night long” in the final line, which ironically alludes to the inertness of Heroninos and the people of his office (D. Comparetti in P.Flor. 2, p. 227; G. Messeri in *Cavallo et al. 1998, 208). Also remarkable is the palaeographic value of the letter. Three slightly different scripts follow one another: a) that of the body of the letter (lines 1–11), b) the noticeably more cursive handwriting of the final greeting (lines 11–12), and c) that of the two Homeric verses, which resembles a book hand. It is not necessary to assume that the three parts were written by three different writers; we may rather assume (as D. Comparetti suggested in P.Flor. 2, p. 227, and G. Messeri in *Cavallo et al. 1998, 208) that everything was written by Timaios who used a fast, sloping chancery for the body of the letter but his more cursive personal handwriting for the final greeting; later, after he had obtained an Iliad and a thinner calamus, he copied the Homeric verses on the left margin in a good book hand. Based on this interpretation, D. Rathbone (1991, 12) argued: “Possibly the central secretariat [sc. of the administration of Appianus’s estate] included one or two scribes who were 10

In this case, prostates refers to a laborer contracted to work on a vineyard or other property for a set period in return for a fixed cash remuneration (cf. Rathbone 1991, 192).

410

Chapter 8

partly employed as literary copyists, and, when they recopied damaged rolls from Appianus’s library, the rolls were then reused for estate correspondence.” Timaios would have been one of those secretary-co-copyists. As it happens, it is very likely that the same Timaios also sent Heroninos a letter written on a slip of papyrus cut from a used scroll of Iliad 8 (SB 18.13609, written on the back of a papyrus with Homer, Il. 8.30–54). This is one of the rare cases where a Homeric quotation in a document can be attributed to a character whose professional context and intellectual profile can be reconstructed (*Fournet 2012, 142). D. Collins interpreted the quotation of the Homeric verses by Timaios “in light of the magical and divinatory use of Homeric verses in the second or third century CE” and argued: “Timaeus put the Homeric verses there as a little magical insurance to ensure that … his goods would be protected no matter what Heroninus did.” According to Collins, quotations of Homeric verses “are best understood not as literary but as ritualized gestures” (Collins 2008, 125). [2.183] P.Oxy. 42.3069 (TM 30336) Letter from Aquila to Sarapion

Greek papyrus, written at Antinoopolis (TM Geo 2774), found at Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), III/early IV CE Ed. P. J. Parsons 1974 (P.Oxy. 42.3069). – Cf. *Tibiletti 1979, 167–68 no. 20; *Burnet 2003a, 274 no. 214; *Trapp 2003, 100–101, 252–54 no. 35.  –  Online information and images: https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21167038.v1. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and of lines 24–28 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–23 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Aquila to Sarapion, greetings. When I received your letter I was overjoyed. Most strongly |5 our Kallinikos testified about the way of life you practice even under such conditions, especially in your not abandoning your austerities. |10 It is thus fair that we praise ourselves, not because we are doing this, but because we are not diverted from them by our-

411

The Letters

selves. So, act well and complete the rest |15 like a good man, and neither wealth nor beauty nor anything else of the same kind should trouble you for they are of no use in the absence of virtue, but are vanishing and |20 worthless. With the gods’ protection, I expect you in Antinoopolis. Send the puppy to Soteris, since she now spends her time by herself in the country. Fare well together with your people. |25 (Back)

(h2) Farewell.1

(h1) To Sarapion from Aquila, his friend.

the philosopher,

Note 1 According to the editor the final greeting is “by the same hand as the main text” (P. J. Parsons in P.Oxy. 42, p. 161), but the final “farewell” (which is indented in line 25) is written in smaller characters, and this ἔρρωσο seems to me to be written with ligature (between omega and sigma) and correctly with only one sigma (contrary to the “farewell” in the line before which is incorrectly written ἔρρωσσο and not showing the respective ligature; the editor transcribed the form both times with double sigma; cf. P.Oxy. 42, p. 162). Therefore, I tend towards identifying two different hands, which would mean that Aquila dictated the letter to a secretary and added the final greeting in his own hand. This would also explain the double final greeting: Aquila may have dictated the final greeting “fare well together with your people” to the scribe but signed the letter (maybe a bit later) with his own and simple “farewell.” Formulas and clichés: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3–4 report of joy (pp. 119–23), 13–20, 22–24 requests with imperative (p. 140), 24 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 25 final greeting in the author’s own hand (pp. 173–74), 26–28 address (pp. 185–86).

The letter was written in a careful, “almost literary hand” (P. J. Parsons in P.Oxy. 42, p. 161). The letter sender first dictated the main text to a secretary and signed the letter with his own “farewell” (line 25; cf. note 1), or the whole letter was written by Aquila himself.

412

Chapter 8

Not at the beginning of the letter but in the address on the back of the papyrus, the addressee is identified as a “philosopher.” Aquila, Sarapion, and Kallinikos may have been members of one and the same philosophical school or circle. The purpose of the letter is to encourage Sarapion to not give up his ideal way of life and not let himself be distracted by mundane temptations. It has been suggested that the correspondents might be Epicureans as the state of an untroubled mind, ataraxy, is indeed one of the key concepts of Epicure’s doctrine. It is also known that Epicureans lived in communities. The three friends, however, could also have been followers of the Stoic school or of Neo-Platonism (*Burnet 2003a, 274). [2.184] P.Pintaudi 54 (TM 170043) Letter to Onnophrios and Heras

Greek papyrus, Tebtynis/Egypt, III–IV CE? Ed. J. E. G. Whitehorne 2012 (P.Pintaudi 54, images: Tav. LII–LIII).

To my lord brother Onnophrios and my father Heras, very many greetings. Above everything else I pray by our master my lord god for your good health. We greet your mother and your father |5 and my brother and sister Tasyros, all members of his household,1 greetings. We greet both my sister and her son Dionysios and Horus and Patanes, all members of his household,1 greetings. We greet the sister and her son Herakles and Sophia, all members of his household,1 greetings. We greet Petaor and his son Pataor |10 and Tanes and his daughter Kenes, all members of his household.1 We greet Hierax our brother and his son Pedirion and Horus and his daughter Kenes, all members of his household,1 greetings. We greet our brother Onnophrios and his daughter Kenes, all members of his household,1 greetings. We greet our brother Isidoros. (Back)

|15 / F(rom) (?) // I greet

your father.

Note 1 The expression “all members of his household” represents a common letter formula, but each occurrence on this papyrus contains several phonetic (mis)spellings and always the Greek masculine personal pronoun (“of his”), regardless of whether the expression refers to the household of a man, a woman, or several persons. Obviously, the formula “has been consistently misheard and misunderstood by the writer” (J. Whitehorne in P.Pintaudi, p. 238).

413

The Letters

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 3–4 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 4–5, 6–7, 7–9, 9–10, 11–12, 12–14, 14, 15 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 5, 7, 9, 12, 14 further opening greetings (pp. 73–84), 15 address (pp. 185–86).

At first sight this text seems to be a private letter consisting only of the opening greeting, a prayer report, and a rather long list of greetings. However, the frequent combination of the formula “I/we greet …” and the formula “(To B,) greetings” suggests that it “may be a writing exercise which originated in an oral context, with a learner (the hand is rather awkward) taking dictation from a more senior scribe” (J. Whitehorne in P.Pintaudi, p. 237). The writer also took care of the graphic appearance of the letter: the opening greeting on top was written in two lines but line 2 consists only of the Greek term χαίρειν (translated as “greetings”), which is indented there by 3.2 cm in relation to the usual beginning of the other lines; there is only one line on the back which, at first sight, looks like an address but is actually another greeting formula. If the text was written as an exercise, the student simultaneously practiced copying the graphic appearance of a typical letter. [2.185] C.Gloss.Biling. 1.16 (TM 64278) Papyrus Scroll with Model Letters

Latin/Greek papyrus, written probably in Africa (TM Geo 3227), found in Egypt (probably Oxyrhynchos, TM Geo 1524), late III/early IV CE Ed. J. Kramer 1983 (C.Gloss.Biling. 1.16). – Cf. E. A. Lowe 1971, Codices Latini Antiquiores: A Palaeographical Guide to Latin Manuscripts prior to the Ninth Century, Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon Press), no. 1677 (=  CLA Suppl. 1677, image of cols. 4–5); *Malherbe 1988, 44–57; Mertens-Pack3 2117 (http://cipl93.philo.ulg.ac.be/Cedopal /MP3/MertensPack.aspx?numnot=02117.000); P. Cugusi 1992 (C.Epist.Lat. 1.1). – Online image: https://amshistorica.unibo.it/247; https://web.archive.org/web/20201126235841 /https://elmss.nuigalway.ie/catalogue/1979.

The front side of this papyrus scroll preserves fourteen columns of bilingual (Latin and Greek) model letters. In col. 1, only the endings of some lines of the Latin text are readable, but their Greek translation is well preserved as are also the following columns until the end. The scroll is certainly not complete: only about one third of col. 1 is preserved, and the last line (col. 7.28) starts with a new and thus fragmentary letter. How many columns at the beginning and at the end are lost remains unclear. Each column consists of two rows which belong together, with the Latin text always first (i.e., left from the Greek version). The scroll was found in Egypt (probably Oxyrhynchos) but based on palaeographical details, it was possibly written in Africa Proconsularis (Lowe 1971, no. 1677).

414

Chapter 8

The preserved text starts with four lines, representing the end of a model letter. As the different sections are explicitly entitled, according to their letter type, and as there is no such title following these four lines, this fragmentary letter must be of the same type as the second sample (col. 1.5–25) which is completely preserved (at least its Greek translation) and reads (English translation of the Greek version based on *Malherbe 1988, 45): |5 Happily, brother, do I congratulate you for having paid close attention to my recommendation in the exposure |10 of Quintus. I heard that this matter was expedited and how it was quite worthy of you. |15 But, oh, your modesty and self-control. I delight in your very character, since in this you repaid us. |20 I have an (outstanding) debt. What, then, is it? I hope to [give] you |25 an accounting of this obligation of yours soon. This letter is the potential response to an addressee who faithfully took care of a certain Quintus who had been recommended to him before by the fictitious letter writer. Based on the form συνχαίρω (“congratulate,” line 8), *Malherbe (1988, 45) correctly regarded this sample as of the “congratulatory” type. Maybe, in the letter writers situation we would rather expect a letter of the type “thankful,” and the editor of C.Gloss.Biling. 1.16 classified it as such (C.Gloss.Biling. 1, p. 109), but συνχαίρω is also used in two other letters (col. 3.19 and 5.4) which are explicitly entitled as “Congratulatory Letters for Received Inheritances” (col. 3.12–14). Altogether, we find the following samples on the front side of the scroll11 (line numbers according to C.Gloss.Biling. 1.16): two letters, obviously of the “congratulatory” type (col. 1.1–4 and 5–25), three letters of the “advisory” type (Greek title in col. 2.1–2: “[Letters] of Advice about Very Small Legacies”; letters: col. 2.3–13, 14–25; col. 2.26–3.11), six letters entitled “Congratulatory Letters for Received Inheritances” (title in col. 3.12–14; letters: col. 3.15–26; 3.27–4.7; 4.8–27; 4.28–5.14; 5.15–6.5; 6.6–27), and two letters entitled “Congratulatory Letters on the Reception of Freedom” (title in col. 7.1–2; letters: col. 7.3–27, 28). Contrary to the model letters of Ps.-Demetrius, they are much more like real letters insofar as they mention personal names and sometimes more particular situations. The following translation of the six “Congratulatory Letters for Received Inheritances” is based on the Greek version (cf. *Malherbe 1988, 49–55): 11

Only some part of the reverse was later on inscribed with the account P.Bon. 38 (III–IV CE).

The Letters

415

(Col. 3.15–26)

I congratulate you, brother, that an inheritance with great honor has come to you who most deserve it. |20 And I am happy that the judgment of your friends is pleased to take heed of your service (to them), right up to their final remembrance.

(Col. 3.27–4.7)

Although [one ought to have] rejoiced at your [receiv]ing an inheritance, |30 nonetheless, in your case (alone) |4.1 I do not venture to do so. For I know the purpose of your heart, to which the desire [of] your friend i[s] never equal. |6 (Your) consolation (must therefore) derive from his [deci] sion in the will.

(Col. 4.8–27)

Brother, [the respect] which you always show your friends brings you great prosperity. |12  And with the greatest charm you preserve |15  the memory of Rutilius, once a mutual friend. I know the man full well, who, although he passed away conspicuous |20 for the large [number] of his sur[viving] relatives, nonetheless judged you worthy of an appreciable part |25 of the inheritance, along with his own kin.

(Col. 4.28–5.14)

Sir, not only that |5.1 L[ic]i[nnius] w[as] … of your [services in] his [last will], I congratulate you, |5 but also for those of us whom you regard as friends. For [wh]en your services |10 are repaid, al[l] your a[ssocia]tes g[r] ow in prosperity.

(Col. 5.15–6.5)

I am h[app]y that you have been en[ri]ched by the remembrance in Sulpicius’s will, a man of mo[d]est means but your friend. |20 His decision repaid your service in this manner in order to make himself clear to you. |25 He left you not only what he wanted to, but what he was able to. For lingering illness and old age, |6.1 [often] [even] worse than sickness, consumed his entire substance.

(Col. 6.6–27)

I am delighted that when your friend Fabianus died, you received a noble proof of your worth, although |10  you suffered undeserved pain. Nevertheless, I am doubly glad, both that his will shows what you meant to him, |16  and that, because of [your] magnanimity, an increase of generosity |20 came to you. Therefore, I advise you to end your grieving. For a friend who makes such a will is to be missed |25 not by tears but in one’s heart.

416

Chapter 8

Obviously, model letters as these were a precious tool to train students to enrich their skills in letter writing even regarding one and the same particular type. They learned to write letters that take account of different situations and certain addressees, or to creatively alter a congratulation or advice from time to time and from person to person. The teacher seems to have encouraged his students again and again to write a letter differently by looking more precisely at details and creating a more personal and individual style. Ps.-Demetrius’s single sample for the “congratulatory” type is much more general in style and phrasing (Typoi Epistolikoi 19, transl. *Malherbe 1988, 41):12 I did not realize that you had become a person of such consequence, and that you would be so delighted at my inquiring about good things that have happened to you. However, I am confident, Fortune willing, that you will become even greater. For your character has not escaped the notice of the gods. To it you owe the reception you meet with among men and your piety toward the gods.

[2.186] P.Pintaudi 55 (TM 170044) Letter to Horion, Sarapion, and E…tios from Korellios, Eus, Nike, Phibion, Silvanus, and the elder

Greek papyrus, Egypt, late III–mid IV CE Ed. D. Hagedorn and B. Kramer 2012 (P.Pintaudi 55, image: Tav. LIV).  –  Cf. *Reinard 2016, 96–98. – Online information and image: resolver.sub.uni-hamburg.de /goobi/HANSh3607; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/170044. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Rejoice1, most honored Horion and Sarapion and E…tios—,2 those who always pray to all the gods |5 to receive you back in prosperity and success ful,3 Korellios as well as Eus and Nike, ⟨the⟩4 mother, and Phibion and Silvanos and |10 the elder5——.2 For you all have to be confident that you will hopefully achieve 12

The definition of this type and introduction to the quoted sample simply reads: “It is the congratulatory type when we write and rejoice with someone over the important and wonderful things that have happened to him.”

The Letters

417

at the good end what you pray for, having also our pray ers to |15 assist you—.2 If the gods are gracious and grant that we greet you now by a letter, they will also grant this face to face. |20 Many times greet you and pray themselves to see you, Nemesion as well as Demetria and all our people by name. |25   We pray that you fare well. Mecheir (?) 11.6 (Back)

To the Ch(?)…istes Horion from Ḳọṛẹḷḷịọṣ …

Notes 1 The opening greeting in the form of an imperative or optative is rarely attested (see p. 79), the optative plural χαίροιτε is only attested here. 2 On the function of the space fillers see below. 3 Similar formulas are attested only during late III/early IV CE. 4 The article in front of “mother” is missing unintentionally (D. Hagedorn and B. Kramer in P.Pintaudi, p. 243). 5 The letter senders are simply mentioned in the nominative; a greeting formula (e.g., “are greeting you”) is not added and was probably not missed, since the entire letter already began with the greeting in the imperative. The meaning of the “elder” (πρεσβύτερος) is difficult to grasp here, as the word has been used differently in both the private and public sectors. It is conceivable that there may be a function in a professional association or club with such a designation; cf. P.Oxy. 64.4441.3.4 (316 CE). 6 The reading is very uncertain; 11 Mecheir corresponds to 5 or 6 February. Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–10 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 1–7 multiple addressees (pp. 98–102), 7–10 multiple senders (pp. 50–53), 14–15 prayer report (pp. 102–12), 15–19 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), 20–24 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 25 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 26 date (pp. 184–85), 27–28 address (pp. 185–86).

The letter was sent by a group of six people, including two women, to three men who are addressed with the epithet “most honoured” (τιμιώτατοι, see p. 86). The intention of the letter is merely to assure the addressees that the group

418

Chapter 8

has the desire and hope to “get them back” soon. Senders and recipients are likely to belong to a community of people who normally live in close proximity but are currently separated, possibly because the addressees are on a journey. Due to the salutation “most honoured” it is unlikely that we are dealing here with family members, but rather with a group of people who maintain social contacts with each other, perhaps in a club or a professional association. The fact that these people pray to “all the gods” indicates that they belong to a pagan environment. The elegant style of expression used by the writer and the absence of orthographical irregularities are remarkable. A number of phrases, including the use of the optative as opening greeting (cf. note 1), are rarely found elsewhere in the documentary papyri (D. Hagedorn and B. Kramer in P.Pintaudi, pp. 242– 44). Furthermore, the layout includes several structuring elements: Line 1 is exdented; line 2 of the opening greeting is indented; there is a space filler in line 3 before the writer turns to mentioning the senders of the letter and a blank space in line 7 before they are listed by name; further space fillers follow in lines 10 and 15, separating a kind of prayer report from the opening greeting above and the following section below. The forwarding of greetings (lines 20–24) is separated from the preceding text by a blank line and structured in line 22 by a space separating the introduction from the list of those sending greetings. The final greeting in lines 25–26 is again separated from the preceding text by a blank line and indented in the first line. In general, we are obviously dealing here with citizens who are highly educated and have high social standing. [2.187] O.Trim. 1.317 (TM 131366) Letter to Petenephotes from Perperios

Greek ostracon, Trimithis/Egypt (TM Geo 2753), ca. late III–mid IV CE Ed. R.  S. Bagnall and G.  R. Ruffini 2012 (O.Trim. 1.317).  –  Cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 60–61. – Online information and images: http://www.amheida.com/db/OTrim1/317.

Petenephotes, my lord.1 Perperios. Gree(tings). I greet Ammon. I pray that you fare well ⟨and⟩ |5 are healthy for many years. (Back)

To [Pe]tenephotes, my lord.1 Perperios.

Note 1 In the opening greeting (line 1) as well as in the address on the back (concave) side of the ostracon, “my lord” is written in the Greek vocative.

419

The Letters

Formulas, clichés, and other features: 1–2 opening greeting (pp. 73–84), 3 secondary greetings (pp. 164–68), 4–6 final greeting (pp. 171–76), 7–9 address (pp. 185–86).

This ostracon, inscribed in a very small handwriting, contains only greetings. The scribe, however, also took care to write the address on the back (concave) side of the potsherd. His knowledge of Greek syntax and letter formulas was rather poor, as evidenced by the fact that, in the opening greeting, he addressed the recipient of the letter in the vocative instead of the dative and, in the final greeting, he forgot to write a conjunction between “fare well” and “stay healthy.” [2.188] P.Ammon 1.3 (TM 23631) Letter from Ammon to Senpetechensis alias Nike

Greek papyrus roll (incomplete), written in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found at Panopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 1589), 324–330 CE? Ed. W. H. Willis and K. Maresch 1997 (P.Ammon 1.3, images: plates XV–XVI). – Addenda/ Corrigenda: BL 12:4; 13:5–6; A.-E. Veïsse 2009, “L’expression ‘ennemi des dieux’: theoisin echthros,” in Faces of Hellenism: Studies in the History of the Eastern Mediterranean (4th Century B.C.–5th Century A.D.), ed. P. van Nuffelen, Studia Hellenistica 48 (Leuven: Peeters), 169–77, here 176–77. – Cf. P. van Minnen 2002, “The Letter (and Other Papers) of Ammon: Panopolis in the Fourth Century A.D.,” in Perspectives on Panopolis: An Egyptian Town from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest. Acts from an International Symposium Held in Leiden on 16, 17 and 18 December 1998, ed. A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, and J. van der Vliet, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 31 (Leiden: Brill), 177–99, here 188–95; *Arzt-Grabner 2010a, 17–20; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 57–60.  –  Online images: https:// library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/records/177r.html.  –  Image in this volume: p. 427 fig. 4. Archive of Aurelius Ammon scholasticus son of Peteharbeschinis (TM Arch 31). (Col. 1)

(Ca. twelve lines missing, five lines with single characters and traces of ink, four lines missing, seven lines with single characters and traces of ink, ca. three lines missing)

(Col. 2)

(Remnants of six lines) |7 … don’t write … [Fortune] is governing everything and determining everything for all, [tying to those cycles]1 |10 that are above us the (cycles) that are with men, which are sometimes good, but sometimes also bad. Just as this cycle is now bad for us, but after a short time the better one is coming to us. For sure you realize by yourself, oh mother, that also from the first month onwards, since I left my father’s land, I wished to come back to you again, but it did not seem like that

420

Chapter 8

to Fortune, |15 but she decided that I should stay away from my father’s land for some time. Consider, therefore, that you (endured) Fortune’s constraint, and … not getting disheartened … Consider that nothing is in our hands. And take care of yourself, and I will take care of (our) business. Knowing \And understand/ that [Fortune] again is going to resolve anything else for us. Therefore, it is necessary that you are cheerful even if you think, oh mother, that the cycle is not bearable. |20 Nevertheless, let us be calm. We are not in [prison?] nor … nor in the hands of brigands but are in complete security. But if you are discouraged because of the … that you are not able to manage these affairs for your sons, I say, do not [hesitate], whenever you have need, to send for [some?] of my [friends/brothers?] and … [pay?] to the tax-collectors what is lawful and … |25 each person has his own concern … [that] you send … at your need. Nobody of his own accord [wants?] to encounter vain talk [about] himself. Especially … all were upset [because of] the marginal entries and the [… with the] arrears. Do not hesitate and do not be embarrassed to [send for my friends/brothers?] whenever you have need… |30 while I am away from home … after this and … (Remnants of three lines) (Col. 3)

(Remnants of seven lines) |8 … and already we will find … the matter of the … is being untangled for us, for before this … |10 the high priest2 was [occupied] in the regions of the low country, for he had been gone since Phamenoth 20? (= 16 Mar?). But he came to Alexandria for the festival on the 30th of Pharmouthi (= 25 Apr),2 and after the festival I myself will cause the matter to be settled; and now it will be settled during these same days. And as soon as I receive the documents, I will meet you if the gods are willing; meanwhile (I want) you to know this too, |15  that with great honor Harpokras3 is about to return to his own homeland. And Fortune has again begun to raise him up, for that [cycle]1 always [produces equality]. And whenever the cycle is pressed down completely, he (or it) drops to a low level, and whenever it is [pushed up], he (or it) rises up again to a high level. So, letters from certain friends [sent to] him from certain great persons |20 … these letters [summon him?] to a very important mission. For already he himself too [has written?] a letter for the governor of the Ethiopians … to [the emperor?], for he has become his close friend and dined with him daily. Also Pekysis4 knows this. And to his friends together with my own [I have shown] the letters to him in order that [they may act?] for him |25 … and from the Ethiopian friends the letters from you … \and from the Ethiopian./ And already he (i.e.,

The Letters

421

Harpokration) has returned to the comitatus.5 At that time I wished to hold him back and I could not. (Remnants of seven lines) (Col. 4)

(Remnants of seven lines) |8 … to be busy and to investigate whether he [left?] them. He said therefore … “If god is willing I (will) meet you |10 in Panopolis in Mesore (i.e., Aug) before the harvest.” For he departed on the 3rd of Pachon (28 Apr), but he left his slaves behind here with me since they are female. He directed me to bring them up with me to Panopolis. There are three, Phoenicians, and I’ll bring them up when I come. Meanwhile, however, they are with the landlord working for their own keep. As he was about to depart he gave me many instructions, |15 to go up now to Panopolis, saying, “Why are you spending still more money with the high priest in order to get the office for the boy? Why in short … do you continue to approach the high priest’s office [for the boy?] about this? For I ought to get it abroad from the emperor for him,” and at the sea when he was about to embark on the boat he swore, “Whether you receive it from the high priest or not, |20 I (will) get the office for the boy from the emperor; and no other person will be appointed prophet in Panopolis after Horion’s death except the son of Horion. Let those hostile to the gods6 therefore learn their own fate.” For he received from me the copies of the imperial rescript about the office of prophet. No\thing avails against the rescript of Diocletian, but I myself/ will prevail with the high priest with the help of the rescript |25 of Diocletian, and already I am receiving it. For the high priest himself has sent to me after changing his mind [because] he had also used up(?) the term(?) of an administrator. However, now also he himself in fear awaits the imperial document … if god wills, my … presence … and (my) brother about to arrive … (Remnants of six lines)

(Col. 5)

(Remnants of four lines) |5 And you have written [to me, oh] mother, in the same letters: “… I have squandered some part of paternal inheritance.” … For a man does not have anything of his own … [apart from Fortune?], and she [apportions] when she wishes … and takes away again. If one takes care [not to lose] his heritage he is not completely fortunate throughout his whole life. And the one who does not save it, does not get completely at a loss |10 for all his life, but also many who have not received anything from their paternal inheritance, have been fortunate and have become very prosperous in life. Therefore, I do not

422

Chapter 8

altogether grieve because I have lost some part of my paternal inheritance. And if you say, “I will repay you,” you will not console me in this, but may it only happen to me to see you, and I have everything. May it happen that you are still to be found in my house, and I have lost nothing. I am fortunate |15 in everything and prosperous, if I find you in strong health. Because this I always pray for, oh mother, \the gods who see everything bear witness, this/ alone is for me the [greatest] hope, this is for me the greatest happiness, if I find my mother healthy when I return to my father’s land. Because of you I went away from my father’s land; because of you I have also desired and do desire \to return/ to my home once and for all. However, this only do I call to your attention, oh mother; when [on other occasions?] I worked at the silo, it is necessary |20 because of my own concern so to speak I had to take heed that they on their own do not appropriate our harvests, therefore busy yourself about the revenues and send someone there to investigate. And do you now send for my partners, both Polykrates and the steward, that they may be mindful also to be diligent about our …, to support all your own efforts … |25 and my own [concerning] the harvest. I will write now in my own hand to my friends [that they may] act in concert [with us] about this. Since now too the time of the harvest [approaches], perhaps it (will) also turn out that (I/ he) not be left behind then and (will) meet [you/us?] at harvest-time. But perhaps … and [dispatch?] my brother Sarap[odo]ros to the collection of the rents from Arabia7 … (Remnants of six lines) (Col. 6)

(Remnants of nine lines) |10 … and I/he? will come to her forthwith; and do not let her be altogether disheartened. This same thing I enjoin also my revered mother Makaria, if indeed she has not forgotten us; and I have often enjoined her both when I was present and |15 through letters when I was away, consoling my mother until, with the gods’ help, we may meet her. I pray that you fare well, my lady mother.8 I send many greetings to my lord brother Sarapodoros, and I greet my mother |20 Makaria and mother Ka ̣ ̣ a and Horion the younger together with his brothers and his mother and the slaves of his house; I greet also my brother Polykrates and his sons and the slaves of his house, |25 and as possible with … and I greet … all those who love you … (Remnants of six lines)

The Letters

423

Notes 1 According to van Minnen (2002, 189), the “cycles (or revolutions) above seem to refer to the zodiac, which determines the ups and downs of human life” (on the many representations of the zodiac in and around Panopolis cf. van Minnen 2002, 189 n. 53–54). 2 The high priest (ἀρχιερεύς) of Alexandria and All Egypt was in charge of the public cults in Egypt. From mid III CE onwards he “had inherited the authority to award priesthoods to the highest bidder regardless of the hereditary rights of priests” (W. H. Willis and K. Maresch in P.Ammon 1, p 42). As mentioned by Ammon, the current high priest had used the weeks before 25 April to visit the Nile Delta because he had to be in Alexandria for the festival of the Sarapeia on that particular day. 3 Harpokras is the short form of Harpokration. Shortened forms of names are often used by family members, as Ammon does here for his brother Harpokration. 4 Pekysis must be the carrier of Ammon’s letter and may have supplied his mother with additional information. 5 The comitatus is the imperial court to which Harpokration is escorting the Ethiopian embassy. 6 Harpokration’s strong words about “those hostile to the gods” have been interpreted as a possible “reference to Christians attempting to thwart clerical tradition” (W. H. Willis and K. Maresch in P.Ammon 1, p. 44) but P. van Minnen (2002, 191) and A.-E. Veïsse (2009, 176–77) suggested indentifying “those hostile to the gods” with all those within the pagan clergy of Panopolis, who sought to thwart Horion’s access to the prophecy and sought to impose another person in place of him. 7 The Egyptian toparchy Arabia was situated on the east bank of the Nile. 8 Line 17 of col. 6, which preserves the final greeting, is indented. Formulas, clichés, and other features: col. 2.12–13, 15, 17, 18, 22, col. 3.14–15 disclosure formulas (pp. 135–39), col. 2.14–15 explanation for a postponed visit (pp. 129–31), col. 2.17 health wish (pp. 102–5), col. 2.19–20, 28–29 requests (pp. 140–48), col. 3.13–14, col. 4.13, col. 5.13–18 announcement of visit (pp. 159–60), col. 3.23 reference to named letter carrier (see note 4; pp. 196–98), col. 5.5–14 response to addressee’s letters (pp. 151– 54), col. 5.15–16 prayer report (pp. 102–12), col. 5.18–25, col. 6.11 requests (pp. 140–48), col. 6.17 final greeting (pp. 171–76), col. 6.18–end postscript (pp. 182–84), col. 6.18–27 (or end of letter?) secondary greetings (pp. 164–68).

This letter has been reconstructed from numerous partly joining fragments. It is the longest private letter from the Greco-Roman period so far and was originally comprised of at least six columns. In its fragmentary form, it measures 24.5 cm in height and 77.5 cm in width. With regard to the reconstructable number of characters, Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is highly comparable (*Arzt-Grabner 2010a, 17). If one or two preceding columns of Ammon’s letter are completely lost, which is not impossible, it would have been even considerably longer than Gal. The back of the papyrus scroll preserves an unrelated text which comprises six columns of a list of landholdings (P.Congr.XV 22.v; 348–399 CE).

424

Chapter 8

The sender of the letter is a certain Aurelius Ammon, a scholar and advocate from Panopolis in the Thebaid. Several hundred fragmentary papyri from his family archive have been preserved (cf. TM Arch 31), from which we learn that he was the son of the priest Petearbeschinis and that he and his brothers had received higher education. The letter is addressed to Ammon’s mother Senpetechensis alias Nike, his father’s second wife, who had sent Ammon to Alexandria to handle some family affairs about which he now, still being in Alexandria after more than a month, reports to his mother. At several points, Ammon comments on the family situation through philosophical-religious thoughts. Based on P. van Minnen’s interpretation (2002, 189–93), the eight sections of the letter can be described as follows: – In the first section, which ends in col. 2.21, Ammon refers to his mother’s earlier letter (line 7 “don’t write”) and deals with general ideas while, at the same time, he is trying to comfort his mother, who seems to be in an awkward position. – The second section starts in 2.21 and concerns Ammon’s mother who struggles with some family affairs at home while her sons are absent. Difficulties with tax collectors and arrears are mentioned in particular. – Due to incomplete lines, the end of the second and the start of the third section cannot be determined, but it is certain that from col. 3.8 onwards Ammon is concerned with his nephew Horion’s bid to the propheteia. Horion’s father, whose name was also Horion, was the son of Ammon’s father Petearbeschinis and his first wife Senpasis (and thus Ammon’s elder half-brother); he had been archiprophetes of the Panopolite nome, which— according to the old tradition—made his son Horion the candidate entitled to inherit this office after his death. Ammon’s family apparently still wanted to assert the young Horion’s ancestral rights to the office of prophet, while the high priest seemed to exercise his new right to award this priesthood to the highest bidder (see note 2). Ammon reports now that he has already approached the high priest in Alexandria and hopes to cause the matter to be settled after the festival of the Sarapeia. – Before completing his report on Horion’s case, Ammon inserts a fourth section, which starts in col. 3.14, and deals with his brother Harpokration’s impending appointment to high office and the news about it communicated by friends. The nature of the appointment is not explicitly mentioned but may be related to the Ethiopian embassy. It is headed by “the governor of the Ethiopians”, who is mentioned in line 21, and with whom Harpokration himself is obviously on good terms. The section finishes with Harpokration’s parting words, which are reported in col. 4.9–10.

The Letters

425

– In the fifth section (col. 4.10–14), Ammon mentions three female slaves who had been left behind by Harpokration and whom Ammon should take to Panopolis. – In col. 4.14 Ammon returns to his nephew Horion’s bid for prophecy and reports his discussion with Harpokration in this matter. Both have tried to support Horion but in different ways: Harpokration by appealing to the emperor, Ammon by contacting the high priest. – In the seventh section, which starts more or less on top of col. 5, Ammon refers to his mother’s letter to Harpokration (col. 5.5) in which she must have blamed herself for having wasted some of her son’s paternal inheritance. Ammon calms her, not only with gentle words, but also with general thoughts about fortune, poverty, and wealth. – The eighth section starts in col. 5.18 and is concerned with the management of the family estate, in particular with the forthcoming harvest and the collection of the rent from the family estate in the toparchy of Arabia. – The final greeting in 6.17 is indented. In the following lines, Ammon sends greetings to other members of the household in Panopolis as well as to Polykrates and his household. As the letter was found at Panopolis among the other documents of Ammon’s archive (TM Arch 31), he most probably inherited it after his mother’s death. Sometime later, between 348 and 399 CE, the back of the papyrus roll was reused for an inventory of the family estate. Van Minnen (2002, 188) found some evidence that Ammon “went through several drafts to compose the letter to his mother”. Two sections in particular (col. 4.24 and col. 5.16), which Ammon subsequently corrected by insertions between the lines, can be interpreted in this way. In col. 4.24 the copied text first read, “And not will I myself prevail with the high priest with the help of the rescript of Diocletian,” but the negation at the beginning of the sentence expressed exactly the opposite of what Ammon wanted to write—namely, that he will prevail with the high priest. Ammon obviously proofread the text and, having noticed the error, first corrected “and not” to “nothing” and then inserted “avails against the rescript of Diocletian, but I myself” above the line so that the corrected version should finally read: “No\thing avails against the rescript of Diocletian, but I myself/ will prevail with the high priest with the help of the rescript of Diocletian” (\ and / indicate the insertion above the line). The observation that the “insert begins with the same sequence of letters (δε) as the immediately following text” led van Minnen (2002, 188) to the explanation that “Ammon copied these lines from a draft and jumped ahead a line too soon from οὐ|δέ (‘and not’) to ἐγὼ | δέ (‘and I’)” (line breaks, italics and translations of the Greek terms by me, P.A.-G.).

426

Chapter 8

The other section where van Minnen discovered an indication of the use of drafts is col. 5.16. Here, the copied text first read: “Because this I always pray for, oh mother, alone for me the [greatest] hope, this is for me the greatest happiness.” Before “alone for me the [greatest] hope” one would expect a demonstrative pronoun (“this alone …”), which is actually found at the end of the insert, so that the corrected text reads: “Because this I always pray for, oh mother, \the gods who see everything bear witness, this/ alone is for me the [greatest] hope, this is for me the greatest happiness, if I find my mother healthy …” In this case, too, van Minnen points out that the first letters of the insert resemble those immediately following, because in Ammon’s handwriting μαρ (at the beginning of the insert’s first term μαρτυροῦσιν [“they bear witness”]) and μοι (“for me”) at the beginning of the following line “look very much alike.” Therefore, van Minnen again suggests “that Ammon was copying from a draft and inadvertently skipped μαρτυροῦσιν and what follows and first wrote μοι and what follows” (p. 188). Van Minnen’s interpretation is supported by the fact that the two insertions are almost the same length (the insertion above col. 4.24 consists of 42 letters, the one above col. 5.16 of 37). The slight difference could be due to the fact that, in the drafts, they were in different columns, which were not necessarily of the same length.

Fig. 4

P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] (P.Köln inv. 4534 recto + 4538 recto; P.Duke inv. 177 recto); images courtesy of Duke University, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library; images assembled by the author according to the order of the columns

The Letters

427

Glossary The list contains terms frequently used in the volume. For terms not listed in this glossary, the following Literature or database may be consulted: Bagnall, R. S. 2009. “Practical Help: Chronology, Geography, Measures, Currency, Names, Prosopography, and Technical Vocabulary.” Pages 179–96 in * Bagnall 2009. New Fachwörterbuch (nFWB): multilingual online dictionary of the technical administrative language of Graeco-Roman-Byzantine Egypt. https://www.organapapy rologica.net/. aroura (pl. arouras) – principal unit of surface measurement or area, measuring 52.5 meters on a side, thus 2,756 square meters; 363 arouras equal 1 square km. artaba (pl. artabas) – dry measure for wheat, barley, and other commodities representing 38.808 liters. beneficiarius – a non-commissioned officer (or warrant officer) in the Roman army performing special tasks, usually assigned to typical military police duties. centurion – nominally the military commander of a centuria, a unit of one hundred men, but during the empire of 80 legionaries; the centurio regionarius was a centurion commanding subordinates who fulfilled special police duties in a region. chalkoi – see below “Weights and Currency.” choinix (pl. choinikes) – dry measure, equivalent to .97 liter. chous (pl. choes) – liquid measure, equivalent to 3.24 liters (see also metretes). decurio – Roman cavalry officer, originally commanding a troop of ten men (decuria) but during the empire a turma of 32 men in the auxiliary cavalry. decanus – civilian enrolled as policeman and guard. denarius – see below “Weights and Currency.” dioiketes – during early I CE, a private steward or an official comparable to a toparch, contrary to the later procuratorial office that was installed during II CE (with the dioiketes being responsible for several fiscal affairs of the province). drachma – see below “Weights and Currency.” epistrategos – head of one of the three main administrational parts of Egypt (Delta, Heptanomis, and Thebaid) who had to be a Roman knight. eranarch – leader of an eranos, which may be a cult association or credit association. gymnasiarch – high-ranking official responsible for the financial and administrative organization of the gymnasium; in Augustan times, the gymnasiarchy was transformed into a municipal office of the metropolis (capital of a nome).

430

Glossary

keramion (pl. keramia) – liquid measure, equivalent to 9.725 liters (see also metretes). kollesis – also called “sheet joint”; part of a papyrus roll where two sheets had been joined together during the manufacturing process of the roll; such sheet joints are often visible on preserved papyrus letters, which proves that the sheets used for writing letters were previously cut from rolls. kotyle (pl. kotylai) – liquid measure, equivalent to .27 liter; 12 kotylai = 1 chous (3.24 liters). mation (pl. matia) – dry measure, equivalent to 3.88 liters. metretes – liquid measure; 1 metretes = 1 kados = 12 choes = 4 keramia (38.9 liters). mna (pl. mnai) – see below “Weights and Currency.” obol – see below “Weights and Currency.” recto – that side of a papyrus sheet on which both the writing and the papyrus fibers run horizontally. royal scribe – second highest official of a nome, who was responsible for all financial matters and acted as deputy of the strategos. sakkos (pl. sakkoi) – 1 sakkos equals 3 artabas (approximately 116.42 liters of wheat). sitologos – tax official; the sitologoi were responsible for the granaries of the state and thus also for the register of private grain accounts, recording entry and acknowledging receipt. stater – see below “Weights and Currency.” strategos – highest administrative and financial officer of an Egyptian nome (nomos) who had to be of Greek or Greco-Egyptian origin and had to supervise the payment of taxes and the cultivation of the land; he was appointed by the epistrategos for a period of three years and for a different nome than the one from which he originated. talent – see below “Weights and Currency.” toparch – head of a district as the subdivision of a nome. versiculus transversus – text on the (in most cases left) margin of a papyrus written by a letter writer who had reached the end of the sheet and turned it by 90° to continue writing. verso – that side of a papyrus sheet on which the writing runs horizontally, but the papyrus fibers run vertically.



Weights and Currency

The following equations apply to Roman Egypt: 1 obol = 8 chalkoi 1 drachma = 6 obols

Glossary 1 denarius = 1 stater (tetradrachm) = 4 drachmas 1 stater (tetradrachm) = 4 drachmas 1 mna = 100 drachmas 1 talent = 6000 drachmas 1 talent = 60 mnai = 1500 denarii = 6000 drachmas

431

Additions to and Corrections of Edited Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets BGU 2.450 [2.159] The final greeting in line 27 reads ἔρρωσσω (read ἔρρωσο), not ἔρρωσθε. 375–76 BGU 16.2608 [2.66] The date is probably 14 March 7 or 4 BCE. 235–36 BGU 16.2610 [2.62] Line 11: The date could also be Hathyr 27 (= 23 Nov 9 BCE). 230 BGU 16.2614 The restored [φιλτάτῳ] in line 1 is doubted. 287 BGU 16.2618 [2.64] The final greeting in line 25 seems to be written in a different hand, i.e., by Tryphas herself. 234 BGU 16.2631 [2.61] The indented farewell is written lower than the ink traces at the beginning of line 20 and should therefore be considered a separate line. The final greeting and the date are possibly written by hand 2. 227 BGU 16.2654 [2.65] Interpretation of address on verso. 234 O.Krok. 2.227 [2.120] In line 1, the dative of the recipient’s name may be restored as Ἀπολω̣[ναρίῳ]. 314 P.Bingen 74 [2.132] Line 18: The final greeting may simply have been forgotten. 333–34 P.Brem. 56app [2.127] The addressee is probably the strategos Apollonios. 325–26 P.Flor. 2.259 [2.182] Remark on the handwriting of the final greeting in lines 11–12. 45, 408 P.Leid.Inst. 42 [2.136] The line with the restored final greeting [ἔρρωσο] should already be numbered as line 20 (not 19) as suggested by traces of ink a bit lower than line 19. 339 P.Mich. 3.201 [2.93] The address on the verso consists of one line and can be restored to ἀπόδος εἰς Φιλ[αδελφείαν] ⪥ Ἀ̣π̣ολ̣ ̣ η̣εί̣ ῳ̣ ̣ . 274–75 P.Mich. 8.476 [2.121] The translation of θήκην χαρ̣ταρίου (line 9) could also be ‘a container of papỵ rus rolls’ (instead of ‘… papyrus sheets’ or ‘… fogli di papyro’ as translated by Strassi 2008, 48). 316

434

Additions to/Corrections of Edited Papyri, Ostraca, Tablets

P.Mich. 8.499 [2.109] The letter must have been written between 117 and 147 CE. 300–301 P.NYU 2.18 The letter was actually sent. 40 P.Oxy. 42.3069 [2.183] The second final greeting in line 25 was probably written by a different hand. 410–11 P.Oxy. 73.4959 [2.145] Reconstruction of the writing process. 355–56 P.Tebt. 2.418.v Lines 17–20 are written by hand 2. 72 P.Warr. 13 The final line can be restored as: [--- ἔρρωσό] μ̣ο̣ι,̣ κύριέ μου πάτερ, εὐτυχῶν. The small blank space after it indicates that the text was not continued in the lost part of the papyrus. 176 PSI 15.1553 [2.170] Explanation of how the papyrus was folded. 392 TM 10546 (P.Lond. inv. 2553 + P.Col. 8.211) The letter was actually sent. 40 TM 130712 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69] The letter was actually sent. 40

Indexes Greek and Latin Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets The Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets (https:// papyri.info/docs/checklist) is subdivided into editions of: Papyri (in most cases abbreviated with a prefixed P.), Ostraca (prefixed with O.), Tablets (prefixed with T.), Corpora, and Series. Some of these editions listed as “Papyri” also contain many ostraca, and volumes listed as “Ostraca” may contain papyri as well (e.g., O.Berenike 2.123–135 are papyri). Since this index is one of individual documents rather than editions, it is arranged as a single list with all documents arranged alphabetically by the document name. Page numbers in italics refer to the presentations of entire letters. Agora 21.B1 [2.52] 67, 209–10 BGU 1.27 [1.46] 85 BGU 1.37 [1.2] 49, 68, 71, 78, 85, 136, 148, 173, 184, 196 BGU 1.164 162 BGU 1.246 111, 152, 156 BGU 1.248 91, 138, 150, 160, 261 BGU 1.249 91, 159, 160, 161, 261 BGU 1.276 109 BGU 1.326 179 BGU 1.332 120 BGU 1.333 141 BGU 2.380 [2.172] 33, 166, 394–95 BGU 2.417 [2.83] 135, 136, 148, 151, 160, 187, 259–61 BGU 2.423 [1.44] 120, 144, 186, 193, 194, 384 BGU 2.450 [2.159] 201, 375–76 BGU 2.451 [2.102] 110, 160, 187, 270, 288–89 BGU 2.530 [2.74] 107, 132, 146, 150, 167, 174, 187, 245–46 BGU 2.531 [2.84] 34, 91, 116, 142, 147, 187, 261–63 BGU 2.594 91 BGU 2.595 91 BGU 2.596 [1.48] 196 BGU 2.597 91 BGU 2.615 120, 166

BGU 2.632 [1.45] 46, 113, 120, 384 BGU 2.665 141, 173, 181 195 BGU 3.714 BGU 3.747 146, 173 BGU 3.811 119 BGU 3.816 162 BGU 3.824 59, 119 BGU 3.830 [2.75] 147, 152, 174, 198, 246–48 BGU 3.843 107 BGU 3.846 [2.134] 109, 143, 152, 336–37 BGU 3.850 91, 134, 261 BGU 3.884 10, 71, 183 BGU 3.892 [2.135] 152, 174, 259, 337–38 BGU 4.1041 133 BGU 4.1057 221 BGU 4.1078 [2.72] 71, 101, 132, 136, 184, 185, 242–43 BGU 4.1079 185 BGU 4.1080 [2.180] 13, 15, 25, 50, 59, 60, 116, 148, 175, 404–6 BGU 4.1095 142 BGU 4.1097 [2.77] 152, 165, 249–51, 352 BGU 4.1141 [2.58] 11, 13, 15, 24, 55, 71, 78, 138, 152, 218–23, 222 BGU 4.1197 98 BGU 4.1203 106 BGU 4.1205 106

436 BGU 4.1206 106 BGU 8.1770 106 BGU 8.1874 119, 143 BGU 8.1881 138 BGU 9.2100 97 106, 113 BGU 10.2006 BGU 11.2059 189 BGU 11.2060 189 148 BGU 13.2349 BGU 14.2417 113 BGU 16 79 BGU 16.2595 189 BGU 16.2600 80, 86, 98 BGU 16.2602 80 BGU 16.2604 81, 98 BGU 16.2605 79 BGU 16.2606 80 BGU 16.2607 80, 90, 104, 106 BGU 16.2608 [2.66] 72, 80, 90, 106, 141, 171, 184, 226, 234, 235–36 BGU 16.2609 79, 226 BGU 16.2610 [2.62] 72, 80, 89, 106, 171, 226, 229–30, 234, 236 BGU 16.2611 [2.60] 70, 71, 80, 89, 106, 171, 182, 184, 224–26, 230, 234, 236 BGU 16.2612 81, 89 BGU 16.2613 81, 89 BGU 16.2614 80, 89, 106, 146, 287 BGU 16.2615 81, 106 BGU 16.2616 78, 80, 169 BGU 16.2617 81, 106, 233 BGU 16.2618 [2.64] 71, 81, 100, 147, 166, 171, 184, 231–34 BGU 16.2619 [2.63] 79, 81, 119, 139, 230–31 BGU 16.2620 90, 106 BGU 16.2621 90 BGU 16.2622 80, 90, 106 BGU 16.2623 [2.59] 38, 39, 70, 71, 80, 81, 90, 106, 142, 171, 184, 203, 223–24, 242

Indexes 80 BGU 16.2624 BGU 16.2625 80, 90, 104, 106 BGU 16.2626 85 BGU 16.2627 80, 85 BGU 16.2628 80, 85 55, 80, 85, 156 BGU 16.2629 BGU 16.2630 80, 85 BGU 16.2631 [2.61] 81, 86, 141, 171, 184, 226–29, 228 BGU 16.2632 81 BGU 16.2633 80, 90 BGU 16.2634 54 BGU 16.2635 80, 90, 104, 106 BGU 16.2636 55, 80 BGU 16.2637 80, 148, 231 BGU 16.2639 80 BGU 16.2640 79, 90 BGU 16.2641 79 BGU 16.2642 80, 106 BGU 16.2643 80, 90, 106 BGU 16.2644 80, 106 BGU 16.2645 81, 90 BGU 16.2647 41, 80, 90 BGU 16.2648 81 BGU 16.2649 80, 106 BGU 16.2650 81, 90, 106 BGU 16.2651 81, 106 BGU 16.2652 79, 85 BGU 16.2653 79, 90 BGU 16.2654 [2.65] 37, 69, 71, 78, 80, 147, 171, 184, 234–35 79 BGU 16.2655 BGU 16.2656 81, 90, 106 BGU 16.2657 80 BGU 16.2658 80 BGU 16.2659 80, 106 BGU 16.2660 81, 86 BGU 16.2662 79 BGU 20.2863 173 BGU 20.2871 160 BGU 20.2876 44 C.Gloss.Biling. 1.16 [2.185] 29, 94, 413–16 C.Pap.Lat. 303 94, 286 C.Pap.Lat. 304 [2.100] 94, 107, 285–87 C.Pap.Lat. 306 94, 286 94, 286 C.Pap.Lat. 307 Ch.L.A. 1.12 64

Indexes Ch.L.A. 4.267 [1.42] 39, 57 Ch.L.A. 10.424 37 Ch.L.A. 10.428 77 Ch.L.A. 11.493 37 Ch.L.A. 42.1212 38 CPR 5.19 [2.114] 9, 69, 71, 78, 114, 167, 184, 278–92 CPR 7.52 174 CPR 7.57 133 CPR 22.7.r 3 CPR 22.52 3 CPR 25.1 172 O.Amst. 22 102, 365 O.Berenike 2.129 [2.79] 22, 97, 119, 132, 146, 252–56 O.Berenike 2.195 139 O.Berenike 2.198 59, 119, 172 O.Bodl. 2.2000 [1.37] 14 O.Bodl. 2.2010 179 O.Claud. 1.141 160, 161, 162 O.Claud. 1.143 152, 167 O.Claud. 1.146 167 O.Claud. 1.147 [2.149] 70, 119, 155, 359–60 O.Claud. 1.151 [2.124] 9, 78, 85, 319–20 O.Claud. 1.152 144, 167 O.Claud. 1.154 107 O.Claud. 1.155 186 O.Claud. 1.157 159 O.Claud. 1.158 [2.105] 39, 150, 292–93 O.Claud. 1.161 107 O.Claud. 1.164 161 O.Claud. 1.168 144 O.Claud. 1.174 [2.122] 149, 150, 317–18 O.Claud. 2.225 101, 109 O.Claud. 2.226 101, 195 O.Claud. 2.227 101 O.Claud. 2.228 101 O.Claud. 2.229 101 O.Claud. 2.232 101 O.Claud. 2.233 101 O.Claud. 2.234 101 O.Claud. 2.236 102, 365 O.Claud. 2.239 196 O.Claud. 2.255 110 O.Claud. 2.256 110 O.Claud. 2.258 49 O.Claud. 2.259 190

437 O.Claud. 2.263 109 O.Claud. 2.271 148, 152 O.Claud. 2.274 109 110 O.Claud. 2.278 O.Claud. 2.283 109, 376 O.Claud. 2.298 102, 365 O.Claud. 2.362 161 O.Claud. 2.383 182 O.Claud. 2.414 302 O.Claud. 4.788 77 O.Deiss. 65 148 O.Did. 317 161, 185 O.Did. 318 192 O.Did. 319 192 O.Did. 325 108 O.Did. 326 107, 166 O.Did. 329 148 O.Did. 330 59, 119, 184, 376 O.Did. 331 376 O.Did. 332 376 O.Did. 333 [2.89] 22, 172, 268–69, 315 O.Did. 339 161, 162 O.Did. 342 10, 149, 265 O.Did. 343 [2.86] 10, 149, 172, 264–65 O.Did. 345 38, 39 O.Did. 350 108 O.Did. 360 20 O.Did. 362 107 O.Did. 376 93 O.Did. 376–399 314 O.Did. 377 93 O.Did. 378 93 O.Did. 379 93 O.Did. 381 93 O.Did. 382 93 O.Did. 389 93 O.Did. 395 20 O.Did. 399 302 O.Did. 402 [2.123] 121, 125, 195, 318–19 O.Did. 409 38 O.Did. 411 157 O.Did. 412 157 O.Did. 419 165 O.Did. 424 160 O.Did. 429 [2.92] 71, 94, 107, 166, 273

438 O.Did. 435 49 O.Did. 451 [1.36] 15, 78, 144 O.Eleph.Wagner 201 37 O.Florida 2 [2.152] 102, 364–65 O.Florida 6 102, 365 O.Florida 16 376 O.Heid. 428 109 O.Krok. 1.14 56 O.Krok. 1.98 152 O.Krok. 2.152–235 314 O.Krok. 2.153 93 O.Krok. 2.155 [2.117] 60, 93, 97, 142, 310–11 O.Krok. 2.156 93 O.Krok. 2.158 51 O.Krok. 2.160 201 O.Krok. 2.164 93, 302 O.Krok. 2.165 93, 302 O.Krok. 2.167 93 O.Krok. 2.168 197 O.Krok. 2.172 120 O.Krok. 2.178 200 O.Krok. 2.181 166 O.Krok. 2.189 160, 196 O.Krok. 2.193 [2.118] 21, 132, 147, 176, 311–12 O.Krok. 2.202 89, 111 O.Krok. 2.203 [2.115] 89, 107, 111, 112, 132, 309 O.Krok. 2.208 [2.116] 76, 309–10 O.Krok. 2.215 302 O.Krok. 2.216 107 O.Krok. 2.217 24, 38 O.Krok. 2.222 195 O.Krok. 2.225 314 O.Krok. 2.227 [2.120] 78, 93, 313–15 O.Krok. 2.231 89 O.Krok. 2.232 12 O.Krok. 2.233 [2.119] 111, 114, 312–13 O.Krok. 2.239 46 O.Krok. 2.241 195 O.Krok. 2.246 126 O.Krok. 2.265 194 O.Krok. 2.267 89, 185 O.Krok. 2.268 89 O.Krok. 2.269 160 O.Krok. 2.281 13, 107

Indexes O.Krok. 2.284 161 O.Krok. 2.285 13, 107, 109 O.Krok. 2.286 13, 107 O.Krok. 2.287 13 O.Krok. 2.288 [2.103] 13, 107, 109, 144, 184, 289–91 O.Krok. 2.289 13, 107 O.Krok. 2.290 13, 176 O.Krok. 2.291 107 O.Krok. 2.291–299 13 O.Krok. 2.292 107 O.Krok. 2.293 98 O.Krok. 2.296 [2.104] 107, 136, 137, 291–92 O.Krok. 2.298 107 O.Krok. 2.301 13, 107 O.Krok. 2.302 107 O.Krok. 2.302–305 13 O.Krok. 2.303 107 O.Krok. 2.304 107 O.Krok. 2.307 107 O.Krok. 2.307–311 13 O.Krok. 2.308 107 O.Krok. 2.309 107 O.Krok. 2.310 107 O.Krok. 2.313 13, 107 O.Krok. 2.314 13, 107, 184 O.Krok. 2.316 107, 184 O.Krok. 2.316–322 13 O.Krok. 2.318 107 O.Krok. 2.320 107 O.Krok. 2.321 107, 184 O.Krok. 2.322 107, 194, 302 O.Krok. 2.324 107, 302 O.Krok. 2.324–327 13 O.Krok. 2.327 107, 184 O.Krok. 2.329 13 O.Krok. 2.330–334 12 O.Krok. 2.333 139 O.Trim. 1.317 [2.187] 9, 418–19 P.Abinn. 31 38 P.Aegyptus Cent. 35 [2.173] 49, 54, 171, 395–96 P.Alex. 29 42, 87 P.Alex.Giss. 50 108 P.Alex.Giss. 53 91 P.Alex.Giss. 54 92 152 P.Amh. 2.130

Indexes P.Amh. 2.181 176 P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] 9, 13, 56, 71, 72, 135, 138, 160, 180, 194, 203, 403, 419–26, 427 P.Ant. 2.93 95, 98 P.Athen. 60 51, 99 P.Bad. 2.16 100 126 P.Bad. 2.34 P.Bad. 2.35 [2.87] 134, 167, 185, 265–67 P.Bad. 2.43 160 P.Bad. 4.48 169 P.Bagnall 12 148 P.Bal. 2.181 3 P.Bal. 2.182 3 P.Bas. 2.10 100 P.Bas. 2.43 4, 59 P.Batav. 39 35 P.Berl.Cohen 14 193 P.Berl.Möller 9 287 P.Berl.Möller 11 65, 169 P.Berl.Sarisch. 11 87 P.Berl.Zill. 12 111 P.Bingen 74 [2.132] 49, 95, 332–34 P.Bon. 38 414 100 P.Bour. 12 P.Brem. 5 [2.129] 37, 70, 71, 91, 174, 326, 328–30, 355 P.Brem. 6 39, 136, 329 P.Brem. 7 91 P.Brem. 8 91 P.Brem. 9 62, 89, 91, 138, 157, 162, 330 P.Brem. 10 49, 91, 326 P.Brem. 13 160 P.Brem. 15 406 P.Brem. 17 150 P.Brem. 20 [2.128] 62, 92, 116, 120, 142, 174, 326–28, 326, 330 P.Brem. 21 92, 157, 326 P.Brem. 22 62, 93, 326, 330 P.Brem. 48 62, 110 P.Brem. 50 62, 330 P.Brem. 51 189 P.Brem. 53 56, 156, 178

439 P.Brem. 56 325 P.Brem. 56app [2.127] 89, 92, 174, 324–26 P.Brem. 61 [1.15] 21, 178, 190 P.Brem. 63 [1.35] 50, 72 P.Brem. 82 48 P.Cair.Mich. 3.33 55 P.Cair.Preis. (2nd ed.) 48 120 54 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59015.v P.Cair.Zen. 1.59029 103 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59032 124 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59076 113 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59093 112 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59135 113 P.Cair.Zen. 2.59161 103 P.Cair.Zen. 3.59416 104 P.Cair.Zen. 3.59426 105 P.Cair.Zen. 4.59537 54 P.Cair.Zen. 4.59575 114 P.Cair.Zen. 4.59578 162, 213 P.Cair.Zen. 5.59804 54 P.Col. 3.10 104 P.Col. 4.64 105 P.Col. 4.66 171 P.Col. 4.88 54 P.Col. 8.215 [1.14] 33, 64, 69, 78, 107, 122, 141, 143, 146, 165, 169, 184 P.Col. 8.216 107, 109, 177, 187 P.Col. 10.252 97 P.Col. 10.279 60 P.Col. 10.290 280 P.Col. 11.298 42 P.Coll.Youtie 2.119 35 P.Congr.XV 22.v 423 P.Corn. 49 148 P.Daris 7 280 P.Daris 48 85, 86 P.David 14 [2.157] 137, 372–74 P.Diosk. 15 97 P.Diosk. 17 124, 169 P.Dryton 36 169 P.Dubl. 23 P.Eleph. 13 119 P.Erl. 117 139 P.Euphrates 14 179, 180 P.Fay. 19 3

440 P.Fay. 109 [2.70] 34, 141, 187, 240–41 P.Fay. 110 [2.91] 48, 49, 69, 71, 86, 173, 184, 187, 270–73 P.Fay. 114 357 P.Fay. 123 129, 197 P.Fay. 124 21, 155, 156, 376 P.Fay. 126 152 P.Fay. 252 272 P.Flor. 2.108.v 14 P.Flor. 2.120 14 P.Flor. 2.133 409 P.Flor. 2.156 129, 198 P.Flor. 2.195* 134 P.Flor. 2.259 [2.182] 14, 15, 45, 85, 407–10 P.Flor. 3.365 129 P.Flor. 3.367 [2.174] 22, 94, 132, 172, 396–98 P.Fouad 30 97 P.Fouad 33 95 P.Fouad 75 [2.81] 69, 71, 76, 147, 166, 184, 256–57 P.Freib. 2.8 97 P.Freib. 4.56 129 59 P.Freib. 4.57 P.Gen. 12.7 54, 189 P.Genova 1.10.v 3 P.Genova 2.60 174 P.Genova 4.161 104 P.Giss. 1.12 141 P.Giss. 1.14 107 P.Giss. 1.17 24, 107, 125 P.Giss. 1.18 107, 160 P.Giss. 1.19 88 P.Giss. 1.20 [4.###] 88, 125 P.Giss. 1.21 120 P.Giss. 1.22 [4.###] 86 P.Giss. 1.23 108 P.Giss. 1.69 92, 162, 326 P.Giss. 1.71 91 P.Giss. 1.72 92 P.Giss. 1.75 62, 91, 178, 326, 330 P.Giss. 1.76 92 P.Giss. 1.79 138, 139 P.Giss. 1.80 62, 63

Indexes 62, 63, 141 P.Giss. 1.85 91, 326 P.Giss. 1.88 92, 326 P.Giss. 1.89 P.Giss. 1.91 92 P.Giss. 1.97 181 169 P.Giss.Univ. 3.19 P.Giss.Univ. 3.20 10, 36, 37, 41 P.Graux 2.10 169 114 P.Hamb. 1.37 P.Hamb. 1.86 139 122 P.Hamb. 1.88 P.Hamb. 4.254 35 P.Hamb. 4.257 139 156 P.Harr. 2.179 P.Harrauer 35 10, 189 P.Haun. 2.16 57 P.Haun. 2.24 162 P.Haun. 2.28 141, 143 P.Haun. 2.30 165 P.Heid. 3.234 174 105 P.Heid. 9.427 P.Herm. 1 144 P.Herm. 2 57 P.Herm. 4 59, 88 P.Hib. 1.79 105 P.Hib. 1.121 335 P.Hombert 2.41 287 P.Horak 67 167, 169 22, 183, 406–7 P.Iand. 6.97 [2.181] P.Iand. 6.103 65 148 P.Iand. 6.115 P.IFAO 2.8 51, 147 P.IFAO 2.10 174 P.IFAO 2.41 95 P.Jördens 11 193 P.Jördens 12 193 P.Jördens 13 193 P.Jördens 21 175 P.Köln 6.278 109 P.Köln 9.364 76 P.Köln 15.603 15 P.Laur. 4.192 3 P.Leid.Inst. 42 [2.136] 10, 78, 338–40 P.Lips. 1.104 [2.56] 58, 100, 126, 169, 184, 214–16 P.Lips. 1.105 76 P.Lips. 1.108 [2.160] 129, 149, 198, 376–77

Indexes P.Lond. 2.144 (p. 253) [2.161] 79, 143, 146, 377–78 P.Lond. 2.276a (p. 148) 189 P.Lond. 2.281 (pp. 65–66) 88 P.Lond. 3.897 (pp. 206–207) 137, 142, 185 P.Lond. 3.951.v (p. 213) 157 P.Lond. 3.1222 (p. 126) 189 P.Lond. 6.1912 [1.39] 3, 18, 139, 153, 157 P.Lond. 6.1919 114 P.Lond. 6.1925 59 P.Lond. 7.1979 104 P.Masada 724 38 P.Mert. 1.12 [2.78] 60, 120, 126, 143, 184, 187, 251–52 P.Mert. 1.28 133, 287 P.Mert. 2.63 [2.80] 168, 254–56, 257 P.Mert. 2.80 [2.137] 134, 161, 340–41 P.Mert. 2.81 155, 166 P.Mert. 2.82 62, 95, 132 P.Mert. 2.90 87 P.Messeri 47 [2.138] 97, 197, 341–42 P.Meyer 20 133 P.Mich. 1.6 41 P.Mich. 2.121 44 44 P.Mich. 2.121.r P.Mich. 2.123.r 45 P.Mich. 3.170 174 P.Mich. 3.201 [2.93] 99, 147, 167, 172, 187, 273–75 P.Mich. 3.202 95, 144 P.Mich. 3.203 [2.125] 107, 129, 139, 160, 167, 184, 193, 320–22 P.Mich. 3.206 86 P.Mich. 3.209 [2.154] 78, 88, 97, 98, 133, 368–70 159 P.Mich. 3.211 P.Mich. 3.221 22 P.Mich. 8.464 [1.29] 160, 176 P.Mich. 8.465 [2.106] 24, 108, 114, 143, 144, 148, 167, 174, 195, 293–95, 301 P.Mich. 8.466 107, 295 P.Mich. 8.467 107 P.Mich. 8.467–469 77 P.Mich. 8.468 64, 107

441 P.Mich. 8.474 122 P.Mich. 8.475 109, 152 P.Mich. 8.476 [2.121] 107, 157, 159, 313–17 P.Mich. 8.476–480 77 P.Mich. 8.477 107, 153, 168, 317 P.Mich. 8.478 107, 129 P.Mich. 8.479 107, 129, 133, 166, 317 P.Mich. 8.480 107 P.Mich. 8.481 107, 159, 166 P.Mich. 8.482 [2.110] 49, 58, 64–65, 65, 148, 183, 184, 301–4 P.Mich. 8.483 45, 163 P.Mich. 8.484 45 P.Mich. 8.485 160 P.Mich. 8.486 295 P.Mich. 8.487 [2.107] 144, 145, 295–97 P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139] 50, 148, 183, 186, 193, 194, 342–45, 346, 384 P.Mich. 8.491 [2.140] 50, 109, 144, 186, 194, 343, 344, 345–46, 384 P.Mich. 8.492 60 P.Mich. 8.495 120 P.Mich. 8.496 [2.108] 49, 132, 181, 183, 297–99, 299 P.Mich. 8.498 41, 94 P.Mich. 8.499 [2.109] 70, 89, 109, 132, 142, 195, 295, 299–301 P.Mich. 8.500 94 P.Mich. 8.502 [2.141] 110, 143, 176, 346–48 P.Mich. 8.516 148 P.Mich. 9.549 301 P.Mich. 11.604 46 P.Mich. 15.751 133 P.Mich. 15.752 88, 368 P.Mich. 15.754 173 P.Mich. 21.854 183, 187 P.Michael. 11 166 P.Michael. 12 172 P.Michael. 15 [2.85] 138, 160, 174, 261, 263–64 P.Michael. 20 156

442 P.Mil. 2.75 134 P.Mil.Vogl. 1.24 24, 130, 138 P.Mil.Vogl. 2.50 174 P.Mil.Vogl. 2.51 174 P.Mil.Vogl. 3.201 148 134 P.Mil.Vogl. 4.256 P.Münch. 3.57 121 P.Münch. 3.119 174 P.NagHamm. 73 87 P.Nekr. 28 87 P.NYU 2.18 38, 39, 40 P.NYU 2.20 178 P.Oslo 2.47 [2.68] 148, 165, 171, 196, 238–39 P.Oslo 2.48 142, 165 P.Oslo 2.49 59 P.Oslo 2.51 38, 142 P.Oslo 2.55 39 P.Oslo 3.148 137 P.Oslo 3.151 177 P.Oslo 3.156 157 P.Oxy. 1.113 [2.142] 133, 148, 197, 348–50 P.Oxy. 1.115 [2.143] 35, 77, 79, 156, 174, 184, 350–52 P.Oxy. 1.118.v 52 P.Oxy. 1.119 [1.1] 12, 21, 22, 142, 156, 161, 288 P.Oxy. 1.123 59, 133 P.Oxy. 2.235 86 P.Oxy. 2.269 [4.###] 71, 85 P.Oxy. 2.292 [2.71] 38, 69, 71, 78, 142, 162, 171, 224, 241–42 P.Oxy. 2.293 168  XVIII, XXIX, P.Oxy. 2.294 X 146, 168 P.Oxy. 2.300 [2.88] 147, 167, 195, 267–68 P.Oxy. 3.474 189 P.Oxy. 3.494 179 P.Oxy. 3.495 179 P.Oxy. 3.525 76 P.Oxy. 3.528 24, 109 P.Oxy. 3.530 133 P.Oxy. 3.531 148 P.Oxy. 3.533 156 P.Oxy. 4.708.v 189

Indexes P.Oxy. 4.724 48 P.Oxy. 4.743 10, 38, 168 P.Oxy. 4.744 [2.67] 20, 69, 100, 146, 172, 184, 236–38 P.Oxy. 4.745 137 P.Oxy. 4.746 38 P.Oxy. 4.787 144 P.Oxy. 6.930 [1.34] 14, 166 P.Oxy. 6.932 [2.155] 48, 370–71 P.Oxy. 6.936 [2.175] 10, 398–99 P.Oxy. 6.937 143 P.Oxy. 6.963 57, 60 P.Oxy. 7.1061 [2.57] 143, 162, 217–18 P.Oxy. 7.1067 45, 183, 196 P.Oxy. 7.1068 200 P.Oxy. 7.1070 [2.168] 13, 23, 33, 71, 153, 183, 189, 386–89 P.Oxy. 8.1153 143 P.Oxy. 8.1154 105, 133 P.Oxy. 8.1158 [2.176] 52, 53, 78, 89, 94, 399–401 P.Oxy. 8.1159 152 P.Oxy. 9.1215 152 P.Oxy. 9.1216 160 P.Oxy. 10.1291 139 P.Oxy. 10.1295 196 P.Oxy. 10.1296 97 P.Oxy. 10.1300 59 P.Oxy. 10.1345 129 P.Oxy. 12.1422 153 P.Oxy. 12.1467 124 P.Oxy. 12.1480 142 P.Oxy. 12.1493 87 P.Oxy. 12.1592 115 P.Oxy. 14.1663 39, 122 P.Oxy. 14.1664 [2.167] 79, 114, 156, 163, 174, 175, 385–86 P.Oxy. 14.1666 160 P.Oxy. 14.1672 51 P.Oxy. 14.1678 129, 185 P.Oxy. 14.1680 87 P.Oxy. 14.1681 [2.177] 159, 401–2 P.Oxy. 14.1756 119 P.Oxy. 14.1757 [2.133] 132, 160, 195, 196, 334–36 P.Oxy. 14.1770 133 P.Oxy. 14.1773 130 P.Oxy. 14.1775 111

Indexes P.Oxy. 17.2113 87 P.Oxy. 17.2114 87 P.Oxy. 18.2191 139 P.Oxy. 34.2725 101, 152, 169 P.Oxy. 34.2726 146 P.Oxy. 38.2860 352 P.Oxy. 40.2926 76 P.Oxy. 41.2983 196 P.Oxy. 41.2984 196 P.Oxy. 41.2985 181 P.Oxy. 41.2988 48 P.Oxy. 42.3027 189 P.Oxy. 42.3048 233 P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96] 13, 61, 62, 63, 69, 70, 86, 94, 142, 149, 155, 187, 195, 278–82, 355 P.Oxy. 42.3058 160 P.Oxy. 42.3059 [2.144] 15, 98, 352–53 P.Oxy. 42.3061 161 P.Oxy. 42.3062 61 P.Oxy. 42.3063 154, 181 P.Oxy. 42.3065 129 P.Oxy. 42.3067 57 P.Oxy. 42.3069 [2.183] 13, 45, 50, 120, 410–12 P.Oxy. 42.3082 129, 155 P.Oxy. 43.3088 157, 189 P.Oxy. 45.3240 147 P.Oxy. 45.3243 173 P.Oxy. 46.3313 122, 199 P.Oxy. 47.3339 233 P.Oxy. 47.3356 [2.82] 50, 119, 121, 162, 172, 184, 196, 257–59, 338 P.Oxy. 47.3357 195 79, 174 P.Oxy. 49.3469 P.Oxy. 49.3505 61, 62, 63 P.Oxy. 51.3644 199 P.Oxy. 51.3645 76 P.Oxy. 52.3668 3 P.Oxy. 52.3690 97 P.Oxy. 55.3806 119, 175 P.Oxy. 55.3807 24, 177, 182 P.Oxy. 55.3808 151 P.Oxy. 55.3809 [2.158] 111, 374–75 P.Oxy. 55.3810 [2.162] 49, 174, 378–79 P.Oxy. 55.3819 35, 59

443 P.Oxy. 56.3857 42 P.Oxy. 59.3991 196 P.Oxy. 59.3992 88, 182, 406 P.Oxy. 59.3993 196 P.Oxy. 59.3997 133 P.Oxy. 59.4004 35 P.Oxy. 63.4364 124 P.Oxy. 63.4365 14, 87, 96 P.Oxy. 64.4441 417 P.Oxy. 66.4544 79 P.Oxy. 67.4624 70, 185 P.Oxy. 67.4627 134 P.Oxy. 73.4959 [2.145] 13, 47, 55, 71, 72, 174, 281, 329, 353–56 P.Oxy. 75.5049 182 P.Oxy. 75.5055 146 P.Oxy. 76.5077 3 P.Oxy. 77.5113 [2.178] 79, 122, 125, 402–3 P.Oxy. 78.5181 [2.179] 167, 403–4 P.Oxy. 85.5522 [2.97] 21, 59, 132, 282–83 P.Oxy. 85.5523 21, 120, 282 P.Oxy. 85.5525 79 P.Oxy.Hels. 46 174 P.Oxy.Hels. 48 [2.163] 72, 94, 130, 132, 138, 175, 379–82 P.Paris 1 29 P.Petaus 28 94 P.Petaus 29 [2.156] 23, 86, 109, 120, 371–72, 382 P.Petr.Kleon 8 104 P.Petr.Kleon 13 104 P.Petr.Kleon 83 38 P.Phil. 33 201 P.Phil. 34 [2.76] 53, 69, 71, 79, 89, 151, 248–49 P.Phil. 35 133, 196 P.Pintaudi 54 [2.184] 14, 69, 78, 412–13 P.Pintaudi 55 [2.186] 13, 70, 72, 79, 86, 357, 416–18 P.Prag. 1.109.r 134 P.Princ. 2.19 63 P.Princ. 2.70 72 P.Princ. 2.72 63 P.Princ. 3.163 197 P.Princ. 3.165 [2.146] 79, 356–57 P.Princ. 3.186 171 P.Rain.Unterricht 73 14

444 P.Rain.Unterricht 76 14 P.Rain.Unterricht 78 14 P.Rein. 2.113 124 100 P.Ross.Georg. 2.10 P.Ross.Georg. 3.2 35, 156 P.Ryl. 2.78 189 P.Ryl. 2.229 138 P.Ryl. 2.233 171 P.Ryl. 2.235 [2.147] 119, 133, 193, 231, 357–58 P.Ryl. 2.236 14 P.Ryl. 2.240 14 P.Ryl. 2.245 76 P.Ryl. 4.604 94 P.Sakaon 55 22 P.Sarap. 54.r 55 P.Sarap. 80 156, 159, 160 P.Sarap. 84a 55 P.Sarap. 85 [2.111] 13, 69, 116, 120, 121, 304–5, 306 P.Sarap. 86 175 P.Sarap. 87 306 P.Sarap. 88 306 P.Sarap. 89 [2.112] 13, 69, 121, 305–6 P.Sarap. 89c 174 P.Sarap. 96 119 P.Sarap. 100 [2.113] 13, 86, 187, 281, 306–7 P.Sarap. 101 110 P.Sarap. 103bis 160 P.Sarap. 103ter 157 P.Select. 22 46 P.Sorb. 1.9 76 P.Stras. 4.174 37, 173 P.Stras. 5.322 120 P.Tebt. 2.314 136, 182 151 P.Tebt. 2.315 P.Tebt. 2.418.v 72, 406 P.Tebt. 2.424 22 P.Tebt. 2.583 [2.165] 112, 132, 139, 186, 382–84 P.Tebt. 3.1.703 155 P.Tebt. 3.1.768 169 P.Theon. 8 173 P.Thomas 14 166 P.Turner 18 [2.90] 64, 86, 108, 136, 144, 184, 269–70 P.Turner 34 124

Indexes P.Warr. 13 176 P.Warr. 14 162 P.Warr. 15 148, 160, 183 P.Warr. 20 59 P.Wash.Univ. 2.106 160, 166 172, 275 P.Wisc. 2.69 P.Wisc. 2.72 144 P.Wisc. 2.73 [2.131] 121, 166, 331–32 P.Wisc. 2.84 [1.22] 88, 190 P.Worp 1 3 P.Würzb. 21 145, 146 P.Yadin 2.52 [1.41] 148 P.Yadin 2.59 88 P.Yale 1.78 139, 161 P.Zen.PesTM. 56 55 Pap.Lugd.Bat. 23, p. 7–8 151 PSI 3.177.v [2.164] 23, 372, 382 PSI 3.207 64 PSI 3.236 152 PSI 4.308 [2.130] 110, 330–31 PSI 4.317 190 PSI 7.825 111 PSI 7.826 59 PSI 7.855 104 PSI 8.971 129 PSI 9.1041 42, 87 PSI 9.1080 153 PSI 12.1241 [2.151] 151, 155, 184, 361–64 PSI 12.1246 174 PSI 12.1247.v [2.171] 49, 183, 199, 385, 389, 393–94, 397 PSI 12.1248 79, 124 PSI 12.1261 [2.169] 13, 58, 60, 125, 187, 203, 389–90 PSI 13.1328 391 PSI 13.1359 146 PSI 14.1414 138 PSI 14.1445 133 PSI 15.1539 38 PSI 15.1553 [2.170] 49, 52, 62, 86, 94, 183, 390–93 PSI 15.1560 42, 87 PSI 16.1624 110, 146 PSI 16.1645 139 PSI Com. 6.18 143 79, 357 PSI Com. 9.10 SB 1.777 35

Indexes SB 3.6263 [2.153] 33, 68, 71, 78, 85, 88, 148, 155, 190, 365–68, 369 SB 3.6265 107 SB 3.6300 99 35 SB 3.6700 SB 3.6823 [2.73] 120, 167, 184, 243–45 SB 3.6968 179 SB 3.6971 179 SB 3.7244 33, 45 SB 3.7268 157 SB 3.7269 42 SB 5.7572 [2.94] 167, 172, 196, 275–76 SB 5.7600 [1.38] 146 SB 5.7741 189 SB 5.7743 89, 167 SB 5.8005 200 SB 5.8006 54 SB 6.9017.9 107 SB 6.9017.10 [2.98] 162, 194, 283 SB 6.9017.13 107 SB 6.9017.16 51 SB 6.9017.17 51 SB 6.9017.31 78, 81 SB 6.9017.38 107 SB 6.9120 151 SB 6.9122 142, 177, 255, 257 SB 6.9164 166 SB 6.9165 106 SB 6.9415.17 200 SB 6.9531 161 SB 6.9532 49 SB 6.9564 41, 144 SB 6.9636 144 SB 8.9721 111 SB 10.10240 142 SB 10.10277 [2.126] 193, 322–24 SB 10.10278 107 SB 10.10529b 147 SB 12.10772 151 SB 12.10799 101, 155 SB 12.11012 3 SB 12.11016 167 SB 12.11125 122 SB 12.11127 119 SB 12.11130 166

445 SB 14.11580 [2.150] 12, 196, 199, 360–61 SB 14.11584 58, 194 SB 14.11644 [2.99] 49, 56, 119, 134, 153, 165, 166, 167, 187, 195, 283–85 SB 14.11851 101 SB 14.11899 166 SB 14.11900 [2.148] 133, 142, 162, 358–59 SB 14.11901 70, 147 SB 14.11957 280 SB 14.12026 [2.166] 146, 196, 384–85 SB 14.12083 148 SB 14.12144 139 SB 14.12155 147 SB 14.12178 154 SB 16.12304 42, 87 SB 16.12326 22 SB 16.12570 162 SB 16.12578 159 SB 16.12579 21 SB 16.12589 125 SB 16.12713 40 SB 16.12714 40 SB 16.12835 40, 157 SB 16.12863 109 SB 16.12981 33 SB 16.12982 160 SB 16.13058 157 SB 18.13303 88 SB 18.13591 133 SB 18.13609 14, 15 SB 18.13614 113 SB 18.13645 35 SB 18.13674 109 SB 18.13675 109 SB 18.13676 109 SB 18.13677 109 SB 18.13678 109 SB 18.13680 109 SB 18.13697 109 SB 18.13703 109 SB 18.13867 10, 201 SB 20.14132 [2.101] 71, 107, 136, 165, 190, 191, 196, 287–88 SB 20.14242 169

446 SB 20.14249 109 SB 20.14250 109 SB 20.14253 109 352 SB 20.14262 SB 20.14280 169 SB 20.14728 78 SB 20.14729 113 SB 20.14838 109 106 SB 22.15324 SB 22.15380 107 SB 22.15453 109 SB 22.15603 148, 193 SB 22.15639 109 SB 22.15640 109 SB 22.15641 109 SB 22.15642 109 SB 22.15643 109 SB 22.15644 109 SB 22.15645 109 SB 22.15646 109 SB 22.15647 109 SB 22.15648 109 SB 22.15650 109 SB 22.15651 109 SB 22.15652 109 SB 22.15653 109 109 SB 22.15654 SB 22.15655 109 SB 22.15656 109 SB 22.15661 139 SB 22.15708 [1.30] 10, 20, 71, 150 SB 24.15909 40 SB 24.15910 40 SB 24.16069 113 SB 24.16268 130 SB 24.16334 109, 173, 309 124 SB 24.16338 SB 26.16687 173 SB 26.16759 95 SB 28.16941 173 SB 28.16995 104 SB 28.17095 195 SB 28.17097 109 SB 28.17110 129, 158 SB 28.17112 22 SB 28.17113 376 SB 28.17264 169 SEG 26.845 74

Indexes SEG 37.665 75 SEG 43.488 [2.55] 76, 162, 212–13 SEG 48.988 74 SEG 48.1012 75 SEG 50.276 [2.53] 75, 210–11 SEG 50.704 173 SEG 53.1153 212 SEG 54.983 103 SEG 59.814 76 SEG 61.614 75 Short Texts 2.437 145 Syll.3 3.1259 [2.54] 69, 75, 78, 103, 149, 211–12 T.Bloomberg 29 85 T.Bloomberg 38 89 T.Bloomberg 185 85 T.Mom.Louvre 625 35 T.Mom.Louvre 857 35 T.Vindol. 1.38 165 T.Vindol. 1.59 166 T.Vindol. 1.61 85 T.Vindol. 2.210 166 T.Vindol. 2.242 85 T.Vindol. 2.244 166 T.Vindol. 2.247 85, 165 T.Vindol. 2.248 [1.3] 109 T.Vindol. 2.250 [2.95] 38, 49, 69, 77, 94, 144, 173, 276–78 277 T.Vindol. 2.251 T.Vindol. 2.260 165 T.Vindol. 2.274 165 165 T.Vindol. 2.281 T.Vindol. 2.285 85 T.Vindol. 2.288 85 T.Vindol. 2.291 [1.49] 85, 165, 166, 278 T.Vindol. 2.293 85 T.Vindol. 2.310 133 85 T.Vindol. 2.331 T.Vindol. 2.353 165 T.Vindol. 2.355 85 T.Vindol. 3.643 190 T.Vindol. 4.891 278 T.Vindon. 52 108 TM 10546 (P.Lond. inv. 2553 + P.Col. 8.211) 37, 40, 144 TM 107277 (P.CtYBR inv. 642) 160

Indexes TM 130712 (P.Mich. inv. 1430) [2.69] 37, 40, 49, 69, 71, 78, 144, 173, 239–40 TM 140203 (P.WaPS.05.v) 38 TM 140268 (P.CtYBR inv. 1678) 194 TM 140652 (P.Cairo Museum SR 3065/2) 148 TM 140706 (P.Laur. inv. PL III 978) 309 TM 641988 (P.CtYBR inv. 736) 169 TM 764354 (FY10-18718-da) 337 TM 832384 (O.Claud. inv. 7436) 163 TM 981681 (P.Heid. inv. G. 1401) 79 UPZ 1.109 109 UPZ 1.110.1–192 29, 30, 184 UPZ 1.110.193–213 29, 30, 184 UPZ 1.111 29, 30, 184 UPZ 1.144 29, 30 29, 30 UPZ 1.145 UPZ 1.146 30 UPZ 1.148 76 New Testament Luke 15:11–32 337 18:1 372 Acts 10:6 364 15:23 74, 77 15:23–29 175 15:29 172 23:26 74, 77, 173 23:26–30 173 Rom 10, 98, 183, 194, 197

447 1:1–7 73, 74 1:7 83, 84, 100 1:8 123, 128, 204 1:8–10 115, 116 1:9 112, 115, 128 1:9–10 103 1:10 112, 128, 406 129, 130 1:10–15 1:11–16 118 1:13 84, 136 1:18–15:13 134 2:2 136 3:19 136 4:11 187 5–16 3 5:3 136 6:3 136 6:6 136 6:9 136 6:16 136 7:1 84, 136 7:4 84 7:14 136 7:18 136 8:12 84 8:22 136 8:28 136 10:1 84 11:2 136 11:22 136, 139 11:25 84, 136 12–13 154 12:1 84, 140, 141, 142 12:18 140, 141, 282 12:19 84 14:14 136 15:14 84 15:14–32 158 15:22–32 159 15:24 159 15:28 187 15:29 136 15:30 84, 140, 141, 142 15:30–32 161 15:32 160, 289, 322 15:33 163, 172 16:1 95 16:1–2 36, 37, 38, 192, 197

448 Rom (cont.) 16:1–23 163 164, 165, 167, 276 16:3–16 16:3–23 167 85, 98 16:13 16:16 166 16:17 84, 140, 141, 142 16:19 119, 123, 147 16:20a 171 16:20b 172, 183 16:21 63, 183 16:21–23 164, 166, 182, 183 16:22 44, 50, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 165, 282, 303 16:23 63, 183 16:25–27 163, 182 1 Cor 10, 18, 34, 35, 51, 98, 128, 152, 194, 197 1:1 50 1:1–3 73, 74 1:2 100 83 1:3 1:4–8 123 118, 127 1:4–9 1:10 84, 140, 141, 142, 153 1:10–16:4 134 84, 127, 153 1:11 1:11–4:21 151 1:18–29 20, 21 1:26 84 2:1 84 2:2–5 3 84 3:1 3:16 136 3:18–23 20, 21 4:6 84 4:8–10 20, 21 4:9 136, 138 4:16 140, 142 4:17 192, 197 4:18–21 159 60, 204 5 5:1 127

Indexes 5:3 57, 59, 60, 206, 405 5:6 136 5:9 149, 150 5:11 136, 149, 150, 151 6:2 136 6:2–3 136 6:3 136 6:9 136 6:15 136 6:15–16 136 6:16 136 6:19 136 7:1 11, 127, 151, 223, 251 7:1–14:40 151, 152 7:1–40 152 147 7:7 7:15 95 7:24 84 7:26 136, 138 7:29 84 7:32 147 7:37–38 140, 147 7:40 136, 138 8:1 127, 136, 223, 251 8:1–11:34 152 8:4 136 9:2 187 9:5 95 9:13 136 9:24 136 84, 136 10:1 10:14 84 10:20 147 11:3 136 11:18 153 11:33 84 11:34 159 12:1 84, 127, 136, 223, 251 12:1–14:40 152 12:2 136 13 154, 156, 205 14:5 147 14:6 84, 159 14:20 84 14:26 84

Indexes 1 Cor (cont.) 14:34 157, 158 14:39 84 15:1 84 15:31 84 15:36 20, 21 15:50 84 15:51 136, 139 15:52 136 15:58 84, 85, 136 16:1–4 152 16:2 159 16:3 36, 41 16:5 159 16:5–6 402 16:5–7 159 16:5–9 159 16:5–18 158 16:7 159, 160, 289, 322 16:10 197 16:10–11 192 16:11 197 16:15 85, 142 16:15–16 140, 141 16:15–18 36, 38, 41, 161, 192, 197 16:19 166 164, 166, 167 16:19–20 16:19–24 163 16:20 165, 166, 170 16:21 50, 177, 180, 182 16:22 182 16:23–24 182 16:24 172 2 Cor 10, 37, 51, 98, 128, 131, 191, 198, 199 1–9 189, 191, 194 1:1 50, 100 1:1–2 73, 74 1:2 83 1:3–2:13 118 1:3–5 117 1:7 136 1:8 85, 136, 150 20, 23 1:8–10 1:11 112

449 1:13 201 1:15–2:3 129, 130, 131 1:22 187 1:23 140 1:23–2:9 198 2:3–4 149, 150 2:4 20, 24, 150, 223 2:8 140, 141, 142 149, 150 2:9 2:13 192, 194 2:14–12:13 134 3:1 36, 37, 39, 41 3:2 201 4:1 372 4:2 37 4:14 136 4:16 372 136 5:1 5:12 37 5:17 136, 139 5:20 146 5:20–6:1 140, 146 6:1 141, 142 6:2 136, 139 6:4 37 6:9 136, 139 7:1 84 7:6 192, 194 7:8–12 149, 150 7:11 37, 136, 139 7:12 60 8–9 36, 41 8:1 85 8:9 136 8:16–23 192, 198, 199 8:23 198 9:3–5 198, 199 159 9:4 9:5 136, 139, 231 9:7–13 3 10–13 189, 191, 194 10:1 141, 142, 146, 177 10:1–2 140, 146 10:2 141, 146 10:10 141, 198 10:11 57, 59, 60, 206, 405 10:12 37

450 2 Cor (cont.) 10:18 37 21, 23 11:1 11:1–12:13 20, 21, 22, 23, 389, 407 11:17 21, 23 11:19 21 11:21 21, 23 12:11 37 12:14 136, 139, 159 12:14–13:11 158 12:19 84 12:20–13:2 159 12:20–21 160, 198 13:2 57, 59, 60, 149, 151, 206, 405 13:10 57, 59, 60, 159, 160, 206, 405 13:11 85, 161, 282 13:12 164, 165, 166, 167, 170 13:12–13 163 13:13 172 Gal 9, 10, 51, 98, 128, 164, 167, 194, 423 50 1:1 1:1–5 73, 74 1:1–10 3 1:3 83 133 1:6 133, 134 1:6–7 1:6–10 118, 132 85 1:11 1:11–6:10 134 1:20 136, 139 2:16 136 3:1 20, 21 3:3 20, 21 3:7 136 3:15 85 4:12 85, 140, 146 4:13 136 4:18–20 57, 59, 60, 206, 405 4:28 85 4:31 85

Indexes 5:11 85 5:13 85 6:1 85 372 6:9 6:10 164, 168, 170 6:11 50, 164, 177, 178, 180, 181 6:11–17 158 6:11–18 181 6:12–17 181 6:12–18 181 6:17 161 6:18 85, 163, 164, 172, 175, 181 Eph 3, 98, 116, 175, 199 100 1:1 1:1–2 73, 74, 117 1:2 83 1:3 117 1:3–23 115 1:13 187 1:13–23 117, 205 1:15–16 123, 128 1:16 112, 115, 116, 117, 406 1:16–18 112 1:16–19 103 2:1–6:17 134 3:4 201 3:13 140, 147, 372 4:1 140, 141, 142 4:30 187 5:5 136 6:4 98 6:8 136 6:8–9 136 98, 136 6:9 6:10 161 6:10–20 161 6:18–22 158 6:21 199 6:21–22 192, 197 6:23 85, 175 6:23–24 163, 172, 175 6:24 175

451

Indexes Phil 3, 98, 374 1:1 50, 100 73, 74 1:1–2 1:2 83 1:3 115 1:3–5 123, 127 1:3–11 115, 116 20, 24, 103, 112 1:4 1:4–5 119, 122 1:4–6 112 1:9 103, 112 1:9–11 112 1:12 85, 136 1:12–14 137 1:12–4:20 134 1:13 112 1:16 136 1:18 20, 24 1:19 136 1:25 20, 24, 136 1:27 57, 59, 159, 206, 405 2:2 20, 24 2:12 84 2:17 20, 24, 25 2:19 35 2:22 136 2:24 159 2:25 136, 139, 192, 197, 231 2:25–30 36, 38 2:29 42 3:1 85, 148 3:13 85 3:17 85 149, 150 3:18 4:1 20, 24, 84, 85, 144 4:2 141, 142, 143 4:2–3 140, 145 4:3 144, 145 4:8 85 4:10 20, 24 4:15 136 4:18 127, 192, 197 4:19–20 162, 163 4:21 165, 166 4:21–22 164, 166, 167

4:21–23 163 4:23 172, 175 Col 3, 51, 98, 199 1:1 50 1:1–2 73, 74 1:2 83, 85, 100 1:3 103, 112, 406 1:3–6 123, 128 1:3–23 115, 117, 205 1:7–12 151, 152 1:9 112 1:9–11 103 1:11–12 123, 128 1:24–29 118 2:1 136 2:1–4:1 134 2:5 57, 59, 60, 206, 405 3:21 98 3:24 136 4:1 98, 136 4:2–9 158 4:7 199 4:7–9 192, 197 4:10–14 166 4:10–15 164, 167 4:10–18 163 4:15 165 4:16 201 4:18 50, 172, 175, 177, 180, 182 1 Thess 35, 77, 98, 198 1 3 1:1 50, 73, 74, 83 1:2 103, 112, 115, 406 1:2–3 112 1:2–5 115, 116, 123, 127 1:3 115, 127, 205 1:4 85 1:5 136 1:6–10 118 1:7–8 127 1:9 127 2:1 85, 136

452 1 Thess (cont.) 2:1–5:24 134 136 2:2 2:5 136 85 2:9 2:11 136 2:12 146 2:13 205 2:14 85 2:17 85 2:17–18 129, 130 3:2 192, 198 3:3 136 3:4 136 3:4–8 149, 151 3:6 115, 129, 159, 192, 198 3:6–10 127 3:7 85 3:10 309 3:10–11 159 3:11 160 4:1 85, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146 4:9 223, 251 4:9–10 151, 152 4:10 85, 140, 141, 142 4:10–11 142 4:13 85, 136, 352 4:17 352 4:18 352 3 5 5:1 85, 223, 251 5:1–11 151, 152 5:2 136 5:4 85 5:12 85, 140, 144, 145 5:13 282 5:14 35, 85, 140, 145 5:15 140, 148, 239 5:23–24 171 5:25 85, 158, 161 5:26 164, 165 5:26–28 163 5:27 161, 201 5:28 172

Indexes 2 Thess 98, 128, 142, 145, 175 1:1 50 1:1–2 73, 74 1:2 83 1:3 85, 200 116, 123, 128 1:3–10 1:3–12 118 1:10 128 1:11 112, 116, 406 1:11–12 103 2:1 85, 145 2:1–2 140, 144, 145, 205 2:1–3:13 134 85, 200 2:13 2:15 85 85 3:1 3:6 85 3:7 136 3:11–12 151, 153 3:12 140, 141, 142, 205 3:13 85, 372 3:13–15 161 3:13–16a 158 3:16 175 3:16–18 172, 176 3:16b–18 163 3:17 50, 175, 177, 180, 182, 200, 205 3:18 175 1 Tim 99, 154, 155, 156, 158, 205 1:1 136 73, 74 1:1–2 1:2 83 1:3–5 149, 151 1:3–6:19 134 1:8 136 136 1:9 2:1 142, 143 2:1–2 140, 141 2:8 147, 205 2:12 157, 158

Indexes 1 Tim (cont.) 3:14 159 3:14–15 159 3:15 160 159, 160 4:13 5:1–2 85, 98 5:2 95 309 5:5 5:14 147, 205 5:23 157 6:20–21a 158, 161 6:21 98, 99, 101, 175 6:21b 163, 172 2 Tim 99 1:1–2 73, 74 1:2 83, 84 1:3 112, 115 1:3–4 103 1:3–5 123, 128 1:3–6 112 1:3–7 115 1:4 115 1:8–4:18 134 1:15 136 1:15–18 157 2:13 309 2:15 140, 148 2:17–18 157 2:19 187 2:23 136 136 3:1 4:9 140, 148, 159, 160 4:9–17 157 4:19 164, 165, 167 4:19–22 163 4:20 157 4:21 148, 159, 160, 164, 166, 167, 402 4:22 98, 99, 101, 172, 175 Titus 99, 154, 155, 156, 205

453 1:1–4 73, 74 1:4 83 1:5–3:14 134 3:8 147, 205 3:11 136 3:12 140, 148, 159, 160, 192, 197, 402 3:12–13 157 3:15 98, 99, 101, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 172, 175 Phlm 36, 38, 51, 98, 99, 100, 197, 242 1 50, 84 1–3 73, 74 95 2 3 83 4 103, 112, 115, 116, 406 4–5 127 4–6 112, 115, 123 5 122 5–6 116 7 84, 118, 119, 122 8 38, 242 8–20 134 9 141, 142, 280 9–10 140, 143 9–16 141 10 38, 142, 224, 242, 263, 403 10–12 192, 196, 197 38, 39, 301 11 17 38, 141, 142, 224, 246, 329 50, 177, 180 19 20 84 21 136, 137, 203, 245 21–22 158 22 159, 160 23–24 164, 166 23–25 163 25 172, 175

454 Heb 1 3 3:1 85 3:12 85 6:9 84 9 3 10:19 85 13:22 85 Jas

98, 173 1:1 73, 74, 77 1:2 85 1:2–5:18 134 1:13 136 1:16 84, 85 1:19 84, 85, 136 2:1 85 2:5 84, 85 2:8 140, 147 2:14 85 2:15 95 2:19 140, 147 2:20 20, 21, 136 3:1 85, 136 3:4 136, 139 3:5 136, 139 3:10 85 3:12 85 4:1 85 4:4 20, 21, 136 4:5 136, 138 4:8 20, 21 5:4 136, 139 5:7 85, 136, 139 5:9 85, 136, 139 5:10 85 5:11 136, 139 5:12 85 5:19 85 5:19–20 158, 161, 172, 173

1 Pet 46, 96, 98 1:1–2 73, 74 1:2 83, 175 1:3–9 117 1:3–12 118

Indexes 1:10 85, 150 1:13 150 1:13–5:11 134 1:18 136 2:11 84, 140, 142 4:12 84 5:1 142 5:1–3 140, 141 158, 192, 197 5:12 5:13 44, 50, 166 5:13–14 163, 164, 167 5:14 165, 172, 175 2 Pet 98, 132 1:1–2 73, 74 1:2 83 1:3–4 118 1:5–3:16 134 1:10 140, 148 1:12 136, 138 1:13 136, 139 1:14 136 1:19 147 1:20 136 3:1 84, 132, 136, 149, 150 3:3 136 3:8 84 3:14 84, 148 3:17 84 3:17–18 158, 161 3:18b 172, 173 1 John 76, 173 2:7 84 2:13–14 98 2:29 136 3:1 136, 139 3:2 136 3:5 136 3:13 85 3:14 136 3:15 136 3:21 84 4:1 84 4:7 84

Indexes 1 John (cont.) 4:11 84 5:13 161 5:13–20 161 5:14–20 161 5:18–20 136 5:21 161 2 John 96, 98, 99, 100, 173 1–3 73, 74 3 83 4 118, 119, 122 5 140, 144, 145 5–11 134 12 158, 159 13 95, 163, 164, 166, 172, 173 3 John 96, 99, 183 1 74, 84 1–2 73 2 84, 103, 111 3–4 118, 119, 122 5 84 5–12 134 6 140, 147 10 159 11 84 136 12 13–14 158 14 159

455 15 163, 165, 166, 167, 175, 184 15a 172 15b–c 164, 182 Jude 96, 98 1–2 73, 74 2 83 3 84, 118, 119, 140, 141, 143 3–23 134 5 136, 138 136, 139 14 84 20 24–25 158, 172, 173 Rev 96 1:1–3 74 1:4 98, 100 1:4–5 48, 49, 73, 74, 83, 205 44, 48, 49, 53, 205 1:11 1:13 49, 206 1:19 44, 48, 49, 53, 205 2–3 44, 48, 49, 53, 206 2:5 159 2:16 159 2:25 159 3:11 159 22:7 159 22:12 159 22:20 159 172, 175 22:21