More Light from the Ancient East: Understanding the New Testament Through Papyri 3506790412, 9783506790415

Citation preview

More Light from the Ancient East

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. 1

Peter Arzt-Grabner, John S. Kloppenborg, Christina M. Kreinecker

More Light from the Ancient East Understanding the New Testament through Papyri

With a contribution by

Gregg Schwendner

Cover illustration: BGU 3.887 [1.51] (P.Berol. inv. 7403, slave sale contract from Side), 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, München Production: Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn ISSN 2751-9473 ISBN 978-3-506-79041-5 (hardback) ISBN 978-3-657-79041-8 (e-book)

Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Papyrological and Epigraphical Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Ancient Texts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequently Cited Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



xi xi xii xii

Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Papyri? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Old Was Jesus?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Comparability of Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Databases and Other Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Note on the Data Provided and Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explanation of Diacritical Sigla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxi xxi xxv xxxiii xxxv xxxvi xxxvii

1 Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions of Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Early Years and the Present Situation: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Significance of Documentary Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets . . . . . . . 9 A Closer Look #1: The Earliest Christian Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Documentary Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets Illumining New Testament Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Semiliterary Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 What are Papyrological Archives? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Papyrology, a Vibrant Field of Research  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 A Closer Look #2: Who Wrote Second Thessalonians? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Texts [1.1]–[1.14]  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2 Writing Media and Implements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Papyrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Leather and Parchment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Potsherds (Ostraca) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Wax, Wooden, and Metal Tablets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 A Closer Look #3: Damaged Papyri as Possible Reason for the Compilation of 2 Cor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Texts [1.15]–[1.16]  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

vi

Contents

3 Literacy and Illiteracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levels of Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Writers or Readers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texts for Education in Literacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literate Women  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading Cultures in the Papyri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texts [1.17]–[1.37] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 69 75 76 80 82 86

4 Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 A Multilingual Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Greek in Particular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Latin in Particular  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 A Closer Look #4: Jesus, Herod, and Pontius Pilate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Texts [1.38]–[1.43] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 5 The Practices of Ancient Scribes: Paleography in a Broader Perspective (Gregg Schwendner) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Scribal Posture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Reading and Copying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 A Cognitive Model of Handwriting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Scriptoria?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Turner’s Apostrophe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Plain Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Book Hands (Type I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 “Transitional” from Severe Style to Upright Ogival  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Severe Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 6 The “Egyptian Question” or: Is Egypt Relevant for the New Testament?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 The Roman East and Beyond the Frontier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Africa Proconsularis and Mauretania  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Italia and the Provinces North of Rome  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 A Closer Look #5: Greek and Latin Letters from Different Regions . . . . 191 A Closer Look #6: Dinner Invitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 A Closer Look #7: Slave Sale Contracts from Various Provinces . . . . . . . 203 Texts [1.44]–[1.51] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Contents

vii

Prospect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Documentary Greek and Latin Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets . . . . . . . . . . 229 New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Acknowledgments It is with great delight that we present this volume to readers as the first of the new series “Papyri and the New Testament” (PNT). As often, the idea for this series goes back a long way. In this case, it all started on one of those mornings after a congress when all the early risers had already left, but an Australian and an Austrian who had never met before sat down at the same table for breakfast and started a vivid exchange about their projects. By the end of that breakfast, David Sim from Melbourne had sparked this long-term project. Ian Stevens listened carefully to the initial ideas and expressed his support and encouragement with a simple “Go for it.” Many years later, the initial idea has become a physical reality and we owe this to many a people who have supported the project in its various steps of development. First and foremost, we would like to thank Carey Newman and Jörg Persch. Without them, there would be neither this volume nor the series. Their support and belief in the value of bringing documentary papyri into New Testament scholarship goes back decades and has also led to close personal friendship. We are grateful to our publisher, Brill-Schöningh, for the professional collaboration, flexibility, and patience as we were developing and sharpening the series’ goals and trajectory. In particular, we wish to express our gratitude to Martina Kayser. The present series and this first volume seek to inspire and encourage the next generation of scholars to have greater access to the fascinating world of documentary papyri, especially in regard to the insights that such evidence provides concerning everyday life in the ancient world as well as elucidating understanding of the significance of these documents for the study of the New Testament. We are, therefore, particularly thankful for having received feedback from students and early career scholars, including Afetameafu Alabi, Emily Kay Williamson, and Claudia Aigner. Of course, while acknowledging their invaluable help with proofreading, the authors want to emphasize that any remaining flaws are their own responsibility. We wish to express our gratitude to Gregg Schwendner who wrote the fifth chapter of this volume. Engaging with him in various paleographical conversations has been both an honor and a joy. Many more scholars, colleagues and friends can and should be named in this acknowledgment, be it for their scholarship from which we have benefitted in writing this volume, or for their feedback and critical questions that have helped us not to miss the forest for the trees, or, perhaps in more appropriate terms, by preventing us from getting lost

x

Acknowledgments

in the marvelous details of papyri. In place of many, we would like to pay our tribute to papyrologist Dieter Hagedorn (1936–2023), who passed away while we were completing this volume. He has influenced us in many ways through his diligent scholarship and encouraged us through his wisdom and humility. It is especially important to recognize that without his many initiatives, through which he has profoundly shaped modern papyrology, we too would not be able to do what we love to do, or at most on a much more modest scale. His “Hagedorn Unicode” keyboard was used when writing this book. Finally, we thank our families and friends. We are aware that writing this book has kept us at times deep in thought and bound to our computers and online conversations, often at strange hours of the day. We are deeply indebted to them for their understanding, patience, support, and encouragement: thank you. Labor Day, 2023  

Peter Arzt-Grabner, Salzburg John S. Kloppenborg, Toronto Christina M. Kreinecker, Leuven

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. Abbreviations for corpora, instrumenta, series, and proceedings of congresses sponsored by the Association Internationale de Papyrologues (AIP) are also used according to the 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: HGV

P#

PNT

T.Herc. 1

Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnis der griechischen Papyrusurkunden Ägyptens, einschließlich der Ostraka usw., der lateinischen Texte, sowie der entsprechenden Urkunden aus benachbarten Regionen, http://aquila. zaw.uni-heidelberg.de/start. Papyrus in Liste of the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Münster (https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/liste); we use this abbreviation in accordance with the standards of the Editio Critica Maior (in Nestle-Aland editions 𝔓); in this volume, we refer to P4 (in Liste also 10004), P39 (or 10039), P46, P52, P66, P75, P102 (or 10102). Papyri and the New Testament (this series); since we refer to this series in terms of a corpus (as defined by the Checklist, see above), this abbreviation is italicized. Camodeca, G. 2017. Tabulae Herculanenses: Edizione e commento. Vol.  1. Vetera  20. Roma: Edizioni Quasar. – This abbreviation is listed in the Checklist, but it may be helpful to explain Camodeca’s way of numbering the documents. Since the edition of the entire corpus of the Tabulae Herculanenses has not yet been completed, Camodeca preferred to leave the original numbering of the previous edition (TH 1–115; TH D01–18 for those edited by Della Corte in 1951) in order to avoid confusion. This also regards the many cases in which Camodeca’s re-edition has completely

xii

Abbreviations

changed the text or has recomposed a new document from tablets published separately, as in the example of the five tablets TH 77+78+80+53+92, which constitute a single triptych. However, in order to avoid confusion and to be able to immediately distinguish a Tabula Herculanensis in T.Herc., a second edition is indicated with an exponent (e.g., TH 60 is indicated as TH2 60); this also applies in the not infrequent cases of recomposition of a single document from two or more TH of the previous edition (e.g., TH2 77+78+80+53+92 can also be cited more simply as TH2 77). On the other hand, in the case of Tabulae Herculanenses that remained completely unpublished, because they completely escaped the first editors, after TH2 a progressive number preceded by A will follow (thus TH2 A1, TH2 A2, etc.), a numbering that will follow the order of presentation in the volumes. Camodeca notes that this is a provisional numbering while waiting for the definitive one at the end of the work. Trismegistos Texts, https://www.trismegistos.org/tm/. TM TM Arch Trismegistos Archives, https://www.trismegistos.org/arch/. TM Geo Trismegistos Places, https://www.trismegistos.org/geo/. Wolf, J.  G. 2012. Neue Rechtsurkunden aus Pompeji: Tabulae Pompeianae TPN Novae, Lateinisch und Deutsch. 2nd ed. Texte zur Forschung 98. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.



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.

Frequently Cited Literature

*Arnal 2016

Arnal, W. E., R. S. Ascough, R. A. Derrenbacker, and P. A. Harland, eds. 2016. Scribal Practices and Social Structures among Jesus Adherents: Essays in Honour of John S. Kloppenborg. BETL 285. Leuven: Peeters. *Arzt-Grabner 2003 Arzt-Grabner, P. 2003. Philemon. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. *Arzt-Grabner 2010b Arzt-Grabner, P. 2010b. “Paul’s Letter Thanksgiving.” Pages 129– 58 in *Porter and Adams 2010.

Abbreviations *Arzt-Grabner 2014

*Arzt-Grabner 2016

*Arzt-Grabner 2019

*Arzt-Grabner 2020a

*Arzt-Grabner Kreinecker 2010

*Arzt-Grabner 2006

*Bagnall 2009 *Bagnall 2011

*Bagnall and Cribiore 2006

xiii Arzt-Grabner, P. 2014. 2. Korinther. Unter Mitarbeit von Ruth  E.  Kritzer. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Arzt-Grabner, P. 2016. “Why Did Early Christ Groups Still Attend Idol Meals? Answers from Papyrus Invitations.” Early Christianity 7:508–529. Arzt-Grabner, P. 2019. “Three Weavers of the First Century CE: Tryphon of Oxyrhynchus, Pausiris of Oxyrhynchus, and Paul of Tarsus.” Early Christianity 10:72–86. 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. Arzt-Grabner, P., and C.  M.  Kreinecker, eds. 2010. 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. Philippika  39. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Arzt-Grabner, P., R.  E.  Kritzer, A.  Papathomas, and F.  Winter 2006. 1. Korinther. Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament  2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bagnall, R.  S., ed. 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bagnall, R.  S. 2011. Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East. Sather Classical Lectures  69. Berkeley: University of California 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.

xiv *Bakker 2010

Abbreviations

Bakker, E. J., ed. 2010. A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. *Banfi and Foraboschi 1995 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 2011 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. Bentein, K., and M.  Janse, eds. 2021. Varieties of Post*Bentein and Janse 2021 classical and Byzantine Greek. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs  331. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Bloomer, W.  M., ed. 2015. A Companion to Ancient *Bloomer 2015 Education. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Blumell, L.  H. 2012. Lettered Christians: Christians, *Blumell 2012 Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus. NTTSD  39. Leiden: Brill. *Blumell and Wayment 2015 Blumell, L.  H., and T.  A.  Wayment 2015. Christian Oxyrhynchus: Texts, Documents, and Sources. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Bowman, A.  K., R.  A.  Coles, N.  Gonis, and D.  Obbink, *Bowman 2007 eds. 2007. Oxyrhynchus: A City and Its Texts. GraecoRoman Memoirs 93. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Bülow-Jacobsen, A. 2009. “Writing Materials in the *Bülow-Jacobsen 2009 Ancient World.” Pages  3–29 in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology. Edited by R.  S.  Bagnall. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burnet, R. 2003a. L’Égypte ancienne à travers les papy*Burnet 2003 rus: Vie quotidienne. Paris: Flammarion, départment Pygmalion. Campbell, B. 1994. The Roman Army 31 BC – AD 337: A *Campbell 1994 Sourcebook. London: Routledge. *Caputo and Lougovaya 2020 Caputo, C., and J. Lougovaya, eds. 2020. Using Ostraca in the Ancient World: New Discoveries and Methodologies. Materiale Textkulturen 32. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Abbreviations *Cavallo 2009 *Cavallo 1998

*Ceccarelli 2013 *Chapa 1998 *Cohen 2016 *Cribiore 1996 *Cribiore 2001

*Crisci 1996

*Deissmann 1909

*Deissmann 1927

*Dubois 1996

*Eckardt 2018

xv Cavallo, G. 2009. “Greek and Latin Writing in the Papyri.” Pages 101–148 in *Bagnall 2009. Cavallo, G., E.  Crisci, G.  Messeri, and R.  Pintaudi, 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 Cultural History (600 BC – 150 BC). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapa, J. 1998. Letters of Condolence in Greek Papyri. Papyrologica Florentina 29. Florence: Gonnelli. Cohen, N. 2016. “A Preliminary Survey of Letters in the Judaean Desert Documents.” Pages 131–153 in *Schaps 2016. Cribiore, R. 1996. Writing, Teachers, and Students in GraecoRoman Egypt. ASP 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Crisci, E. 1996. Scrivere Greco fuori d’Egitto: Ricerche sui manoscritti greco-orientali di origine non egiziana dal IV secolo a.C. all’ VIII d.C. Papyrologica Florentina 27. Florence: Gonnelli. Deissmann, G.  A. 1909. Bible Studies: Contributions 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. 1927. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the GraecoRoman World. New and completely revised edition with eightyfive illustrations from the latest German edition, translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dubois, L. 1996. Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont. École Pratique des Hautes Études: Sciences Historiques et Philologiques 3: Hautes Études du Monde Gréco-Romain 22. Genève: Droz. Eckardt, H. 2018. Writing and Power in the Roman World: Literacies and Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

xvi

Abbreviations

*Ehrman and Holmes 2014 Ehrman, B. D., and M. W. Holmes, eds. 2014. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill. *Eidinow and Taylor 2010 Eidinow, E., and C.  Taylor. 2010. “Lead-Letter Days: Writing, Communication and Crisis in the Ancient Greek World.” ClQ 60:30–62. *Erman and Krebs 1899 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 *Evans 1985 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 *Evans and Obbink 2010 the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford University Press. *Fournet 2012 Fournet, J.-L. 2012. “Homère et les papyrus non littéraires: Le poète dans le contexte de ses lecteurs.” Pages 125–157 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”. Fournet, J.-L., ed. 2021. Le papyrus dans tous ses États: De *Fournet 2021a Cléopâtre à Clovis. Paris: Collège de France. Gagos, T., and D.  S.  Potter. 2006. “Documents.” *Gagos and Potter 2006 Pages  45–74 in A Companion to the Roman Empire. Edited by D.  S.  Potter. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Carlton: Blackwell. Ghedini, G. 1923. Lettere cristiane dai papiri greci del III e *Ghedini 1923 IV secolo. Supplementi ad “Aegyptus” serie divulgazione, Sez. Greco-Romana  3; Pubblicazioni della Università catt. S. Cuore, Sez. Filologica 1. Milan: Vita e pensiero. Hartmann, B. 2015. “Die hölzernen Schreibtafeln im *Hartmann 2015 Imperium Romanum: Ein Inventar.” Pages  43–58 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. Edited by M. Scholz and M.  Horster. RGZM-Tagungen  26. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.

Abbreviations *Huebner 2019 *Humphrey 1991

*Hurtado 2006

*Jakab 1997



*Jakab 2015



*Jeffery 1990

*Johnson 1936

*Johnson 1961

*Keegan 2014 *Klauck 2006

*Kloppenborg 2014

xvii Huebner, S. R. 2019. Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Humphrey, J. H., ed. 1991. Literacy in the Roman World. JRA Supplementary Series  3. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Hurtado, L.  W. 2006. The Earliest Christian Artifacts. Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Jakab, É. 1997. Praedicere und cavere beim Marktkauf: Sachmängel im griechischen und römischen Recht. MBPF 87. Munich: Beck. Jakab, É. 2015. “Sale and Community from the Roman World.” Pages  213–231 in Sale and Community Documents from the Ancient World: Individuals’ Autonomy and State Interference in the Ancient World: Proceedings of a Colloquium supported by the University of Szeged, Budapest 5-8.10.2012. Vol. 5 of Legal Documents in Ancient Societies. Edited by É.  Jakab. Graeca Tergestina: Storia e civiltà 2. Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste. Jeffery, L. H. 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. Johnson, A. C. 1936. Roman Egypt to the Reign of Diocletian. Vol.  2 of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Repr., Paterson, NJ: Pageant Books, 1959. Johnson, A. C., P. R. Coleman-Norton, and F. C. Bourne 1961. Ancient Roman Statutes: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary and Index. The Corpus of Roman Law 2. Austin: University of Texas Press. Keegan, P. 2014. Graffiti in Antiquity. London: Routledge. Klauck, H.-J. 2006. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Kloppenborg, J.  S. 2014. “Literate Media in Early Christ Groups: The Creation of a Christian Book Culture.” JECS 22:21–59.

xviii *Kloppenborg 2019

Abbreviations

Kloppenborg, J.  S. 2019. Christ’s Associations: Connecting and Belonging to the Ancient City. New Haven: Yale University Press. *Kloppenborg and Callon 2010 Kloppenborg, J. S., and C. Callon. 2010. “The Parable of the Shepherd and the Transformation of Pastoral Discourse.” Early Christianity 1:218–260. *Kolb 2018 Kolb, A., ed. 2018. Literacy in Ancient Everyday Life. Berlin: De Gruyter. *Kraemer 2004 Kraemer, R.  S. 2004. Women’s Religions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kreinecker, C.  M. 2010. 2. Thessaloniker. *Kreinecker 2010a Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. *Kreinecker 2010b Kreinecker, C.  M. 2010. “How Power and Province Communicate: Some Remarks on the Language of the (Non-)Conversation between Pilate and Jesus.” Pages 169–185 in *Arzt-Grabner Kreinecker 2010. Lietzmann, H. 1934. Griechische Papyri. 4th ed. *Lietzmann 1934 KlT 14. Berlin: De Gruyter. Luiselli, R. 2008. “Greek Letters on Papyrus *Luiselli 2008 First to Eighth Centuries: A Survey.” Asiatische Studien 62:677–737. Maltomini, F. 2014. “Greek Ostraca: An Overview.” *Maltomini 2014 Manuscript Cultures 5:33–41. Meier, T., M. R. Ott, and R. Sauer, eds. 2015. Materiale *Meier 2015 Textkulturen: Konzepte – Materialien – Praktiken. Materiale Textkulturen 1. Berlin: de Gruyter. Metzger, H. 1974. Nachrichten aus dem Wüstensand: *Metzger 1974 Eine Sammlung von Papyruszeugnissen. Zürich: Artemis. Milligan, G. 1910. Selections from the Greek Papyri. *Milligan 1910 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Repr., 1912. Milligan, G. 1922. Here & There among the Papyri. *Milligan 1922 London: Hodder and Stoughton. 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).

Abbreviations *Olsson 1925 *Palme 2006a

*Pestman 1994 *Reinard 2016

*Rowlandson 1998

*Sarri 2018

*Schaps 2016

*Scholl and Homann 2012

*Schubart 1912 *Schubart 1923

*Schubert 2000 *Stroppa 2023

xix Olsson, B. 1925. Papyrusbriefe aus der frühesten Römerzeit. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells. Palme, B. 2006. “Die classis praetoria Misenensis in den Papyri.” Pages  281–99 in Italo – Tusco – Romana: Festschrift für Luciana Aigner-Foresti zum 70. Geburtstag am 30. Juli 2006. Edited by P. Amann, M. Pedrazzi, and H. Taeuber. Vienna: Holzhausen. Pestman, P.  W. 1994. The New Papyrological Primer. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Reinard, P. 2016. Kommunikation und Ökonomie: Untersuchungen zu den privaten Papyrusbriefen aus dem kaiserzeitlichen Ägypten. 2 vols. Pharos 32. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. Rowlandson, J. 1998. Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sarri, A. 2018. Material Aspects of Letter Writing in the Graeco-Roman World 500 BC – AD 300. Materiale Textkulturen 12. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schaps, D. M., U. Yiftach, and D. Dueck, eds. 2016. When West Met East: The Encounter of Greece and Rome with the Jews, Egyptians, and Others: Studies Presented to Ranon Katzoff in Honor of his 75th Birthday. Graeca Tergestina: Storia e civiltà 3. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste. 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. 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. Stroppa, M. 2023. “BIG & Small: The Size of Documents as a Semiotic Resource for Graeco-Roman Egypt.” Pages  29–38 in Novel Perspectives on Communication

xx

*Turner 1977

*Van Minnen 1993 *Van Minnen 2007

*Van Minnen 2012 *Van Oppen de Ruiter and Wallenfels 2021

*White 1986 *Winter 1933

*Yiftach 2016

*Zeiner-Carmichael 2014

Abbreviations Practices in Antiquity: Towards a Historical Social-Semiotic Approach. Edited by K.  Bentein and Y.  Amory. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava  41. Leiden: Brill. Turner, E. G. 1977. The Typology of the Early Codex. Haney Foundation Series  18. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press. Van Minnen, P. 1993. “The Century of Papyrology (1892–1992).” BASP 30:5–18. Van Minnen, P. 2007. “The Millennium of Papyrology (2001–)?” Pages 703–714 in Akten des 23. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses. Wien, 22.–28. Juli 2001. Edited by B.  Palme. Papyrologica Vindobonensia  1. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Van Minnen, P. 2012. “Papyrology.” The Encyclopedia of Ancient History 9:5047–5055. Van Oppen de Ruiter, B.  F., 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. White, J.  L. 1986. Light from Ancient Letters. FF. Philadelphia: Fortress. Winter, J.  G. 1933. Life and Letters in the Papyri. University of Michigan Studies; The Jerome Lectures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Yiftach, U. 2016. “Quantifying Literacy in the Early Roman Arsinoitês: The Case of the Grapheion Document.” Pages 269–281 in *Schaps 2016. Zeiner-Carmichael, N.  K. 2014. Roman Letters: An Anthology. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Introduction

Why Papyri?

Exactly a 100 years ago, in 1923, a German scholar named Gustav Adolf Deissmann published the fourth and final edition of Licht vom Osten, a pioneering study on the then recently discovered texts from the Greco-Roman World and their significance for studying the New Testament. Being among the first to recognize the importance of such documentary evidence, Deissmann’s seminal works had a huge impact on scholars who would come after him. Although today, during their initial years of study, perhaps only a few students of biblical studies would recognize Deissmann by name, the way the New Testament is now taught has been heavily influenced by his studies on the Greek language and the ancient world. In 1895 he stated in his Bibelstudien (p.  57, the first English edition of Bible Studies was published in 1901) what biblical studies today take for granted. Namely, that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the common language spoken by people all around the Hellenistic World. Thus Deissmann stated, There was a time when the Greek of the New Testament was looked upon as the genuinely classical; it was supposed that the Holy Spirit, using the Apostles merely as a pen, could not but clothe His thoughts in the most worthy garb. That time is past. […] Paul did not speak the language of the Homeric poems or of the tragedians and Demosthenes, any more than Luther that of the Nibelungen-Lied (*Deissmann 1909, 63).

By studying the language of the people, Deissmann demonstrated that it was also the case that Paul, the evangelists, and the authors of the New Testament spoke the language of their time. In other words, they communicated to their contemporaries with the language that the people spoke. Deissmann laid a pathway to studying the ancient world, its language, and its mindset through everyday written evidence. This provides a fascinating and gripping window onto the past. This volume intends to walk further on Deissmann’s pathway and to introduce the reader to the ancient world of everyday people, their joys, their sorrows, their business, their daily routines, and their significant as well as insignificant moments in life. In contrast to Hellenistic, Roman, and early Jewish literary and religious sources, on which scholars usually draw for understanding the New Testament, documentary texts have not undergone centuries of transmission with the deliberate and sometimes erroneous changes that can be observed in virtually

xxii

Introduction

every literary text of antiquity. Documentary texts preserved on papyrus, on potsherds (ostraca) as well as on wooden and wax tablets are unique. Typically, they exist in a single copy and are preserved in their original version. From all of these, glimpses of the ancient world are preserved, directly and indirectly through this abundance of tens of thousands of individual pieces, both from administration and personal life. What better source to study the language of actual people and their actual daily affairs than these could there be? By contrast, if one were only to study literary evidence of the past, one runs the risk to also picture people and their lives through the carefully crafted words and imagery by an eloquent and literary-talented elite and through the “dos and don’ts” of legal regulations. For papyri, as T. Gagos and D. S. Potter wrote, “also offer a picture of everyday interactions outside the official sphere, while inscriptions will only record events that people wish to place on public display.” They added that, “whereas inscriptions provide a series of isolated, static and premeditated snapshots of concerns, papyri offer a more seamless, dynamic, and spontaneous sequence of interactions” (*Gagos and Potter 2006, 45–46). This book strives to take you, the reader, on an adventure into the past and introduce you to the ancient world both before and while it was shaped into one in which Christianity began to predominate. For this reason, we will focus our examples on texts written earlier than the fourth century CE. We will walk alongside everyday people of the time, such as Theon son of Theon (in P.Oxy. 1.119 [1.1]) and Apollonous daughter of Thermouthas (in P.Col. 8.215 [1.14]). We will read their mail—although fully aware that we were once taught not to read other people’s correspondence—, and we will do so with a scholarly interest in their everyday affairs in order to better contextualize the New Testament, its authors, stories, and socio-historical contexts. All characters, names, stories, and incidents portrayed in the documentary texts in this book are actual persons and real, even though all of them are now long deceased and the events are always portrayed from the perspective of those figures. As such, this volume and this series come with a “trigger warning.” First, like any scholarly book, this volume may disabuse the reader of ignorance and it may challenge long held and beloved beliefs about a world and time when Jesus and Paul walked the earth. Second, this book is about everyday life and as such it may awake memories of one’s own personal affairs, whether such memories are pleasant like banquet invitations or unpleasant like pending tax returns. Positively stated, what this study offers, is the chance to become acquainted with “people like you and me” who walked the earth, but in biblical times. These everyday people will open their doors and permit a glimpse into their lives and affairs. Therefore, reading this book provides the opportunity to learn more about the world in which the stories and messages of the New

Introduction

xxiii

Testament would be proclaimed and circulated and in which they would fall on sympathetic or unsympathetic ears. Furthermore, this volume contains insights about antiquity, Jesus, Paul, and other characters known from the New Testament. Some of these insights can be gained through no other than a documentary source. Any attempt to understand what a New Testament author was communicating to readers needs to pay close attention to the contextual forms of thought, language, and narrative that were prevalent at the time of the author. Also, typical expressions and formulas that were common in everyday human interactions at the time become intelligible through consideration of documentary material. In order to highlight insights that scholarship has gained either predominantly or exclusively from documentary evidence, there will be “closer looks” throughout this volume. While a curious reader may feel the urge to read these first, we still recommend and hope that one reads the full chapter and ultimately the entire book. The reason for this is because arguments, in particular those involving the past, have to be carefully built and developed to substantiate the results presented in this book. However excited one can become about documentary evidence, it is still necessary to ask about the limits of documentary texts and about the extent of their comparability with the texts of the New Testament. At the heart of this book, however, are those people whose texts we are reading and with whom the stories contained in the documents deal. We want to make their voices heard. It is one thing to talk about antiquity; it is a completely different matter though to read primary evidence and to listen to those people who lived in that time and who experienced it firsthand. The Greek and Latin texts of published documentary papyri are easy to access on the World Wide Web, thanks to scholarly initiatives like the Papyrological Navigator (papyri.info), Trismegistos, and many others. What is often harder to access is the meaning of these texts (not least when they are preserved in fragments), let alone a modern translation. With this series and volume, we want to bring Greco-Roman first-hand documents to a broad public and to make reading and understanding them easier. This is why, in addition to discussing around 600 documentary texts in this book, we also present over 50 of them in full English translation. At the end, we include a short glossary with terms frequently used in this volume, including terms from administration, measurements, and weights. This volume has six main chapters. The first, Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions of Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets, focuses on the history of papyrology and the documentary evidence as such. It provides an overview of the history of unearthing, preserving and publishing the documents and the challenges of classifying them. It will discuss the nature of papyrological archives and why

xxiv

Introduction

they are a treasure trove for bringing context to the everyday glimpses of life provided by individual documents. Closer looks will focus on “the earliest private letter by a Christian” preserved on papyrus known today and the phenomenon of pseudepigraphy, with 2 Thess as an example. The second chapter, Writing Media and Implements, deals with the writing materials and the challenges that come with them in reading and understanding the texts preserved on the artifacts. A closer look on damaged papyri will provide new ways to look at the question of literary integrity of 2 Corinthians. The third chapter, Literacy and Illiteracy, discusses reading cultures in papyri and asks the difficult questions about the writers and readers of documentary texts, men and women, and their potential education. The examples will include “illiterate writers” and thus show, that a modern understanding of literacy may not always cover the realities of people in antiquity. What kind of literacy can one expect from common people? The fourth chapter, Languages, acknowledges the multilingual character of the Greco-Roman period and discusses Greek and Latin evidence in particular. A closer look will focus on Jesus’s trial. In particular, the interaction between Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate will illustrate the challenges of multilingual contexts in administrative settings and court proceedings. The fifth chapter, The Practices of Ancient Scribes, will complete the study on the physical aspects of the papyrological evidence by looking over the shoulders of scribes. This paleographical study by Gregg Schwendner will provide a broad picture by drawing also on New Testament papyri. The sixth chapter, The “Egyptian Question” or: Is Egypt Relevant for the New Testament?, will link back to the first chapter and the history of excavations by asking the crucial question, if and to what extent documents from Egypt are relevant when reading the New Testament, a corpus of texts written outside Egypt. With its three closer looks on similarities between Greek and Latin letters, dinner invitations, and slave sale contracts, it provides ample linking points to New Testament writings and stories. As stated at the beginning, with this new series, we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the fourth edition of A.  Deissmann’s Licht vom Osten (1923), published with the title Light from the Ancient East in its English translation. In choosing “More Light from the Ancient East” as the title of the first volume in this series, we wish to highlight the spirit of papyrology today which is constituted of friendship between papyrologists, the amicitia papyrologorum, as the Association Internationale de Papyrologues (AIP) puts it in Latin.1 Since the early days of papyrology as a discipline, papyrologists have been aware of 1 See https://aip.ulb.be//amicitia.html.

Introduction

xxv

the old and well-known saying that we all stand on the shoulders of giants and that one scholar can achieve little in isolation. We acknowledge on the one hand the tremendous milestone Deissmann has placed before us in the history of our disciplines and on the other hand we take into account the significant increase of documentary evidence thanks to the publication activities of hundreds of scholars since A. Peyron, F. G. Kenyon, B. P. Grenfell, and A. S. Hunt. Thanks to all of those scholars, we are in the fortunate position of having been able to write this book as a celebration of their work and the collegiate and fruitful research of those who investigate documentary evidence of the past.

How Old Was Jesus?

Literature P.  Arzt-Grabner 2020b, “How Old Was Jesus at the Start of His Mission? The Papyrological Evidence and Impacts for the Calculation of Jesus’ Year of Birth,” in Talking God in Society: Multidisciplinary (Re)constructions of Ancient (Con)texts: Festschrift for Peter Lampe, vol. 1, ed. U. E. Eisen and H. E. Mader, NTOA 120/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 641–660; R. S. Bagnall 2009, “Practical Help: Chronology, Geography, Measures, Currency, Names, Prosopography, and Technical Vocabulary,” in *Bagnall 2009, 179–96; R.  S.  Bagnall and B.  W.  Frier 1994, The Demography of Roman Egypt, Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time 23 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); R.  Duncan-Jones 1979, “Age-Rounding in Greco-Roman Egypt,” ZPE 33:169–177; M.  Hombert and C.  Préaux 1952, Recherches sur le recensement dans l’Égypte romaine (P.  Bruxelles  Inv. E. 7616), Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 5 (Leiden: Brill); S. R. Llewelyn 1992, “The Allotment after Death and Paul’s Metaphor of Inheritance,” New Docs. 6:27–41, here 30–31; B. Mahieu 2012, Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and His Sons in Their Struggle for Recognition. A Chronological Investigation of the Period 40 BC–39 AD, with a Time Setting of New Testament Events, OLA  208 (Leuven: Peeters); T.  G.  Parkin 1992, Demography and Roman Society, ASH (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press); W. Scheidel 1996a, Measuring Sex, Age and Death in the Roman Empire: Explorations in Ancient Demography, Journal of Roman Archeology Supplementary Series (JRAr.S) 21 (Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology), 53–91; W. Scheidel 1996b, “What’s in an Age? A Comparative View of Bias in the Census Returns of Roman Egypt,” BASP 33:25–59; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 1960, Demographic Yearbook – Annuaire demographique 1960, Demographic Yearbook 12 (New York: United Nations); United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2017, Demographic Yearbook – Annuaire demographique 2016, Demographic Yearbook 67 (New York: United Nations).

Let us begin with a relatively small New Testament detail, the significance of which is only recognized and illuminated with the help of documentary papyri. Luke 3:21–23 is the only place in the entire New Testament where the age of Jesus son of Joseph, the son of Eli, is mentioned; the Greek text of v. 23a (καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα) is usually translated as “and

xxvi

Introduction

when he began (his mission), Jesus was about thirty years old.” The reference point for this information is Luke 3:1–2, where “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” is mentioned as the time when “the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.” According to v. 3, John “went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” and according to v. 21, Jesus was among those who were baptized. From this context it follows that, according to Luke 3, Jesus was “about 30 years old” in the 15th year of Tiberius or shortly thereafter. Many scholars argued that the age of thirty should be taken symbolically, and interpreted it as reference to 2 Sam 5:4 (David’s age when he became king), or Gen 41:46 (Joseph’s age when he began his service at the Pharaoh’s court), or Num 4:3 (age of those “who enter the service to do the work in the tent of meeting”), or Ezek 1:1 (the age of Ezekiel at the time of his calling). Such attempts at interpretation neglect the fact that Luke, unlike Matthew, does not take the Scriptures as a source in the absence of solid data. Luke wants to be recognized as a historian who tries to present serious data (cf. Luke 1:1–4). The documentary papyri provide an independent source to clarify the two data presented by Luke in chapter 3: the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar and the exact meaning of ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα as Jesus’s age at the beginning of his mission. In fact, Luke  3:1–2 provides the most accurate date in the entire New Testament: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas.” The calculation of the 15th year of Tiberius was already the subject of sophisticated discussions, but only the one according to the regnal years can be considered as plausible and comprehensible throughout the Roman Empire. So, this is also valid for a gospel intended to be understood by Romans. In the documentary papyri from Roman Egypt, the 15th year of Tiberius ranges from 29 August 28 to 28 August 29 CE.2 The private letter P.Princ. 3.186, for example, is dated “in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Choiak 2” (lines 17–18 with BL 9:223), which can be converted to 28 November 28 CE. A receipt for poll-tax and bathtax, P.Bagnall 58 was issued “in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Mesore 29” (i.e., 22 Aug 29 CE).

2 In Jewish reckoning, the year begins with 1 Nisan (so the 15th year of Tiberius would last from 28 Apr 28 to 27 Apr 29 CE). In Syriac tradition, the regnal years of Roman emperors begin on 1 Tishri, and the first year of a particular emperor lasts until the next 1 Tishri, thus is shorter or longer in relation to others (the 15th year of Tiberius would begin on 9 Oct 28 CE).

Introduction

xxvii

The meaning of ὡς ἐτῶν may at first be understood as “approximate age” and ὡσεὶ or ὡς ἐτῶν τριάκοντα even as a rounded age number, but a closer look eventually points in another direction. The indication of a person’s age in the form of ὡς ἐτῶν3 is so commonly used in thousands of papyri and ostraca that it is impossible that all these could be rounded numbers. Naturally, if people gave a rounded number on purpose, they used the form ὡς,4 but this form was obviously also used when they intended to give an exact number, or a number which was as exact as possible. Therefore, the translation “about” for ὡς is not always appropriate. The problem, of course, is that in most cases we do not know for sure whether ὡς is to be understood in the rounded sense of “approximately” or in the sense of “exactly” or “more or less exactly.” A well-established method for evaluating the accuracy of age data, which is also used by the United Nations, has become known as Whipple’s Index. It indicates the proportion of people in the age range from 23 to 62 whose stated age is exactly divisible by 5. The index ranges from 100 (no tendency for age clustering) to 500 (all ages are exactly divisible by 5). The United Nations Demographic Yearbooks use five categories, ranging from category I (highly accurate data, Whipple’s Index less than 105) to category V (very rough data, 175 and more).5 Bagnall and Frier (1994, 44–47) applied Whipple’s Index to census declarations from Roman Egypt, producing an index of 124.2, which is at the end of category III (approximate data, 110–124.9).6 A comparison with the censuses of the late 20th and even the early 21st centuries reveals the relatively high accuracy of the data in the Roman census declarations. According to the United Nations Demographic Yearbook 2016 (Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2017, 70–80), Whipple’s Index for the 1985 South Africa census is almost the same as for Roman Egypt, 124.3; for the 1990 Mexico census it is a bit higher, 125.2, which is already category IV (rough data, 125–174.9). The index for the 2006 Egypt census, however, is 196.5, thus falling into the lowest category (category V, very rough data, 175 and more). The index for the 1990 US census is 104.5 (for the 2010 census it is 102.2), that for the 1991 Canada census is 99.6 (100.8 for the 2011 census), all falling into category I (highly accurate data, less than 105). Regarding the score of 124.3 for the data from Roman Egypt, Bagnall and Frier (1994, 45) concluded: “This score, among the lowest ever recorded

3 4 5 6

The form ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν is not attested in the papyri so far. See Llewelyn 1992, 30–31 (with some references). See, e.g., United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 1960, 18. See also Scheidel 1996a, 53–91; Scheidel 1996b.

xxviii

Introduction

for a pre-modern population, indicates that we should place some trust in reported ages.”7 Moreover, Bagnall and Frier (1994, 46) have observed that while a high rate of age rounding is almost always associated with high illiteracy, the converse is not always true; even among illiterates, ages are fairly accurate and little affected by age rounding. As demographers have long recognized, rough knowledge of age merely presupposes a culture in which numerical age is of importance. In Roman Egypt, this was obviously the case.8 On the other hand, Bagnall and Frier (1994, 46) detected differences between males (Whipple’s Index is 103.9) and females (150.9)9 as well as between residents in the capitals (metropoleis) of Egyptian nomes (88.9) and those in villages (149.7). But “even these higher indices are low by pre-modern standards” (Bagnall and Frier 1994, 46). As general conclusion Bagnall and Frier (1994, 20) write: The low incidence of age-rounding in the declarations suggests that declarants generally were not guessing when they declared their ages, and there are certainly some cases in which households clearly possessed copies of previous declarations. It seems more likely that people had copies of their own previous declarations than that they consulted official registers—not always well preserved or easily searchable—to determine their ages. The exceptionally low Whipple’s Index for the metropoleis points to ready accessibility of previously declared ages there, and even in the villages the index is not high by the standards of modern countries with probably comparable illiteracy rates.

The most informative picture we can obtain about age rounding is that of a set of census returns that all refer to the same household. In such cases we can see whether the ages of identical individuals in different census years match or not. Very good data is provided by the archive of Horos son of Horos and his wife Tapekysis (TM Arch 101). The documents cover a period between 71 and 131 CE. Among them are three census declarations (P.Mich. 3.176; 177; 178), from which we learn that the family lived in the village of Bakchias. The members of the household were native Egyptians and earned their living as tenants of private land. Their property was limited to shares of houses and building sites 7 The Egyptian score would improve substantially if we eliminated a few papyri, such as PSI 1.53 (household no. 131-Ox-1 in Bagnall and Frier 1994), in which age rounding is unusually pronounced. 8 Hombert and Préaux 1952, 128–29, estimated that about two-thirds of census declarants were illiterate in Greek, and many of those who could write their names may have been functionally illiterate. 9 See also Duncan-Jones 1979, 175–76 (on P.Lond. 2.257–258), and Parkin 1992, 21–22 (on P.Princ. 1.8).

Introduction

xxix

in the village of Bakchias. Only the wife of Horos, Tapekysis, seems to have had sufficient money to make small loans.10 The first of the three census declarations is P.Mich. 3.176, filed by Horos’s brother Petehyris on 10 May 91 CE, referring to the census of the year 89/90 CE. The age numbers of males are preceded by ὡς; the numbers are 30 for Petehyris, 20 for Horos, and 7 for Horion, the brother of both. The age of Tapeine, Petehyris’s wife, is given as 25 (without preceding ὡς). Concerning the census 14 years later (103/104 CE), Petehyris filed the census declaration P.Mich. 3.177 on 1 December 104 CE. All age numbers are preceded by ὡς; Petehyris is now 44 years old, his brother Horos 34, and Horion 21 (line 21 with BL 7.108). For the next census, the one of year 117/118 CE, Horos himself files the declaration (P.Mich. 3.178; 5 May 119 CE) as Petehyris has most probably died in the meantime. Now none of the age numbers is preceded by ὡς; Horos is 48 years old, his wife Tapekysis 45, and his brother Horion 35. Since all age data are consistent, the declarations of this household clearly indicate that the declarants did not make a big difference between age numbers with and without a preceding ὡς. Two age numbers of the first census return (30 years for Petehyris and 20 for Horos) could be taken as rounded numbers, but obviously they are not as they are concordant with the age numbers of the same persons 14 and 28 years later. SB 20.14303 contains official copies of census returns of several households; the whole roll was written by the same scribe and can be dated to 14–23 July 147 CE. Lines 21–38 (with BL 11.229) contain the copy of a census declaration furnished on 18 March 119 CE and referring to the census of year 117/118 CE. In lines 39–58 of the same roll, the copy of a census declaration of the same household is preserved, this one originally furnished on 22 July 133 CE and referring to the census of year 131/132 CE. Only of one member of the household the age data are preserved in both declarations, namely of a certain Aphrodous; in the first declaration her age is given as 28 years, in the second correctly as 42. The age numbers are not preceded by ὡς. A third example are two census returns that belong to the household of Petesouchos son of Pisoithis and Thenamenneus. P.Bad. 4.75a (133 CE) refers to the census of year 131/132 CE, 75b (11 Mar 147 CE) to the census of 145/146 CE. The age data of two family members are preserved in both documents: Petesouchos’s wife Tausiris is stated to be 20 years old in the first declaration, and 34 in the second; the couple’s son Pnephoros is 3 years old in 131/132 CE, and 17 years old at the time of the following census. The age numbers are again consistent, and they are not preceded by ὡς. 10

Cf. A. E. R. Boak in P.Mich. 3, p. 179.

xxx

Introduction

Census declarations such as these give reason to believe that age rounding is even less frequent than when calculated using Whipple’s Index. Among the census declarations from the time of Augustus to the reign of Hadrian, there is only one in which age rounding predominates: In col. 1 of PSI 1.53 (Oxyrhynchos, 4 Dec 132 CE), no household member over age 5 has an age that is not divisible by 5 (cf. Bagnall and Frier 1994, 213). The situation is different if, in addition to census declarations, we include documents of all kinds that refer to identical individuals at different times. If we look again at individual households, the people who submitted the data obviously did not take as much care as they did with the census returns. Nevertheless, the differences between the age numbers given and the numbers that should have been given according to other documents are quite small. A typical example is again provided by the archive of Horos and Tapekysis (TM Arch 101). Among the documents of this archive that are not census declarations we find a contract of loan and lease, P.Mich. 3.188 [1.18] (17 Aug 120 CE), where Horos is—in accordance with the earlier census of year 117/118  CE, when he was 48—at the age of 50 (the age is preceded by ὡς). Here, 50 is again not a rounded age number. His wife Tapekysis, however, is stated to be still 45 years old, but she should be 47 (the difference being -2). In another contract of loan and lease, drawn up on 1 February 123 (P.Mich. 3.189), we find a similar situation: Tapekysis is stated to be 48 years old (ὡ̣ς ̣ ἐτῶν μη) instead of 49 or 50 (difference -1 or -2); but according to P.Mich. 2.188 her age of 48 would be correct. Horos’s age is again correctly given as 53. We see that the data of Horos are always correct. The inconsistencies that we find in this archive are related to his wife Tapekysis. As already indicated above, in census returns it was probably more important to provide accurate age data for men than for women, because only men between the ages of 14 and 60 were subject to the poll tax; women were generally exempt (cf. Bagnall and Frier 1994, 46 n. 54). This may also have influenced the accuracy of age data in other documents. The example from the archive of Horos and Tapekysis and other examples from the first and early second centuries CE (see Arzt-Grabner 2020b, 650–53) show that inconsistencies in age data are in the majority differences of one year. Differences of two, three, or four years are rarely found. When there are differences, most correct ages should be higher than the numbers reported. Not all numbers divisible by 5 are rounded numbers. Some additional arguments may underscore that age rounding was actually less frequent than the statistics suggest. First, there are documents mentioning individuals with ages of 30, 45, or 50 (i.e., ages that are divisible by 5), but at the same time, such documents contain ages that are not divisible by 5. This can be seen, for example, in some documents from Soknopaiou Nesos. In P.Dime 3.11,

Introduction

xxxi

GD (19 Mar 29 CE, that is in the 15th year of Tiberius), the following age numbers are mentioned: 20, 51, and 65; in no. 26, GH (4 Nov 51 CE), there is 23 and 45. In SB 1.5247 (7 Jul 47 CE), a document that belongs to the same grapheion, we find 50, 28, 40, and 36. All these numbers are preceded by ὡς. Second, in a number of documents we find age data with and without ὡς next to each other. Numbers that are not divisible by 5 and those that are divisible by 5 can both occur with or without ὡς. In P.Dime 3.40, GH (15 Aug 28 CE?), we find 23 preceded by ὡς and 20 without ὡς; no. 25, GH (3 Jan 48 CE) has one non-preserved age number preceded by ὡς, and three without ὡς (35, 32, and 37); in no. 27, GD (14 Sep 54 CE) we find the age number 41 with ὡς, but 45 without ὡς; in the attached no. 27, GH, we find 40 and 45 without ὡς, and another two that can be restored, obviously again without ὡς (40+ and 41). For ages divisible by 5 preceded by ὡς, see SB 1.5247 mentioned above. Third, some people celebrated their own birthdays or those of their children and other relatives. Obviously, they remembered not only the year of birth, but also the month and day. Invitations and private letters mention both children’s and adults’ birthdays. In P.Cair.Zen. 3.59419.2–4 (with P.Cair.Zen. 4, p. 289; mid III BCE), a certain Demetrios reminds Zenon that the birthday of his son Demetrios is on the 17th of Phamenoth, and he asks Zenon to provide a sucking pig and other good cheer for the birthday feast. By PSI 12.1242.7–11 (I BCE–I CE), Antonia Tekosis is invited to celebrate the first birthday of little Dionysios, the first-born son of the letter senders (see also p. 200). In the archive of Epagathos (TM Arch 134), the slave and estate manager of Lucius Bellienus Gemellus, a discharged veteran and important landowner in the Fayum, we find several letters of Gemellus mentioning the birthdays of Gemella, who was probably a married daughter of Gemellus, and of the “little one,” probably Gemella’s son. In P.Fay. 113 (before 14 Dec 100 CE), a letter to his son Sabinus, Gemellus writes: “And on the 18th or 19th send twelve drachmas’ worth of fish to the city for the little one’s four-hundred-day festival” (lines 12–15).11 A few days later, on 14 December 100 CE, Gemellus writes again to his son Sabinus, asking him: “Send the fish. On the 24th come to the birthday of Gemella” (P.Fay. 114.17–20 with BL 3:54). With regard to Sabinus’s own birthday, Gemellus sends orders to Epagathos on 21 August 101 CE: “Buy for us two pigs of a litter to keep at the house, for we intend to sacrifice pigs on the birthday feast of Sabinus” (P.Fay. 115.3–8). P.Fay. 119 with BL 1:131–32 (ca. 103 CE) is again addressed to Sabinus; in a first postscript to this letter, Gemellus writes: “Send

11

The four-hundred-day festival was most probably a feast celebrated 400 days after the birth of a child.

xxxii

Introduction

ten cocks from the market for the Saturnalia, and for Gemella’s birthday feast send some delicacies and … and an artaba of wheaten bread” (lines 28–32). The sender of the letter P.Princ. 3.165 [2.146] (II CE) reminds a certain Horion of his own birthday and writes: “Send us tomorrow, which is the fourteenth, a tasty fish. For you know that it is (my) official birthday” (lines 2–12). The letter author of BGU 2.632 [1.45] (II CE) informs his sister that the birthday of his little son Maximus is on the 30th of Epeiph (cf. lines 17–19 with BL 1:58). On BGU 1.333 (II–III CE) see p. 201. From the second century CE, several dinner invitations on the occasion of someone’s birthday are preserved (see also pp. 200–202). P.Oxy. 36.2791 (II CE), for instance, preserves the invitation to a dinner on occasion of the first birthday of the inviter’s daughter, to be celebrated in the Sarapeion; in the case of SB 16.12511 (II CE), the birthday shall be celebrated in the inviter’s own house. In the official copy of a will, P.Oxy. 3.494 (28 Oct–26 Nov 165 CE), the testator Akousilaos decreed: “And my wife, and after her death my son Dios, shall give to my slaves and freedmen for a feast, which they shall celebrate at my tomb on my birthday every year, one hundred drachmas of silver to be spent” (lines 22–25). A very moving document is T.Mom.Louvre 902 (II–III CE), a mummy label that reads: “Artemidora daughter of Peteminis, her mother being Trompabeithis, lived three years, for she died on her birthday. ⟨Her name⟩ is held in everlasting remembrance.” Based on the papyrological record, we can conclude that as far as Luke is concerned, Jesus was 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius (29  Aug  28–28  Aug  29  CE) or shortly thereafter. If age 30 is not accurate, it most likely approximates age 31 (much less likely 32 or higher). If Luke is right, that Jesus was 30 (or maybe 31, but not 32 or higher) in the year 28 CE, that would imply that he was born in 3 BCE. It would also imply conception in 4 BCE, which is consistent with Luke’s implication that John the Baptist was conceived slightly earlier, in the last year of the days of Herod (Luke 1:5), who presumably died between mid-March and mid-April 4 BCE.12 It must be emphasized, however, that the consistency of the data does not prove that they are all historically accurate. The consistency of the dates must not be confused with the historicity of events. We do not know Luke’s source and its reliability for the dates given in chapter 3. What the papyrological records clearly show is that Luke applied his data as they appeared in census declarations and contracts, that is, in documents that were intended to be as accurate as possible. In this way, Luke at least gives the impression of 12 See Mahieu 2012, 237 (on other calculations and Mahieu’s own proposal pp. 235–87, 424, 428).

Introduction

xxxiii

a historian who is concerned with accuracy. That his attempt to apply Roman standards and dates to circumstances in Jesus’s life could fail radically is evident, for instance, from Luke’s connection of Jesus’s birth with the census under Quirinius (Lk  2:1–7), which do not fit together for chronological and other reasons. This, however, is another story that will be covered in a later volume of PNT.

The Comparability of Texts

Literature P.  Arzt 1994, “Analyse der Paulusbriefe auf dem Hintergrund dokumentarischer Papyri,” PzB 3:99–114, here 106–9; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 45–49; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 47–49; *Kloppenborg 2019, 4–10; *Kreinecker 2010a, 19–31; C.  M.  Kreinecker forthcoming, “Introduction to Documentary Papyri,” in J.  R.  Harrison and E.  R.  Richards, Papyri and Other Artifacts, Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies  10 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan); C.  M.  Kreinecker 2019, “Papyrology, Papyrological Commentary and the Future of New Testament Textual Scholarship,” in The Future of the New Testament Textual Scholarship: From  H.  C.  Hoskier to the Editio Critica Maior and Beyond, ed. G.  V.  Allen, WUNT  417 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 181–199; S. R. Llewelyn 2005, “Paul’s Letter to Philemon in the Light of the Documentary Papyri: The Pioneer Work in a New Project,” BZ 98:262–63; G.  Seelig 1996, “Einführung,” in G. Strecker and U. Schnelle, Texte zur Briefliteratur und zur Johannesapokalypse, vol. 2/1 of Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, unter Mitarbeit von Gerald Seelig (Berlin: De Gruyter), IX–XXIII.

Why should someone interested in the New Testament read documentary papyri? Is this not a detour to approaching Jesus, Paul, and the early Christ groups through the lenses of directly involved authors? These were certainly questions with which theologians, classicists, and historians were confronted in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when papyrological excavations and collections began and quickly became popular. One of the first to point out the great value not only of Christian documentary papyri but even more nonChristian ones was G. A. Deissmann. In fact, *Deissmann (1927) observed three great values of documentary papyri for reading and understanding the New Testament, a literary, a linguistic, and a socio-historical value. Roughly speaking, New Testament writings and Greek documentary papyri share a common form of the Greek language, that is Koine or Hellenistic Greek; they share several literary genres (e.g., letters), and they stem from the same socio-historical timeframe. When taking a closer look, however, these general similarities need to be studied in detail to establish comparability between texts and their contexts. For reading documentary papyri primarily means meeting people

xxxiv

Introduction

contemporary to the stories told in the Bible and to the time of the composition of the New Testament writings. To approach the ways of thinking, speaking, or writing of potential contemporary readers of a New Testament text by way of documentary papyri and related material, both textual corpora (the New Testament writings on the one hand and the documentary material on the other) are required to share several similarities: 1. Both must originate in similar historical contexts yet be independent from each other’s impact, meaning that only non-Christian papyri serve as independent analogies to the New Testament text. Only when this criterion is satisfied is it possible to estimate which of a New Testament author’s expressions, thoughts, and ideas were more or less commonly shared and which were genuinely new to the audience. Christian papyri do not serve as sources for approaching the first readers’ possible understandings but should not necessarily be excluded. They remain critical for assessing the reception history of the text by later Christians. 2. Both texts must have been written within a similar period; ideally the first and second centuries CE. Earlier papyrological evidence for a particular term, clause, genre, or topic is also valuable if it can explain the development of the corresponding unit. Such earlier references may explain a development in meaning or usage. Examples from later than the first and second centuries CE may provide similar evidence or prove the continuity of a tradition however, these must be treated with caution, especially if earlier evidence is unavailable. This observation is complicated by the history of the New Testament writings itself. While modern scholarship is able to date the composition of those writings from around 50 CE to the early decades of the second century CE, the oldest surviving witnesses to a complete text of these writings date back to a much later time, in the third and more often in the fourth or fifth centuries CE. Unlike with documentary papyri, no New Testament autograph has survived. To analyze the complex textual history and transmission of the extant biblical manuscripts and their text is the task of New Testament textual criticism. Yet documentary papyrology may preserve knowledge about linguistic developments and changes in the early centuries that may be relevant and inform New Testament textual scholarship. It is also against this background, that documentary papyri from later centuries than the composition of New Testament writings remain relevant to compare and investigate. Because of the increasing Christian influence documents written after the late-third or early-fourth century CE are inadequate to properly explain the situation of early Christ groups, but they would be excellent sources to write a reception history (cf. 1.), which is, however, not the aim of this series.

Introduction

xxxv

3. Both documentary papyri and New Testament writings must have a similar geographical origin, and—at the same time—similar cultural, legal, and social conditions as regards their production. These two aspects correspond to each other because geographical similarity is a significant criterion only if geographical uniformity goes hand in hand with a cultural, legal, and social uniformity. During the period in which the New Testament writings were composed, the geographical, cultural, legal, and social frame is largely identical with the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. In recent decades papyrology has demonstrated that the information obtained from Egyptian papyri may also illustrate various aspects of Roman government and society in other parts of the empire. It is true that most documentary papyri and ostraca come from Egypt meanwhile papyri, ostraca, and tablets have also been found in various places outside Egypt. Also, a notable number of the papyri and tablets found in Egypt were originally written in Asia Minor, Syria, Rhodes, or Italy (for a fuller discussion of this issue, see chapter 6).

Online Databases and Other Instruments

Literature R. S. Bagnall and S. Heath 2018, “Roman Studies and Digital Resources,” JRS 108:171– 89; *Gagos and Potter 2006, 53–54; N.  Reggiani 2017, Digital Papyrology I: Methods, Tools and Trends (Berlin: De Gruyter); N. Reggiani, ed. 2018, Digital Papyrology II: Case Studies on the Digital Edition of Ancient Greek Papyri (Berlin: De Gruyter).

Already in the early 20th century, experts in papyrology developed tools to facilitate work with these sources. In addition to dictionaries and a new journal (APF, founded by U.  Wilcken in 1901), the first volume of the so-called Berichtigungsliste (BL) was published in 1922. Its aim to collect and list new information and proposed corrections to already edited papyri, ostraca, and tablets is still relevant today. To date, 13 volumes have been published and are currently added to the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri (DDbDP). With the DDbDP we have already mentioned the digital text database, which is accessible and searchable online via papyri.info. Beyond the integration of the Greek, Latin, and now also many Coptic texts, papyri.info also provides an impressive amount of metadata. The collection and recording of this data were started many years ago as part of the Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnis (HGV, http://aquila.zaw.uni-heidelberg.de/start) by Dieter Hagedorn and is now continued by James Cowey, Rodney Ast, and others. The online “Papyrological Editor” provides the papyrological expert with the opportunity to participate in the ongoing evaluation and correction of the text corpus.

xxxvi

Introduction

Corrections contributed in this way and officially approved by a committee are subsequently collected and published in the Bulletin of Online Emendations to Papyri (BOEP).13 Another database worth mentioning and recommending here is Trismegistos (TM, https://www.trismegistos.org), which consists of several interlinked databases, including texts (TM Texts), papyrological archives (TM Arch), ancient towns, villages, nomes, provinces, and regions (TM Geo), and a prosopographical database (TM People). TM comprises documentary sources (papyri, ostraca, tablets, and inscriptions) as well as subliterary and literary sources, including the Leuven Database of Ancient Books (LDAB). The advantage of HGV, papyri.info, and TM is—and this is typical of papyrology—that they are all interlinked, allowing the user to access one from the other. The standard database for papyrological bibliography is the Bibliographie Papyrologique (BP), which provides the most complete bibliographical information in all the domains related to papyrology. The open access online version (http://www.aere-egke.be/BP/) covers the “retrospective BP” from 1932 up to one year before the access date. A full version of the database can be obtained through the Association International de Papyrologues (AIP). The University of Chicago Library maintains a guide with “links to some of the most important resources available” for papyrology at https://guides.lib. uchicago.edu/papyrology.

A Note on the Data Provided and Translations

Documents presented in their entirety (in English translation, with the most important information on dating, provenance, corrections, reprints, and a commentary) are referred to with bold reference numbers in the running texts of the chapters. The documents of this volume are numbered from [1.1] up to [1.51]. Picking up the usual standard of comparable series, the first document of volume 2 will be numbered [2.52]. The data given in the respective header of these presentations are based on the information of the relevant databases (Heidelberger Gesamtverzeichnis, papyri.info, Trismegistos). In case of different data, those of Trismegistos are 13

For issues 1–10 see https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/view/collections/ c-19.type.html; from issue 11 onwards, BOEP is published in the online journal Pylon: Editions and Studies of Ancient Texts (https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/ pylon/index).

Introduction

xxxvii

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”), but HGV and papyri.info have been consulted as well. For the editorial abbreviations used, see p. XI. The English translations 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, we are ultimately responsible for the translations in this volume.

Explanation of Diacritical Sigla

Literature J.-L.  Fournet 2022, “Some Thoughts on the Papyrological Edition,” in PapCongr. 29, 460–70; J.-L. Fournet et al. 2022, Guidelines for Editing Papyri, https://aip.ulb.be//PDF/ Guidelines_for_editing_papyri.pdf; N.  Gonis 2009, “Abbreviations and Symbols,” in *Bagnall 2009, 170–78; P. Schubert 2009, “Editing a Papyrus,” in *Bagnall 2009, 197–215.

The following diacritical sigla 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 sigla are to be distinguished from deliberate abbreviations (see above). { } 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.

xxxviii

Introduction

ạḅc̣

In the editions, dots below letters are used when they are not completely preserved; in the translations. However, we 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. 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.

Introduction

xxxix

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.

Chapter 1

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions of Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets

The Early Years and the Present Situation: An Overview

Literature G. D. Bird 2010, Multitextuality in the Homeric Iliad: The Witness of the Ptolemaic Papyri (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies); C. Clivaz 2011, “The New Testament at the Time of the Egyptian Papyri: Reflections Based on P12, P75 and P126 (P.Amh. 3b, P.Bod. XIV–XV and PSI 1497),” in Reading New Testament Papyri in Context – Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte, ed. eadem and J. Zumstein, BETL 242 (Leuven: Peeters), 15–55; H. Cuvigny 2009, “The Finds of the Papyri: The Archaeology of Papyrology,” in *Bagnall 2009, 30–58; H.  Cuvigny 2018, “Les ostraca sont-ils solubles dans l’histoire?,” Chiron 48:193–217; G. A. Deissmann 1923, Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt, 4th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr); *A.  Deissmann 1927; E.  J.  Epp 2007, “New Testament Papyri and the Transmission of the New Testament,” in *Bowman 2007, 315–31; E.  J.  Epp, 2014, “The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New Testament,” in *Ehrman and Holmes 2014, 1–39; B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1897, ΛΟΓΙΑ ΙΗΣΟΥ: The Sayings of Our Lord from an Early Greek Papyrus (London: Henry Frowde); A. Guillaumont et al. 1959, The Gospel According to Thomas: Coptic Text (Leiden: Brill; New York: Harper & Row); M. W. Holmes 2014, “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion,” in *Ehrman and Holmes 2014, 637–88; K.  Jaroš 2006, Das Neue Testament nach den ältesten griechischen Handschriften: Die handschriftliche griechische Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments vor Codex Sinaiticus und Codex Vaticanus (Ruhpolding: Rutzen; Vienna: Echter); J. G. Keenan 2009, “The History of the Discipline,” in *Bagnall 2009, 59–78; F. G. Kenyon 1891a, Classical Texts from Papyri in the British Museum: Including the Newly Discovered Poems of Herodas (London: British Museum); F. G. Kenyon 1891b, ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑ: Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens (London: British Museum); F. G. Kenyon 1897, The Poems of Bacchylides: From a Papyrus in the British Museum (London: British Museum); T. J. Kraus 2007, “P.Vindob.G 2325: The So-Called Fayûm-Gospel—Re-Edition and Some Critical Conclusions,” in idem, Ad fontes: Original Manuscripts and Their Significance for Studying Early Christianity—Selected Essays, TENTS  3 (Leiden: Brill), 69–94; N.  O.  Lorimer 1913, A Wife out of Egypt (New York: Brentano’s; repr., 1914), open access: https://archive. org/details/wifeoutofegypt00lori; R.  Mazza 2015, “Papyri, Ethics, and Economics: A Biography of P.Oxy. 15.1780 (𝔓39),” BASP 52:113–42; R. Mazza 2019a, “Papyrology and Ethics,” in PapCongr. 28, 15–27; R. Mazza 2019b, “The Green Papyri and the Museum of the Bible,” in The Museum of the Bible: A Critical Introduction, ed. J. Hicks-Keaton and C. Concannon (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books), 171–205; R. Mazza 2022, “Narratives of Discovery: Petrie, Grenfell, and Hunt and the First Finding of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri,” BASP 59:221–58; D.  Montserrat 2007, “News Reports: The Excavations and Their Journalistic Coverage,” in *Bowman 2007, 28–39; O.  Montevecchi 1994, “Problemi

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790418_002

2

Chapter 1

e prospettive della papirologia nelle intuizioni di un pioniere: Amedeo Peyron,” in PapCongr. 20, 25–34; D.  C.  Parker 2008, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge: University Press); D. C. Parker 2011, “Is ‘Living Text’ Compatible with ‘Initial Text’? Editing the Gospel of John,” in The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research, ed. K. Wachtel and M. W. Holmes, SBL Text-Critical Studies 8 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), 13–21; N.  R.  Petersen 1985, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress); W.  M.  F.  Petrie 1889, Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoe (London: Field & Tuer); D.  Sider 2009, “The Special Case of Herculaneum,” in *Bagnall 2009, 303–19; *White 1986; L. R. Zelyck 2019, The Egerton Gospel (Egerton Papyrus  2 + Papyrus Köln VI 255): Introduction, Critical Edition, and Commentary, TENTS 13 (Leiden: Brill).

The first major discovery of papyri, and in a sense, the birth of papyrology, occurred not in Egypt, where the majority of papyri has been found, but in Italy. During the 1752 excavations at Herculaneum, a town adjacent to Pompeii that had been entombed in volcanic mud when Vesuvius erupted in 79  CE, carbonized papyri were recovered from the Villa dei Papyri. These burnt rolls, still in the process of being unrolled, deciphered, and published, represent the sole surviving ancient library of Greek texts, some 800–1,100 papyrus rolls containing, inter alia, works of the Stoic Chrysippus, Epicurus, and disciples of Epicurus, including Demetrius Lacon, Hermarchus, Colotes of Lampsacus, and Philodemos of Gadara. The importance of this discovery to the history of ancient philosophy is obvious, since the Herculaneum papyri yielded many works that were hitherto completely unknown (Sider 2009). The first papyrus to be published from Egypt was rather more modest in importance—a receipt for work on irrigation dikes from 17 September 193 CE (P.Schow). A few decades later, in 1826–1827 A. Peyron published a collection of papyri from Egyptian mortuary workers (choachytai; P.Tor.). A few other papyri were published in the years that followed (Montevecchi 1989, 32); yet as Keenan observes, the content of many of these documents were dismissed as “vulgar” and “negligible” (exilia sane argumenta et vulgaria, Keenan 2009, 60, citing Montevecchi 1994, 27). This assessment changed rather dramatically beginning in the 1870s when spectacular discoveries of papyri ushered in a new era of scholarship in classics, ancient history, and biblical studies. When large collections of more than 10,000 papyri from Kimân Faris (Krokodilopolis in the Fayum) came on the antiquities market, they were purchased by the Viennese antiquities dealer Theodor Graf, who eventually sold them to Archduke Rainer. Under Rainer’s patronage, Graf bought more papyri from other sites—Hermoupolis, Herakleopolis, and Soknopaiou Nesos—and brought them to Vienna where

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

3

they formed the core of the “Papyrussammlung Erzherzog Rainer,” one of the special collections of the Austrian National Library, which houses more than 180,000 items and is thus the second largest papyrus collection in the world. A few years later in 1888, British scholar Flinders Petrie, excavating at Hawara south of Krokodilopolis, discovered, along with a large cache of mummy portraits, papyri of the first and second centuries CE (published as Petrie 1889). These included the “Hawara Homer,” parts of books 1 and 2 of the Iliad, which Petrie gave to the Bodleian Library, Oxford (MS. Gr. class. a. 1 [P]). Other papyri, literary and documentary, Petrie gave to University College London. The next year E. A. Wallace Budge acquired several papyrus rolls on the antiquities market for the British Museum, including hitherto unknown mimes of Herodas (Kenyon 1891a) and a copy of Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens (P.Lond.Lit. 108), which up to that time had been thought lost (published as Kenyon 1891b). During the next two decades more important purchases and discoveries followed. In 1894 Petrie bought a copy of the Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphos on the antiquities market and a second version was purchased by B. P. Grenfell in winter 1894/1895 (published by Grenfell in 1896 as P.Rev.). About the same time E. A. Wallace Budge obtained a papyrus roll of Bacchylides, dismembered it to remove it from Egypt (in contravention of Egyptian antiquities laws), and presented it to the British Museum. Kenyon published the roll in 1897 (Kenyon 1897). But it was in 1896 that B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, encouraged by preliminary finds of papyrus by Petrie, began excavations in the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhynchos (Bahnasa), and exposed an enormous volume of papyri (over the years of excavation ca. half a million fragments), many of which are now in the Papyrus Room adjacent the Sackler Library at Oxford University (Mazza 2022). One of the earliest finds was P.Oxy. 1.1 the “Logia Iesu,” hitherto unknown (Grenfell and Hunt 1897). But after the discovery of P.Oxy. 4.654 and 655 and following the discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices in 1945, including Coptic translations of these three fragments, it is now clear that the three Oxyrhynchos fragments are part of the Gospel of Thomas. Volume 1 of P.Oxy. not only presents the editions of biblical texts but also those of texts by Homer, Plato, Thucydides, Sappho, Sophocles, Demosthenes, and other texts of the great authors of classical antiquity identified in manuscripts which were about 1,000 years older than those which had earlier emerged from European libraries. The majority of the papyri found and presented also in this volume, however, are documentary in nature: private and official letters, an edict from a prefect, reports, petitions, accounts, appointments of guardians or officials, orders for arrest, complaints, registrations of

4

Chapter 1

slaves and livestock, declarations, orders for payment and receipts, deeds of sale (of a slave, a house, or land), leases, wills and revocations of wills, invitations to feasts, school exercises, and the like. A private letter written by a boy to his father in the second or third century CE, P.Oxy. 1.119 [1.1], even gained considerable public attention. It was quoted and discussed in almost all reviews of the volume, even in The Guardian (18 Oct 1898), Vanity Fair (15 Jul 1899), and other mass media (Montserrat 2007, 37 n. 2). A public lecture by B.  P.  Grenfell at King’s College, London, on the evening of 28 January 1908 was advertised in The Times of 3 January by referring not only to literary finds (Euripides, Pindar) but also to the boy’s letter and quoting from it: “Of non-literary documents, there was a letter of a boy of 14—a most naive and natural production—scolding his father for not taking him to Alexandria and threatening neither to eat nor drink unless he does so” (Montserrat 2007, 36). A few years later, the letter made its way into the novel A Wife out of Egypt (London 1913) by Norma Octavia Lorimer (1864– 1948). This novel tells the story of Stella, the English-educated daughter of an Armenian-Egyptian family in Cairo, who falls in love with the archaeologist Michael Ireton, who can easily be identified with one of the contemporary archaeologists of the Egypt Exploration Fund, Edward Ayrton (1882–1914; cf. Montserrat 2007, 37–38). When Michael is about to confess his love to Stella, but first finds out that she is already engaged to someone else, he—in the confusion of his feelings—hands her a note-paper with parts of Theon’s letter, which here has become “a Ptolemaic school-boy’s letter.” The passage is worth quoting as it contains a timeless comment on the papyrus letter (Lorimer 1913, 131–32; cf. Montserrat 2007, 38): Michael Ireton broke the silence by saying, in a voice over which he had at last a perfect mastery—he had half a sheet of note-paper in his hand, which he had taken out of his pocket—“I came across this when I was reading last night; I thought it would amuse you, so I copied it out.” He held it out to her. “It is a Ptolemaic school-boy’s letter, written about two thousand years ago.” Stella read it aloud: “It was good of you to send me presents on the 12th, the day you sailed. Send me a lyre,1 I implore you. If you don’t, I won’t eat, I won’t drink. There now. I pray for your good health.” “How deliciously human!” She looked up with laughter-lit eyes: it happened to be one of her most adorable moments, it was her expression—the one he loved best. Such a fierce desire

1 A “lyre” is based on the first edition of the papyrus which was later corrected: instead of “lyre,” the Greek term that has to be read on the papyrus is λυπόν (read λοιπόν, i.e., “finally” or “now”).

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

5

came to Michael Ireton to take her face in his two hands and kiss it, that he said abruptly, “Let us go home; that’s to say, if you don’t mind.” He had made no remark upon the letter, and his tone, almost cross in its abruptness, made her hand him back the paper a little nervously. “Certainly, let’s go back,” she said shyly; “boys haven’t changed much, have they?” “Human nature never changes,” he said, “only customs.”

In P.Oxy. 1, Grenfell and Hunt already introduced the format for papyrus editions which is still considered exemplary today. This concerns both the order of the text genres within a volume and the way in which a document is presented. The group of theological texts (biblical texts, apocryphal texts, other Christian texts) is followed by new literary and subliterary texts (works of Greek or Latin authors on the one hand and commentaries as well as grammatical, medical, and magical texts on the other) and finally documentary texts. The consecutively numbered editions of papyri, ostraca, or tablets begin with a title, followed by information on inventory number, provenance, dating, and dimensions. An introduction provides information on the circumstances of the discovery or acquisition, the description of the material, and the main insights to be gained from the artifact. The transcription of the original text (in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, Demotic, Coptic, or Arabic) is followed by an apparatus explaining orthographic errors and other graphic features, and the translation. The final section is a line-by-line commentary, some of which is very detailed and extensive. Other early series of editions, which started with far less structured and detailed presentations (BGU 1, published in 1895, for example, contains only a few data apart from the transcriptions) have taken up this form of edition following P.Oxy. 1 and have continued it to this day. Among the 361 documents edited for the first time in BGU 1 (1895), we find the papyrus letter from a certain Mystarion to the chief priest Stotoetis. The first edition provides only the running number in the volume (no. 37 [1.2]) and the inventory number of the Berlin collection (P. 6834) and offers brief information on the material (papyrus), the dimensions (height 15 cm, width 13 cm), and the origin (Fayum), followed by the Greek transcription of the text. In a note in the right margin, the dating preserved in lines 8–9 (“year 11 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Emperor, in the month Sebastos 15”) is erroneously converted by the editor to 15 August 51 CE. An extended version was published by A. Deissmann on pp. 108–10 in the first edition of his seminal monograph “Licht vom Osten” in 1908, now with a German translation, some annotations, corrections suggested by U. Wilcken (cf. BGU 1, p. 353), among them a corrected but still inaccurate dating (13 Sep 50 CE), and facsimiles from photographs of the recto and the address on the verso (cf. *Deissmann 1927, 170–72 no. 8, images: fig. 27 and 28 after p. 170). Deissmann also gives the reason

6

Chapter 1

for including the edition in his book (*Deissmann 1927, 171): “I give this little text, belonging to the time of the Pauline mission, as an example of the letters of commendation which St. Paul mentions more than once (2 Cor. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 3) and himself employed (Rom. xvi.). In the wider sense, at least, it is a letter of recommendation.” *White (1986, 138), however, has correctly argued against this classification (see also p. 32). The correct conversion of the dating (12 Sep 50 CE) was presented in the English translation of the fourth German edition of “Licht vom Osten” (= *Deissmann 1927, 170).2 More than six decades after Deissmann, N. R. Petersen analyzed BGU 1.37 [1.2] in such a comprehensive way as never before and never since has a rather short papyrus letter been annotated (Petersen 1985, 44–65, notes on pp. 78–83). Another peculiarity is that this analysis was not written by a papyrologist, but by a professor of religion. The letter itself is a simple request from the letter sender, Mystarion, to a certain Stotoetis: He should supply the letter carrier, Mystarion’s slave (or employee) Blastos, with forked sticks for Mystarion’s olive trees, and he should not detain Blastos because Mystarion needs him “every hour.” Among many other observations, Petersen (1985, 45–53) distinguished between a referential sequence and a poetic sequence. The order of the actions or circumstances is different in the two sequences. The starting point of the referential sequence is the prior relationship between Stotoetis and Mystarion (1). When the latter runs out of sticks (2), he writes to Stotoetis and tells him not to detain Blastos (3), who is sent with the letter to Stotoetis (4). After arriving there (5), Blastos receives the sticks (6) and Stotoetis’s response (7). As soon as Blastos returns to Mystarion with the sticks (8), the olive trees can be staked (9). The poetic sequence, however, is 2, 5, 4, 9, 3, 1, 6, 7, 8. Actions 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are only implied, while actions 4, 9, 3, and 1 are emplotted in the letter. After commenting on the sociology of this letter, Petersen adopts the same procedure followed in his study of Mystarion’s letter to construct the story of Paul’s letter to Philemon (pp. 65–78, notes on pp. 83–88), where the referential sequence runs as follows: There is again a prior relationship between the letter partners (1), still relevant while Paul is in prison (2). Philemon’s slave Onesimus, after departing from his master Philemon (3), somehow meets Paul (4) and tells him about Philemon’s love and faith (5). Afterwards Paul writes a letter of recommendation on behalf of Onesimus and sends the slave (with the letter) back to his master (6). Both arrive at Philemon’s place (7) and are received by

2 The fourth German edition from 1923 still has “13. September 50 n. Chr.” (p. 136). The correct conversion was confirmed by R. Ziegler in 1999 (cf. BL 12:10), but without mentioning Deissmann.

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

7

Philemon (8),3 who responds to the appeal of Paul (9). Paul intends to come for a visit soon (10). The poetic sequence, however, is 5 (Phlm 4–7), 2 (v. 9), 4 (v. 10), 6 (v. 12), 3 (v. 15), 7 (–), 8 (vv. 17–19a), 1 (v. 19b), 9 (vv. 20–21), and 10 (v. 22); action 7 is implied. After another detailed sociological analysis, Petersen concludes—by analogy with his observations in BGU 1.37 [1.2] and “[d]espite the underwhelming nature of Mystarion’s problem” (p. 63)—that the ending in action 10 “requires an action by Philemon that will either preserve his equality with Paul as a brother and as a partner, or render him an inferior as a debtor to Paul—and to the brotherhood” (p.  78). Even such a simple letter as that of Mystarion has thus, 90 years after the first edition, acquired a significance that hardly anyone would have attributed to it before (cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 98–99, 210, 216). During the first decades of the 20th century, papyrus excavations and acquisitions were organized and financed by many scholarly institutions and societies, filling collections around the world. Alliances into cartels were intended to facilitate access to both literary and documentary papyri. The discovered or acquired papyri have revolutionized scholarship in at least five ways: (a) Papyri offered earlier copies or fragments of literary works that were already known, thus permitting a closer examination of the early transmission history of those works; in some cases, these early papyri allowed for the reconstruction of an improved critical text of the work in question. (b) Papyri confirmed the existence of literary works whose names were known from other references, but for which actual copies were lacking. (c) Papyri brought to light texts that were hitherto completely unknown. (d) Along with ostraca and tablets, papyri produced evidence not only of literary works, but documentary works that illumined day-to-day life in Ptolemaic, Roman, Byzantine, and early Islamic Egypt. (e) Papyri and related material attest to writing styles that are unrepresented or underrepresented in mediaeval manuscripts and epigraphy. Especially in recent decades, a critical awareness has emerged towards the early enterprises, which—from today’s perspective—have to be seen in the context of imperialism and colonialism (Mazza 2015; 2019a; 2019b). On 14  November 1970, UNESCO passed the “Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership 3 Petersen distinguishes between the sending of Onesimus (6) and the sending of the letter (7), which makes no sense; both were certainly sent together (hence we have chosen no. 6 for both). There is also a discrepancy between Petersen’s account on p. 69, where no. 7 refers to Philemon receiving Onesimus, and p. 70, where no. 8 stands for “Onesimus and the letter arrive,” which of course should come before no. 7 in the referential sequence. Above we have tried to get the order right.

8

Chapter 1

of Cultural Property,” which went into force on 24 April 1972. To date, the convention was accepted or ratified by 143 UN countries (e.g., by Egypt already in 1973, Canada in 1978, the US in 1983, the UK in 2002, Germany in 2007, Belgium in 2009, Austria in 2015, Ethiopia in 2017).4 In consequence, many institutions involved in the study of ancient artifacts have established rules of conduct. While all of these regulatory developments have been effective in slowing the illegal export of papyri from Egypt, they have not stopped smuggling entirely. To this day, private collectors continue to purchase papyri without disclosing the details of their acquisition. In a joint statement of the Association Internationale de Papyrologues (AIP) and the American Association of Papyrologists (ASP), which had been discussed for several years and officially passed in 2022, both societies admitted that “[i]n the past, the individuals responsible for acquiring papyri may have been ignorant of the relevant statutes, or perhaps they turned a blind eye to them. Neither response, however, is acceptable in the present era.” And the same statement urges AIP and ASP members, among other things, to “refrain from taking part in the trade of papyri that are considered illicit” and to “avoid the publication of illicit papyri.”5 As a result, “documentation of provenance” has become “essential for any edition,” and institutions have in many cases officially refrained from purchasing undocumented papyri through their own explicit statements. The changed conditions under which systematic papyrus excavations and editions are now carried out can be well illustrated by the Mission archéologique française du désert Oriental (MAFDO), one of the projects of the Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire (Ifao). In recent years, a vast number of ostraca has been systematically excavated from the rubbish dumps just outside Roman military posts (praesidia) in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. The ostraca excavated during this mission have all remained in Egypt and are kept in a storehouse of the Egyptian Antiquities Service in Quft. They are photographed before any attempt at reading, and then comfortably read on screen, the originals being used only to check a few dubious points (e.g., whether a spot on the ostracon is ink or dirt or damage to the pottery; Cuvigny 2018, 195–196). Each step is carefully documented. The high-resolution images are freely accessible on the internet (see, e.g., O.Did. 451 [1.36]).

4 See https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/convention-means-prohibiting-and-preventingillicit-import-export-and-transfer-ownership-cultural. 5 See https://aip.ulb.be/papyrus_trade.html.

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions



9

The Significance of Documentary Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets

Literature *Bagnall 2009; B.  Palme 2009, “The Range of Documentary Texts: Types and Categories,” in The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, ed. R. S. Bagnall (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 358–94; E.  G.  Turner 1980, Greek Papyri: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press; Paperback edition).

The discovery of documentary papyri, ostraca, and tablets produced a very different kind of data than that preserved in the media known up to the end of the nineteenth century. Mediaeval parchment manuscripts normally contain literary works and reflect the social worlds of the elite and their literatures; Greek and Latin inscriptions provide some important data on the life of subelite persons, but most of the details of the operation of society at the level of the individual, the family, the village, and town remained largely invisible. The documentary material yielded textual genres that are otherwise very poorly attested. To be sure, letters, private and official, were known in the form of the correspondence of Plato, Alciphron, Aelian, Cicero, Seneca, Pliny the younger, Philostratus, and others. But these letters were usually known from edited epistolary collections, from which some of the original epistolary features and formulas may have been stripped. In fact, Pliny’s letters simply begin C. Plinius Septicio suo s. (vel sim.), a shorthand for Gaius Plinius Septimio suo salutem dicit, “Gaius Plinius sends greetings to his Septimius.” Pliny may in fact have begun his letters in the rather abrupt fashion. A Latin letter of recommendation from Oxyrhynchos, Ch.L.A. 4.267 [1.42] has a similarly abrupt opening. Papyri, ostraca, and tablets, however, yielded hundreds of letters that show more elaborate and philophronetic epistolary formulas commonly in use (see PNT 2, pp. 73–115 for many examples). For example, T.Vindol. 2.248 [1.3] from Vindolanda begins not only with the stock formula A (nominative) to B (dative) suo salutem, but like many papyrus letters from Egypt, also with a prayer report and other philophronetic elements. It is possible that the process of editing Pliny’s letters involved deleting such greetings and preserving only the body of the letter along with a standardized letter opening. Papyri also included not only private letters, but petitions, leases and loan instruments, accounts, census documents, land surveys, administrative reports, school exercises, tax declarations, and tax receipts, for example. Documents of this nature provide glimpses into everyday life, not the literary products normally produced by the elite, but rather evidence of how life was lived in towns and villages in Egypt. Without Ptolemy Philadelphos’s Revenue Laws (P.Rev.) and scores of tax documents from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt it would have been impossible

10

Chapter 1

to work out how the Ptolemaic taxation system worked. Without hundreds of leases of farmland, vineyards, and orchards, which typically indicated the size of plots, the form of rent, the schedule of payments, and the structure of labor, it would have been impossible to understand the alimentary, economic, and labor systems of Egypt. Prior to the twentieth century, the understanding of systems of taxation in the Roman Empire was based on literary references in such Roman authors as Cicero, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, and Appian, comments in Josephus and Philo about tax collectors, and descriptions of Roman alimentary laws. Most of these reports, however, concern taxation at the level of the province. Papyri, however, provide information on taxation at the level of the village or town, the variety of taxes that were applied (and to whom), and the levels of taxation applicable to individuals, the trades, land, and certain crops. Thanks to papyri, the methods of tax extraction and the variety of personnel engaged in the revenue system are known. Evidence from papyri and ostraca show, for example, that most tax collection in the imperial period was managed not by the publicani (tax farmers) but by individual residents in the villages in which they collected taxes. Several archives from these tax agents have survived. These contain not only receipts, declarations, and other documents relevant to the taxation system, but personal correspondences that allow the reconstruction of the personal and administrative networks to which tax agents belonged, and the many activities unrelated to tax collection in which they were engaged. In some instances, these archives also contain literary texts, indicating that in addition to their fiscal activities, tax agents were collectors and readers of literature (on the archive of the tax collector Sokrates, TM Arch 109, see pp. 21, 84).

A Closer Look #1: The Earliest Christian Letter

Literature 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; *Blumell 2012; *Blumell and Wayment 2015; M. Choat 2006a, “Echo and Quotation of the New Testament in Papyrus Letters to the End of the Fourth Century,” in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World, ed. T.  J.  Kraus and T.  Nicklas, TENTS  2 (Leiden: Brill), 267–92; M.  Choat 2006b, Belief and Cult in Fourth-Century Papyri, Studia Antiqua Australiensia  1 (Turnhout: Brepols); 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; *Hurtado 2006; *Kloppenborg 2014; A.  Luijendijk 2008, “Greetings in the Lord”: Early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Harvard Theological Studies  60 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press);

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

11

A. Mugridge 2016, Copying Early Christian Texts: A Study of Scribal Practice, WUNT 362 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck); *Naldini 1998; P. Orsini and W. Clarysse 2012, “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography,” ETL 88:443–74; C. H. Roberts 1979, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: Oxford University Press); C. M. Tuckett 2003, “‘Nomina Sacra’: Yes and No?,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge, BETL 163 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 431–58.

In the quest for the earliest Christian evidence in documentary papyri, numerous efforts have been made to identify the markers that can be considered unambiguously Christian. Features such as crosses, monograms, isopsephisms, nomina sacra, theologically-laden formulas, special greeting formulas, and onomastic considerations help to point to Christian writers, but none can be identified securely before the third century CE (*Naldini 1998; Choat 2006a; 2006b; 2010; Luijendijk 2008; *Blumell 2012). The earliest instance of a letter that can in all likelihood be identified as Christian is P.Bas. 2.43 [1.4], written about 230  CE by a Christian, Arrianus, to his brother Paulus, both living in the Fayum. The letter can be identified as Christian because of the presence of the distinctive formula “I pray that you are well in the Lord,” and because “Lord” appears as a nomen sacrum, that is, a way in which Christian scribes typically abbreviated such words as God (theos), Lord (kyrios), Spirit (pneuma) and other frequently appearing terms. Nomina sacra were formed by writing only the first (or first two) and last letters of the word and placing a stroke over the letters (in this case κ̅ω̅ for the Greek dative κυρίῳ). It is not entirely certain that this scribal practice was exclusive to Christian scribes, although to date there are no instances of nomina sacra that are in undisputedly non-Christian manuscripts (Tuckett 2003; *Hurtado 2006, 95–134). What is clear is that such abbreviations appear commonly in papyrus letters written by Christians and serve as a way to identify the letter as Christian even if the other contents of the letter itself do not.

Documentary Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets Illumining New Testament Texts

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2003; *Arzt-Grabner 2014; *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006; G. B. Bazzana 2015a, Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q, BETL 274 (Leuven: Peeters); *Deissmann 1927; G. H. R. Horsley 1981–1989, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vols. 1–5 (North Ryde, NSW: Macquarie University); 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;

12

Chapter 1

*Huebner 2019, 115–34; J. S. Kloppenborg 2006, The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine, WUNT  195 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck); *Kloppenborg and Callon 2010; J.  S.  Kloppenborg 2015, “Hirten und andere Kriminelle: Über die Anwendung von Modellen in der historischen Kritik,” in Alte Texte in neuen Kontexten: Wo steht die sozialwissenschaftliche Bibelexegese?, ed. W. Stegemann and R. DeMaris (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), 241–64; *Kreinecker 2010a; C.  M.  Kreinecker 2019, “Papyrology, Papyrological Commentary and the Future of New Testament Textual Scholarship,” in The Future of the New Testament Textual Scholarship: From H. C. Hoskier to the Editio Critica Maior and Beyond, ed. G. V. Allen, WUNT  417 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 181–99; M.  Langellotti 2012, L’allevamento di pecore e capre nell’Egitto romano: Aspetti economici e sociali, Pragmateiai  21 (Bari: Edipuglia); 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; S.  R.  Llewelyn 1992–2002, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vols. 6–9 (North Ryde, NSW: Macquarie University); S.  R.  Llewelyn and J.  R.  Harrison 2012, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans); J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan 1929, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton); *White 1986.

Beyond adding to knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament, papyri have almost since the beginning of discoveries illumined both the lexicography and the social, economic, and literary contexts of early Christian writings. *Deissmann (1927) mined papyri to show that lexemes once thought to belong to a distinctive “biblical language” were in fact attested in Greco-Egyptian papyri and that the structure and formulas attested in Paul’s letters had significant counterparts in papyrus letters. Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the New Testament (1929) systematically extended G.  A.  Deissmann’s lexicographical insights. A new “Moulton and Milligan” is planned (Horsley and Lee 1997; Lee and Horsley 1998) and the series New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (New Docs.: Horsley 1981–1989; Llewelyn 1992–2002; Llewelyn and Harrison 2012) continues to offer lexical and other observations from newly published papyri and inscriptions that clarify the language and practices assumed in early Christian texts. Deissmann’s program of employing papyri to illumine New Testament texts is now being developed in the Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (*Arzt-Grabner 2003; *Arzt-Grabner 2006; *Kreinecker 2010a; *Arzt-Grabner 2014). More focused studies have appeared on the parables of Jesus employing Greco-Egyptian papyri to contextualize the parables’ invocations of viticulture and pastoralism and thus to correct many claims based on ignorance of ancient agricultural practices, estate management and taxation (Kloppenborg 2006; *Kloppenborg and Callon 2010). Bazzana has demonstrated how much of the language employed in the earliest Jesus movement

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

13

in Palestine has resonances with the conceptual framework of low-level village administration known especially through the administrative correspondence in the Ptolemaic kingdom (Bazzana 2015a). Papyrologists and scholars of Christian origins are likely in the future to make much more use of documentary papyri and related material in their efforts to describe the social and economic practices presupposed in the literature of the Jesus movement. The following selected example will serve, in its brevity, to demonstrate already in this chapter the importance of this material for the interpretation of certain New Testament texts. The parable of the Shepherd (Matt 18:10–14 || Luke 15:4–7; Gos. Thom. 107) by itself says nothing on a variety of matters that are pertinent to understanding the parable: whether the shepherd of the parable owned or simply managed the flock; whether a flock of one hundred sheep was typical, extremely large, or relatively small; and the social standing of the shepherd. Papyrus documentation from Ptolemaic and early Roman Egypt, such as P.Princ. 2.24 [1.5] (25 Jan 21 CE) indicates that one hundred sheep is not an unusually large flock but rather a typical size managed by a single shepherd. A number of contemporary livestock declarations show that a single shepherd could also be entrusted with tending the flocks of several owners (e.g., P.Oxy. 84.5435 [1.6]). Moreover, from the reign of Augustus to the reign of Claudius, only adult animals were declared annually around late January/early February; the newborn lambs and kids were not yet reported in numbers but simply mentioned as “the lambs and kids following.” Because the shepherd was rarely the owner of the flock,6 the size of the flock is not indexical to the economic standing of a shepherd. And because sheep are predatory on agricultural crops, owners would typically employ herdsmen to keep the sheep away from their farmsteads, at least before crops were harvested. These shepherds were often not resident (for taxation purposes) in the nome in which they worked as a shepherd. Moreover, shepherds represented a special class of agricultural workers: they were largely unsupervised (in contrast to other workers who were supervised by an estate manager or directly by the landowner), they were armed (to protect the flock from predators and theft), and because of the ways that sheep graze, they could not be tied to a single fixed location but ranged over the hinterlands of the nome or district. A significant fraction of criminal complaints identified shepherds as involved in theft and acts of violence, or as permitting their sheep to destroy agricultural crops, e.g., P.Princ. 2.23 [1.7] (after 13 Apr 13 CE). 6 One of the rare exceptions is evidenced by P.Oxy. 84.5433 (27 Dec 18–19 Jan 19 CE): The fact that a certain Theophilos appears here as both owner and shepherd of a flock of 41 sheep and five goats suggests that he was a professional breeder.

14

Chapter 1

Semiliterary Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets

Literature T.  de  Bruyn 2017, Making Amulets Christian: Artefacts, Scribes, and Contexts, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press); H. Froschauer and C. Römer, eds. 2007, Zwischen Magie und Wissenschaft: Ärzte und Heilkunst in den Papyri aus Ägypten, Nilus 13 (Vienna: Phoibos); K.  Huber 2021, “Verhext – verflucht – am Leib gezeichnet: Aspekte von Magie im Galaterbrief?,” in Antike Fluchtafeln und das Neue Testament: Materialität – Ritualpraxis – Texte, ed. M. Hölscher, M. Lau, and S. Luther, WUNT 474 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 465–88; A. Jones 2009, “Mathematics, Science, and Medicine in the Papyri,” in *Bagnall 2009, 338–57; N.  Reggiani, ed. 2019, Greek Medical Papyri: Text, Context, Hypertext, APF Beiheft 40 (Berlin: De Gruyter); A. Zdiarsky, ed. 2015, Orakelsprüche, Magie und Horoskope: Wie Ägypten in die Zukunft sah, Nilus 22 (Vienna: Phoibos).

Papyri, ostraca, and tablets also provide thousands of testimonies about ancient popular religion and medicine. Today, we like to think of “magic” as something that is the counterpart to institutionalized religion. This was not the case in ancient times, but “magic” was part of the official religion, with the exception of harmful magic, of course, which was officially illegal. Among these so-called semiliterary or subliterary texts we find extensive magical textbooks, instructions in religious methods, prayers, amulets, oracle questions, binding spells, and curse tablets (see especially PGM 1–3; GEMF 1). Since the boundary between magic and popular medicine is often blurred, this group also includes numerous recipes7 whose origin is usually no longer ascertainable. P.Oxy. 80.5245 [1.8] (II CE), for example, clearly shows the proximity or connection between medicine and magic (cf., e.g., John 9:7–11). P.Oxy. 80.5246 [1.9] (II–III CE) contains two recipes; regarding the first one, also the person from whom it was obtained is mentioned, Maximus the stone-cutter. Quite a few examples of semiliterary texts related to medicine and/or magic are instructive as background for the New Testament healing stories. In addition, certain terms and passages in the New Testament letters indicate that early Christ groups were more or less constantly surrounded by magic and confronted with it in a direct or metaphorical way. For example, in Gal 5:7, when Paul attests to the addressees that they have run well in the past, but then asks who has now “hindered” them from running on the path of truth, this suggests a comparison with agonistic curse tablets, in which demons are invoked to “hinder” the chariot horses of opposing teams in the race and thwart their victory (Huber 2021, 468–71).

7 Some more recent editions are P.Oxy. 80.5243–5251.

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions



15

What are Papyrological Archives?

Literature C. Ando 2000, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, Classics and Contemporary Thought  6 (Berkeley: University of California Press), 80–96; Z.  H.  Archibald 2021, “A Review of Clay Sealings from an Early Hellenistic Deposit at the Emporium of Pistiros,” in *Van Oppen de Ruiter and Wallenfels 2021, 97–101; C.  Armoni 2018, “Aus dem Archiv des Διοικητής Athenodoros: Neuedition von BGU XVI 2601, 2605 und 2618,” ZPE 207:123–134; *Arzt-Grabner 2019b; *Bagnall 2011, 27–53; S.  G.  Caneva and B.  F.  van  Oppen 2016, “SigNet: A Digital Platform for Hellenistic Sealings and Archives,” in Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection – 6th International Conference, EuroMed 2016 Nicosia, Cyprus, October 31 – November 5, 2016 Proceedings, vol. 2, ed. M. Ioannides et al., Lecture Notes in Computer Science 10059 (Cham: Springer), 222–31; 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; W.  Clarysse and K. Vandorpe 1995, Zénon, un homme d’affaires grec à l’ombre des pyramides, Ancorae 14 (Leuven: Presses universitaires de Louvain); G. Coqueugniot 2021, “Archival Practices of the Chreophylakes at Dura-Europos,” in *Van Oppen de Ruiter and Wallenfels 2021, 179–91; D. Hartman 2016, Testi greci e Ketubbah, vol. 1 of Archivio di Babatha, Testi del Vicino Oriente antico 6.3 (Brescia: Paideia); S. Herbert 2013, “Bullae,” in Excavations at Zeugma: Conducted by Oxford Archaeology, vol. 2, ed. W. Aylward (Los Altos, CA: The Packard Humanities Institute), 210–17; M. Langellotti 2020, “Record-Offices in Villages in Roman Egypt,” in Village Institutions in Egypt in the Roman to Early Arab Periods, ed. M. Langellotti and D. Rathbone, Proceedings of the British Academy 231 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 94–108; V. Messina 2021, “Hellenistic Sealings in Context: The City Archive of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris,” in *Van Oppen de Ruiter and Wallenfels 2021, 149–61; M. Önal 2007, Clay Seal Impressions of Zeugma – Kil Mühür Baskıları (Gaziantep: Gaziantep Museum); M. Önal 2010, “Deities and Cultures Meet on the Seal Impressions in Zeugma,” Bolletino di archeologia on line 1:25–53; M. Önal 2011, “Die Tonbullae von Doliche,” in Von Kummuḫ nach Telouch: Historische und archäologische Untersuchungen in Kommagene, ed. E. Winter, Asia Minor Studien 64; Dolichener und Kommagenische Forschungen 4 (Bonn: Habelt), 247–79, Tafel 1–2, Farbtafel 10–13; M. Önal 2014, “Die Tonbullae von Doliche II,” in Kult und Herrschaft am Euphrat, ed. E.  Winter, Asia Minor Studien  73; Dolichener und Kommagenische Forschungen  6 (Bonn: Habelt), 173–239, Farbtafel 18–28, Karte 1; M. Önal 2018, Die Siegelabdrücke von Zeugma, Asia Minor Studien 85; Dolichener und Kommagenische Forschungen 10 (Bonn: Habelt); 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); D. W. Rathbone 2005, “Economic Rationalism and the Heroninos Archive,” Topoi 12–13(1):261–69; D.  Rathbone 2009, “The First Acquisition: The Archive of Heroninos,” in 100 anni di istituzioni fiorentine per la papirologia: 1908. Società Italiana per la ricerca dei Papiri, 1928. Istituto Papirologico “G.  Vitelli.” Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi. Firenze, 12–13 giugno 2008, ed. G. Bastianini and A. Casanova, Studi e Testi di Papirologia, N.S. 11 (Firenze: Istituto papirologico “G. Vitelli”), 17–29; *Reinard 2016; T. Schreiber 2021, “Searching for the Archive of Doliche: A Preliminary Report on the Archive Repertoire,” in *Van Oppen de Ruiter

16

Chapter 1

and Wallenfels 2021, 103–29; J. P. Sickinger 1994, “Inscriptions and Archives in Classical Athens,” Historia 43:286–96; B.  F.  van  Oppen de Ruiter 2021, “Hellenistic Sealings and Archives,” in *Van Oppen de Ruiter and Wallenfels 2021, 1–8; K. Vandorpe 2008, “Archives and Letters in Greco-Roman Egypt,” in La lettre d’archive: Communication administrative et personnelle dans l’Antiquité proche-orientale et égyptienne: Actes du colloque de l’Université de Lyon 2, 9–10 juillet 2004, ed. L. Pantalacci, Institut français d’Archéologie orientale: Bibliothèque générale 32; Topoi Supplément  9 (Paris: de Boccard), 155–77; K. Vandorpe 2009, “Archives and Dossiers,” in *Bagnall 2009, 216–55; K. Vandorpe, W. Clarysse, and H. Verreth, eds. 2015, Graeco-Roman Archives from the Fayum, Collectanea Hellenistica 6 (Leuven: Peeters). – For more literature and detailed studies on the papyrus archives mentioned below, search for the respective numbers in TM Arch (including pdf descriptions of many archives) and in Vandorpe, Clarysse, and Verreth 2015.

The term “archive” is used in relation to ancient documents in at least two distinct senses. First, an ἀρχεῖον was a public building used for the preservation of administrative documents, but the term soon came to refer to the collection of documents itself. In Greek an archive might also be called a demosion, grammatophylakeion, chreophylakeion, or chrematisterion; Latin terms for an archive are tabularium and instrumentum. In Egypt grapheion was a usual term for the administrative archive of a town or village. Administrative archives from before the Hellenistic period have been discovered, often connected with ancient palaces or administrative centers, for example, the Amara letters, a cuneiform collection of correspondence of Amenophis III and Amenophis IV (1411–1358 BCE) found at El-Amarna, the capital of Akhetaten (1350s–1330s BCE). Other administrative archives have been found at Mari, Nuzi, Ugarit, and Persepolis, containing mostly administrative documents, but also letters, commercial documents, and in some cases, literature. In Athens the Bouleuterion, and later the Metroon (the Temple of the Phrygian Great Mother), served as depositories for important documents, including contracts, honorific decrees of the civic assembly, and other official documents (Sickinger 1994). Owing to problems of preservation, we have little or no access to what was stored in the archives of Athens or many other Greek cities, although at least in theory, an inscription on public display in the Athenian agora was supposed to be a copy (ἀντίγραφον) of the version kept in the city archive. In Rome, the tabularium was built on the south-eastern slope of the Capitoline Hill for the preservation of documents, but many documents were also kept in the private archives of consuls. A sure archaeological indication of archives are the findings of huge quantities of clay sealings in one place. In this way, public or private archives testifying to the spread of literacy and bureaucracy could be documented throughout the Hellenistic world (van Oppen de Ruiter 2021, 1). In Zeugma

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

17

in southeastern Anatolia (TM Geo 4311), for example, 102,500 sealings have been found in a room belonging to the Agora (Önal 2010, 25 n. 1). This enormous number indicates that the room was the Agora Archive (chrematisterion or chreophylakeion), where official, commercial, and notarial documents were kept. Based on further finds in Zeugma, archive rooms could also be identified in the Poseidon Villa, the Dionysus Villa, and in a trading establishment. A second example is Doliche near modern Gaziantep/Türkiye (TM Geo 16706) with 4,255 known seal impressions (Schreiber 2021, 107); two archives could be identified in the city area and on Dülük Baba Tepesi. Papyrus impressions on the back of many of these sealings confirm that they were affixed to papyrus documents. When the sites perished in a fire at a later period, the documents on papyrus or parchment were also destroyed, but the clay sealings were baked and thus permanently preserved. Notable finds of sealings from the Hellenistic period were also discovered in archaeological excavations at Seleukeia on the Tigris/Mesopotamia (modern Iraq, TM Geo 37190; more than 25,000 sealings), Kydisos (Tel Kedesh/Israel, TM Geo 1192; more than 2,000), Paphos/ Cyprus (TM Geo 1600; ca. 11,000), a private house on Delos/Greece (TM Geo 542; ca. 15,000), and a deposit at Pistiros/Thracia (modern Bulgaria, TM Geo 38392; 27 clay sealings). Other sites where hoard finds have not come to light through controlled excavations include Carthage/Tunisia (TM Geo 484; ca. 4,000 sealings), Selinous (modern Selinunte/Italy, TM Geo 22286; ca. 700), Gitana (modern Gkoumani/Greece, TM Geo 37888; ca. 3,000), Callium/Greece (TM Geo 37606; ca. 600), and Pella/Greece (TM Geo 1657; several hundred sealings).8 In a building adjacent to the agora of Dura-Europos in Syria (TM Geo 604), a chreophylakeion was identified by a graffito on the wall of Room G3 A3 (⳩, chi-rho, as abbreviation for chreophylakeion; Coqueugniot 2021, 181–84). Preserved documents from Dura-Europos related to that archive are P.Dura 12 and 15–44 (Coqueugniot 2021, 184–90). A second sense of the term “archive”—and the sense that is relevant to this and other volumes in this series—refers to assemblages of documents, some administrative, others private, and others literary texts, associated with particular individuals or families. Some of these archives consist mainly or exclusively of administrative documents; others are much more diverse, with private correspondence, business letters, literary texts, and other documents. Many of the papyri that have been published were in fact parts of archives. To view these papyri as part of the same archive is often of substantial assistance in reconstruction and interpretation. Datable papyri in an archive with 8 On these numbers and further details of some of these archives, see *Bagnall 2011, 40–50; Van Oppen de Ruiter 2021; Archibald 2021; Messina 2021.

18

Chapter 1

undated papyri can help establish a plausible dating range for the entire archive. Since letters and administrative documents often name certain individuals, other papyri from the same archive can help to clarify who these individuals were. In some instances, it is even possible to fill in lacunae from a fragmentary papyrus with the assistance of related papyri from the same archive. The work of identifying discrete archives, especially within large finds of papyri is a daunting task today, because careful records were not always kept as to the precise find site and which other papyri were discovered together. Fortunately, some of those records are available, which have allowed for the reconstitution of some archives (see, e.g., P.Mich. 21). Recent papyrus and ostraca excavations put great emphasis on the collection and analysis of such data (see, e.g., O.Krok. 1 and 2; O.Did.). An assemblage or “archive” can be identified provisionally where the contents and/or scribal hand display sufficient similarities to warrant a conclusion that they originated from the same scribe or household. Archives are most easily identified when the papyri or ostraca in question were found in the same find site, for example, preserved in a jar or wrapped in cloth (see, e.g., B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt in P.Oxy. 2, p. 8), recovered from the cartonnage of the same mummy case, in which discarded papyri were re-used as filler, or carefully excavated from the same layer of a rubbish dump (see again O.Krok. 1 and 2; O.Did.). More rarely, assemblages of papyri were discovered in the course of the excavation of buildings, where multiple papyri were found in the same room (e.g., P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139] and 491 [2.140] from II CE) or in the rooms of related houses (e.g., P.Cair.Mich. 2 and 3). A special highlight in this regard are the archives of the two Jewish women Babatha and Salome Komaïse, found in the “Cave of Letters” in the Judean Desert (TM Arch 41 and 207, published in P.Yadin 1 and 2 as well as in P.Hever). They provide authentic information about the economic status of women in Judea and Nabataea in the early second century CE, as well as about interactions between Judeans and other ethnic groups. Discrete archives are more difficult to reconstruct when papyri had been purchased from antiquities dealers, since the find sites are often not disclosed by the dealer. Yet even in these cases, archives can provisionally be identified on the basis of contents (appearance of the same names in a group of papyri) or when papyri were purchased in the same batch. It is not always clear, however, how or why assemblages belong together: “archive” might represent some or all of the records of a particular administrator or family; or they may simply be a portion of an individual’s archive that was collected for disposal. Moreover, since the blank side of a documentary text might be used, for example, to write a letter, it is not necessarily the case that both sides of a papyrus belong to the

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

19

same archive; it is easily possible that the blank side of a discarded administrative letter was used by someone else to write an entirely unrelated document (e.g., a letter, or a receipt, or a list). As of April  2023, Trismegistos lists 418 archives (see TM Arch) dated between the third century BCE and the third century CE. The majority are in Greek and Demotic, but there are also bilingual archives in Greek/Demotic, Greek/Coptic, and Greek/Latin, and some trilingual archives in Greek/Latin/ Syriac, Greek/Latin/Coptic, and Aramaic/Greek/Nabatean. Collectively, these archives represent nearly 20,000 documents. The following selection may be representative for our purpose. The Archive of Zenon son of Agreophon (TM Arch 256) is the largest archive from Ptolemaic Egypt, consisting of over 1,800 documents in Greek, ten in Demotic, and fourteen bilingual. Zenon, who hailed from Kaunos in Caria, was the estate manager for Apollonios, the finance minister of Ptolemy II. Zenon served first as Apollonios’s business representative and private secretary and from 256 BCE till 248/247 BCE as manager of Apollonios’s 10,000 aroura estate near Philadelphia in the Arsinoites. The archive contains a few items from before Zenon’s tenure as manager, and others after the end of his employment with Apollonios. The latest document in the archive is from 229 BCE (C.Ord. Ptol. 28). The Zenon archive is significant for several reasons. First, because Zenon visited Palestine in the late 260s as a representative of Apollonios, some of his letters and reports provide a rare glimpse of Ptolemaic holdings in Palestine and how those properties were managed, especially on the eve of the Second Syrian War that broke out there between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid rulers. Zenon’s trips took him to Straton’s Tower, Jerusalem, Jericho, Ptolemais (Akko), Idumaea, and the territories of controlled by Toubias in the Trans-Jordan. Second, the extensive correspondence in the archive allows for the reconstruction of Apollonios’s holdings in the Delta and in Arsinoites, and the management of these properties by several managers, including Zenon’s management of Apollonios’s 10,000 aroura estate. About 40% of the archive is the extensive correspondence between Zenon and Apollonios, Zenon’s predecessor as manager, Panakestor, his sucessors Eukles and Bion, and a variety of others. The archive also contains a variety of genres: petitions, farm accounts, receipts (including receipts with both an inside and an outside text and some which also had a text in Demotic), lists (including a list of the cloth that Zenon kept, organized by type—short mantles, tunics, cloaks, pillow cases, etc., P.Cair.Zen. 1.59092), and contracts or leases. Literary texts include two epitaphs apparently composed by Zenon (P.Cair.Zen. 4.59532) and a tragic or lyric fragment (P.Cair.Zen. 4.59533).

20

Chapter 1

The archive of Athenodoros (TM Arch 26) consists of 76 texts of which one is uncertain and one related. The papyri were retrieved from mummy cartonnage and edited by W. M. Brashear in BGU 16 (nos. 2600–2674; no. 2673 preserves two accounts, one on the recto, one on the verso); a further text was edited by G.  Messeri (PSI 15.1539). Besides some petitions, accounts and two lists, the archive contains mainly letters addressed to or written by Athenodoros, a manager of the estate of a certain Asklepiades in the Herakleopolite nome (Armoni 2018, 123–26). The documents belong to a period between 21/20 BCE and 5 CE and thus represent important evidence from the time of Augustus, which until then had not been documented extensively in the papyri. Although Athenodoros is referred to as dioiketes in several documents, it is unlikely that he held a public office. Instead, in these early Roman documents, the designation dioiketes was probably used for administrators of private estates. Athenodoros will have been considered an influential personality in the region, which qualified him as a recipient of petitions from the local population. The letters are a treasure trove containing many variants of the epistolary opening greeting (see PNT 2, pp. 79–83). Athenodoros’s network, which can only be determined on the basis of the archive, also testifies to the wide use of the metaphorical use of the form of address “brother” for friends, acquaintances, and business partners (see PNT 2, pp. 89–90). With the archive of the weaver Tryphon (TM Arch 249) we have access to a family that ran a weaving workshop in Oxyrhynchos at least for four generations. The 41 documents cover a wide range of subjects related to the management of the weaving workshop and the family’s household, among them receipts of the weavers’ tax and other types of taxes, the sale of a loom, a loan contract, apprenticeship contracts, a complaint against Tryphon’s ex-wife and other petitions, the novation of a nurse contract, a release of Tryphon from liability for military service due to poor eyesight, private letters, and two horoscopes. A similar and contemporary archive is that of the weaver Pausiris son of Pausiris (TM Arch 176).9 The dossier of Philokles (TM Arch 621) is mentioned here as an example of several ostraca archives that have been systematically archaeologically excavated in the recent past. The dossier of Philokles (TM Arch 621) is mentioned here as an example of several ostraca archives that have been archaeologically excavated from the rubbish dumps next to Roman military camps in Egypt’s Eastern Desert. In this way, not only the chronological circumstances, but also 9 On both archives and their evaluation for the craft of Paul of Tarsus, see *Arzt-Grabner 2019. See more on this in PNT 4.

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

21

the relationships of the involved persons among each other could be systematically reconstructed (see the prosopography by A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, pp. 38–41). The central figure of the archive, a certain Philokles, was apparently a Greek-speaking Egyptian who earned his living by selling vegetables and renting women to the Roman soldiers in the military camps of Krokodilo (today’s El-Muwayh, TM Geo 3655) and Didymoi (today’s Khashm el-Menih, TM Geo 3125). The ostraca have been excavated in Didymoi in stratigraphic contexts of roughly 110–140 CE and in Krokodilo in stratigraphic contexts of the reign of Trajan (98–117 CE) or early in the reign of Hadrian (117–138 CE). It is striking how all the writers of the ostracon letters “address each other as brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, masters, etc.” (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Krok. 2, p. 37). In addition, the archive provides many insights, some of them highly dramatic, into the world of pimps, prostitutes, and their clients in the late first and early second centuries CE. The archive of the tax collector Sokrates son of Sarapion and his family (TM Arch 109) comprises about 200 papyri in Greek and Latin from the period between 142 and 185 CE, including letters, a wide variety of administrative documents relating to taxes, compulsory labor, and the census, and other documents. These texts allow for a reconstruction of a network of family members and a network of administrators in villages near Karanis, but also much more distant connections that they had with the nome capital and with persons in Alexandria. A particularly interesting feature of the Sokrates archive is the fact that it also includes many literary texts (see pp. 84–85). Another very extensive archive and one of the most studied archives in papyrology is the archive of the estate manager Heroninos (TM Arch  103), which includes 432 published papyri, 8 that are uncertainly ascribed to the archive, and another 600 awaiting publication. The archive dates to the first three quarters of the third century CE and consists mainly of business letters and accounts associated with several estates belonging to Aurelius Appianus, a city councilor of Alexandria and a Roman equestrian. Several of his estates in the Arsinoite nome were overseen by his administrator, Alypios, himself a landowner and resident in the metropolis of Arsinoë-Krokodilopolis. Alypios supervised at least fifteen administrators (οἰκονόμοι), some who were also councilors of either Alexandria or Arsinoë-Krokodilopolis. Individual estates were managed by φροντίσται (managers), including an estate of about 100 ha. near Theadelphia, managed by Heroninos between 249 and 268 CE and later by his son Herondas (Rathbone 1991, 359–62). While many of the papyri in this archive concern the management of the estate near Theadelphia, there are at least five subarchives relating to other estates belonging to Appianus (Rathbone 1991,

22

Chapter 1

410–17). Moreover, many of the papyri have been reused and new texts written on the blank side of older papyri, some unrelated to the Appianus estates but instead to the administration of the nome (Rathbone 2009). The importance of such archives as the Heroninos archive are at least twofold. First, the sheer volume of papyri in this archive has allowed for a reconstruction of the economy of large estates such as Appianus’s holdings. Through an analysis of the archive Rathbone (1991; 2005) contested earlier “primitivist” understandings of the ancient economy and argued, for example, that the economy of Egypt in the third century CE was already heavily monetized; that many of Appianus’s estates were privately owned rather than leased from the State; that the majority of the labor was free rather than enslaved (although there were some slaves); that workers were paid in cash; and more generally, that the Heroninos archive demonstrated an economic rationalism which, although it was “limited” or “bounded” by the constraints of transportation, storage, and other factors, “was interested in efficiency, productivity, profitability” (Rathbone 2005, 267). Second, and this is true of most archives, an archive allows for a “thicker” reconstruction of the various social and economic relationships of the persons, estates, villages, cities, and institutions named in the documents of the archive. Thus, it becomes possible to reconstruct the administrative structure of Appianus’s estates and the relationships between the administrator and the various οἰκονόμοι and φροντίσται below him, as well as the lateral relationships that Heroninos had with the managers of adjacent estates. Archives, in short, are of considerable value because as assemblages of papyri or ostraca that derive from a single scribe, or single family, or single association they greatly expand the interpretive context for understanding individual members of those archives. They allow the interpreter to relate each named individual in a single papyrus to others in the archive, and they illustrate the range of activities and pursuits of members of the network visible in each archive.

Papyrology, a Vibrant Field of Research

Literature P.  Arzt-Grabner 2012, “Neuigkeiten aus der Papyrologie,” Early Christianity  3:111–15; P. Arzt-Grabner 2015, “Neuigkeiten aus der Papyrologie (2),” Early Christianity 6:561–69; P. Arzt-Grabner 2020c, “Neuigkeiten aus der Papyrologie (3),” Early Christianity 11:121– 31; R. S. Bagnall 1991, “The Beginning of the Roman Census in Egypt,” GRBS 32:255– 65; B.  Palme 1993, “Die ägyptische κατ’ οἰκίαν ἀπογραφή und Lk  2,1-5,” PzB 2:1–24; B. Palme 1994, “Neues zum ägyptischen Provinzialzensus: Ein Nachtrag zum Artikel

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

23

PzB  2 (1993) 1–24,” PzB 3:1–7; P.  van  Minnen 1993, “The Century of Papyrology (1892–1992),” BASP 30:5–18; P.  van  Minnen 2007, “The Millennium of Papyrology (2000–)?,” in PapCongr. 23, 703–14; P. van Minnen 2009, “The Future of Papyrology,” in *Bagnall 2009, 644–60.

Perhaps more than other scholars, papyrologists never say “never” but rather “so far” or “not yet.” Documentary papyri, ostraca, and tablets provide a body of evidence that is always based only on what has surfaced and been edited to date. It must not be forgotten that most of the material comes from the garbage dumps of antiquity, which means that once disposed of, it should never be of importance again. Much more rarely, papyri were still found in houses or where they had been stored for further use. Furthermore, papyrus in particular could be preserved only where it was protected from moisture. This explains, on the one hand, why the most extensive finds come from garbage heaps set up behind villages in places too far from the Nile for irrigation, and from the desert areas of Israel and Syria, and, on the other hand, why, for example, papyri from the Nile delta with the provincial capital Alexandria are only available in small numbers. In the relatively short history of papyrology, it has already happened often enough, and it will certainly continue to happen that a single new edition can significantly change a certain picture or the entire record of a subject. We present here only a small selection of typical examples. It is certainly one of the favorable moments in papyrology when fragments scattered within a collection but belonging to one and the same document are brought together. Sometimes such fragments are even distributed among several collections. A particular example of this is SB 20.14440 [1.10] (22 Jan? 12 CE). The evidence for the Egyptian census before 33 CE had been very obscure for a long time. Only when R. S. Bagnall (1991) identified P.Col. inv. 8 as the lower part of the census declaration P.Mil. 1.3 (already published in 1928 and re-published in the second edition of 1967), the census could be traced back to the year 11/10 BCE. Moreover, the now completed document, SB 20.14440, proved that the census under Quirinius mentioned in Luke 2:1 was not a general census, that is, conducted throughout the empire in the same year, but a provincial census (Palme 1994); as SB 20.14440 mentions, in Egypt the declarations were demanded in 4/5 CE, while the census in Judea was conducted in 6/7 CE (cf. Josephus, A.J. 17.13.5; 18.1.1; 18.2.1; B.J. 7.8.1; ILS 2683.7–8). The private letter P.Worp 16 [1.11] (30 Aug–28 Sep 11 CE?), edited by G. Messeri in 2008, preserves the phrase μὴ φοβοῦ (“do not be afraid”) in lines 2 and 3, attested here for the very first time in a documentary papyrus. The papyrus letter casts a rather ambiguous light on said appeal, because its sender asks a certain Phlelemouthis to bring specific tools to safety and to conceal from the

24

Chapter 1

mine director (metallarches) where they are. He should not be afraid to do so. However, Jesus’s oft-repeated appeal, “Do not be afraid” (e.g., Mark 5:36; 6:50; Luke 12:32; John 6:20), has nothing to do with secretiveness. His followers are to take a stand openly and not to be afraid of anything or anyone. In connection with equal pay for unequal working hours in the vineyard (Matt 20:1–16), the petition P.Köln 10.413 [1.12] (Sep 142 BCE) is instructive. The document was edited by P. Brosch in 2003 and indicates that different wages were agreed with the laborers with their consent, even though they apparently all perform irrigation work for an equal amount of time. Both the papyrus and the parable confirm that agreements, even if they contain inequities, cannot be challenged if they have been reached by mutual consent. Moreover, the papyrus demonstrates that if no agreement is concluded at all, the laborers run the risk of not being paid or being paid unfairly. The point of the parable, then, is not that everyone, regardless of how long they have worked in the vineyard, will receive the same pay, but that those who take the risk of working as faithful laborers in God’s vineyard (the second and third groups in the parable) will be generously rewarded. P.Köln 14.573 [1.13] (II CE), edited by K. Maresch in 2015, provides a striking parallel to the fatal fall of Eutychus according to Acts 20:9. A strategos here acknowledges proper receipt of a petition reporting that a girl has fallen from the upper floor of a house and died. Normally, such a petition also included a request to conduct an official and medical investigation. And indeed, the strategos now gives the order to appoint a doctor of the nome to carry out a thorough investigation of the corpse. Sometimes documentary papyri are even helpful in discussing questions that at first did not seem appropriate to be explored with this material, such as 2 Thess as pseudepigraphy (see A Closer Look #2) or the compilation of 2 Cor (see A Closer Look #3).

A Closer Look #2: Who Wrote Second Thessalonians?

Literature P.  Arzt-Grabner 2001, “Die Weberlehrverträge des 1. Jhs. und der Brief des Apostels Paulus an Philemon,” in PapCongr. 22, 71–75; *Arzt-Grabner 2003; *Arzt-Grabner 2019b; *Arzt-Grabner et al. 2006; C. L. Bjerkelund 1967, Parakalô: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den paulinischen Briefen, Bibliotheca Theologica Norvegica 1 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget); E. Dickey 2010, “Latin Influence and Greek Request Formulae,” in *Evans and Obbink 2010, 208–20; *Kreinecker 2010a; 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.  K.  Stowers 1986, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, LEC 5 (Philadelphia: Westminster).

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

25

Pseudepigraphy, the attribution of a text to an author who did not write it, is a debated phenomenon for a variety of New Testament writings, including the so-called disputed Pauline epistles (Col, Eph, 2 Thess and the Pastoral epistles) and the Catholic epistles. In contrast to these, the authorship of the “undisputed” Pauline epistles (Rom, 1 and 2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, and Phlm) is rarely questioned. Assuming pseudepigraphy for a text often presupposes a certain knowledge of the claimed author and, where possible, other writings of the same author. Arguing in favor or against a certain author for a New Testament writing draws on a variety of arguments, including historical, textual, exegetical, theological and literary ones. It often involves expectations of typical vocabulary and topics as well as a certain degree of consistency. The question whether documentary papyri can provide information useful to the discussion of New Testament authorship may seem unusual at first glance. For how can one expect everyday texts from a non-Christian background to hold information that could contribute to any discussion of pseudepigraphy? Clearly, documentary papyri can neither identify nor exclude a certain person as an author of a New Testament writing. However, they hold indirect information about authors and text genres which can advance the discussion of authorship for the New Testament. First, documentary papyri can reveal information concerning an author based on word choice, idioms and typical renderings that can be identified as specific to a certain socio-historical background and occupational field. Second, documentary papyri provide information about various text genres and their characteristics like ancient letter conventions. Based on such conventions, deviations and differences can be noted and interpreted in comparison. For if two letters which claim to be written by the same author would differ significantly in the information they provide about the sociohistorical background of the author and in the execution of ancient letter conventions, it would seem more likely that one of them is pseudepigraphic. The following provides examples from 2  Thess based on comparison with documentary papyri to illustrate the use of documentary papyri in the discussion of pseudepigraphy. To investigate the possible social background of the author of 2 Thess, the words and phrases of 2 Thess can be compared to their use in everyday texts. Such a comparison reveals a high proportion of terminology that was used in official and legal contexts. This suggests that the author of 2 Thess was familiar with such contexts in his everyday life. It is worth observing that there was no “legal language” as such established or institutionalized in the Greco-Roman world in the first centuries CE. Yet documentary papyri can demonstrate that certain words and phrases were frequently or even exclusively used in legal contexts, contracts and other official communication. A few examples from the beginning of the letter may suffice to illustrate this point (for more see

26

Chapter 1

*Kreinecker 2010a, 66–74). Words and phrases attested in documentary papyri concerning court proceedings include “obeying” (2 Thess 1:8), that is following a summons when called before court (“calling” and “called” in 2 Thess 1:11 and 2:14); giving “testimony” on the “day” of a hearing (2 Thess 1:10) which can result in false statements (“lies” in 2 Thess 2:9, 11) or telling the “truth” (2 Thess 2:10, 12). Not following a summons had negative consequences in everyday life and a similar scenario is pictured in 2 Thess 1:9 for not following the call of God. Among other words that can generally refer to law or to an official legal context in documentary papyri are “the lawless” (2  Thess  2:8), “lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:3, 7), “deceiving” (2 Thess 2:3), “deceit” (2 Thess 2:9), “destruction” (2 Thess 2:3), “kill” (2 Thess 2:8), “error” (2 Thess 2:11), “injustice” (2 Thess 2:10, 12) and many more. Some examples from contractual language use attested in documentary papyri are “fulfil” (2 Thess 1:11) to indicate the fulfilment of a contract, or “legally consented” (NRSV: “took pleasure”) in 2  Thess  2:12. The phrase “in no way” (2 Thess 2:3) is used nowhere else in the New Testament, yet in documentary papyri it exclusively occurs in legal contracts and official documents to express and emphasize validity. Papyrological examples are well attested (*Kreinecker 2010a, 159–60); P.Oxy. 2.263 (21 Apr 77 CE), P.Oxy.Hels. 31 (27 Mar–25 Apr 86 CE) and P.Oxy. 2.270 (26 Jan–24 Feb 94 CE) date closest to the time of Pauline epistles. That the author would employ such a phrase seems particularly revealing when examined in a broader context. It is striking that words and phrases with papyrologically attested legal and official contexts appear more frequently in 2 Thess than in undisputed Pauline. What weighs even more in this observation is that they are not only employed in those contexts where they also appear in undisputed Pauline epistles (legal matters and questions of judgment) but also in the practical questions concerning the community (*Kreinecker 2010a, 66–71). The author of 2  Thess seems familiar with legal contexts and their typical vocabulary which suggests a social background in which contracts, court proceedings and official communication were part of everyday life, perhaps an administrative occupation (*Kreinecker 2010a, 71–74). This is, however, a different background than the one established for the apostle Paul based on Phlm, 1 and 2 Cor in comparison to documentary papyri. There the author Paul seems rather familiar with everyday life and language of a textile industry and weavers (*Arzt-Grabner 2003, 63–70; Arzt-Grabner 2001; *Arzt-Grabner 2019b). Concerning the letter format, 2 Thess seems unambiguous at first glance: the same letter opening as in 1 Thess and other undisputed Pauline epistles is employed (2 Thess 1:1–2), also the letter ending in 2 Thess 3:18 is well known from other Pauline writings. The explicit mention of the author’s own hand (2  Thess  3:17) is attested in undisputed epistles as well (1  Cor  16:21; Gal  6:11;

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

27

Phlm 19). At second glance, however, and against documentary papyri, there are various unusual phrases in 2  Thess from an epistolary perspective (see *Kreinecker 2010a, 74–99; Kreinecker 2013). While the use of epistolary conventions in the undisputed Pauline epistles corresponds to the use attested in documentary papyri, 2 Thess often slightly, yet significantly deviates from these conventions. One example is the specification in 2  Thess  1:3 that the author “must give thanks” instead of just giving thanks as it is attested both in documentary papyri and undisputed Pauline epistles (Rom 1:8; 16:4; 1 Cor 1:4; 1:14; 14:18; Phil  1:3; 1  Thess  1:2; 2:13; Phlm  4). Another example is the use of request formulas in 2  Thess (*Kreinecker 2010a, 76–99; Kreinecker 2013). There are two words used to express requests in 2  Thess, the first one, ἐρωτάω (“to ask”), stands in 2 Thess 2:1 at the beginning of an apocalyptic passage about the day of the Lord. The second one, παρακαλέω (“to beg”), stands in 2 Thess 3:12 and concerns practical advice for the community. The verb παρακαλέω is the most common verb in documentary papyri for requests, including official and personal requests (cf. Stowers 1986, 24; Bjerkelund 1967, 34–58, *Arzt-Grabner 2006, 58–59). However, ἐρωτάω is a very specific verb almost exclusively used in letters of personal interest for requests concerning interpersonal relationships as well as everyday legal and business matters that have a direct impact on the personal life of the people who raise them. Unlike in 2 Thess 2:1 with its context of orthodoxy, requests with ἐρωτῶ (“I ask”) in documentary papyri express a close relationship and personal involvement. One example to illustrate this is P.Col. 8.215 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE), a personal letter by a certain Apollonous to her mother Thermouthas. The letter employs typical formulas and letter conventions and is mainly concerned about the health of the mother and a little girl that is mentioned throughout the letter. Four times Apollonous uses the word ἐρωτῶ, twice to ask for letters with news (lines 15–20), twice combined with παρακαλῶ (“I beg”) to emphasize her requests concerning the health of her mother and that of the little girl (lines 8–12) and concerning an everyday visit of the little girl (lines 21–23). The intensified combination of the two verbs for requests, ἐρωτάω and παρακαλέω, to express intense personal requests is also attested in other personal letters, including BGU 4.1141.9– 11 [2.58] (14–13  BCE?); P.Oxy. 4.744.6–8 [2.67] (17  Jun  1  BCE); SB 5.7600.4–8 [1.38] (12 Apr 16 CE); O.Berenike 2.129.8 [2.79] (about 50–75 CE) and P.Stras. 5.334b.5–8 (I–II CE). The existence and the use of this request combination is an important observation when considering the authorship of 2 Thess. For the same papyrologically attested combination of an intensified request (ἐρωτῶ and παρακαλῶ) can be found in the undisputed Pauline epistles in 1 Thess 4:1 to urge the community to live a life that pleases God. In 2 Thess 3:12, however, the author intensifies his request, in a manner different from what we find in

28

Chapter 1

documentary papyri and 1 Thess 4:1 by combining παρακαλέω and παραγγέλλω (“to command”). As shown above for other instances in 2 Thess, documentary papyri demonstrate that “to command” is a word primarily used in official and legal contexts. It is not attested for personal requests or for intensifying them with παρακαλέω. From a papyrological perspective, the combination in 2  Thess  3:12 is thus highly unusual; it is another example, where the author of 2 Thess—unlike the author of the undisputed Pauline epistles—deviates significantly from ancient letter conventions. To account for these deviations, Kreinecker has suggested that the author of 2 Thess is more concerned with imitating 1 Thess and its vocabulary than with paying attention to the typical letter conventions and how to use them correctly (*Kreinecker 2010a, 96–99; Kreinecker 2013, 216–19). Coming back to the initial question whether documentary papyri can provide evidence useful for the question of pseudepigraphy, this can be answered positively for 2 Thess. Based on the indirect evidence provided by documentary papyri about the author’s background and abnormalities in letter conventions, it seems unlikely that both 1 and 2 Thess were written by one and the same author. However, as said at the beginning, papyrological observations alone cannot conclusively answer the question of authorship. They have to be weighed and interpreted together with other observations from exegesis, theology, and history.

Texts [1.1]–[1.14] [1.1] P.Oxy. 1.119 (TM 28410) Letter from Theon to Theon

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II–III CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1898 (P.Oxy. 1.119). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:316; 2.2:93; 3:129; 4:58. – Cf. *Milligan 1910, 102–3 no. 42; *Laudien 1912, 4–5, 33–34, 39 no. 5; *Schubart 1912, 78 no. 65; N.  O.  Lorimer 1913, A Wife out of Egypt (New York: Brentano’s; repr., 1914), 131–32, open access: https://archive.org/details/wifeoutofegypt00lori; *Schubart 1923, 94–95 no. 68; *Deissmann 1927, 201–4 no. 19, image: fig. 38 (after p.  200); *Salonius 1927, 34–35; *Winter 1933, 60; *Lietzmann 1934, 3, 13–14 no. 12; P.  Mourlon  Beernaert 1962, “La Lettre du petit Égyptien,” Études classiques 30:311–18, image after p.  316; *Metzger 1974, 41 no. 48; J.  Hengstl 1978 (C.Pap. Hengstl 82, image: Abb.  14); J.  Frösén 1992, Grammata apo tēn archaiotēta – Letters from the Ancient World: Papyrines kataskeues kai papyroi apo tēn hellēnikē kai tē rōmaikē Aigypto – Mummy Cartonnages and Papyri from Greek and Roman Egypt (Athens: Finnish Institute at Athens), 27, image: 24 no. 16; *Banfi and Foraboschi 1995, 47–49, image: 48 fig. 2; *Schubert 2000, 73–74 no. 9; *Burnet 2003a, 262–64 no. 202; D. Montserrat 2007, “News Reports: The Excavations and Their Journalistic Coverage,” in *Bowman 2007, 28–39, here 36–38; P. Parsons 2007, City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish:

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

29

Greek Lives in Roman Egypt (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson), 24 (with n. 18–19 on p. 228), 129 (with n. 39 on p. 240), image: plate 26 after p. 194; *Arzt-Grabner 2010a, 16–17; *Kotsifou 2012b, 61, 77; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 54; *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 67–68; *Clarysse 2017, 81 no. 4.4; A.  Koroli 2018, “Verbal Abuse in Ancient Greek Epistolography: The Case Study of an ‘Indecent Proposal’,” Analecta Papyrologica 30:113– 35; *Reinard 2018, 182–83. – Online information and images: https://digital.bodleian. ox.ac.uk/objects/27f88677-25da-458b-814a-ebd87682dc82/. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible. The translation reflects the linguistic peculiarities and orthographic errors of the Greek text as closely as possible. An orthographically corrected translation will be presented below.

Theon to Theon his father, greetings. You dod well, you dod not taech me with you to the city. Eef you not want to takk1 with you to Alexandria, I won’t write you |5 a letter and not speak or weesh you helth.2 And if you go to Alexandria, I will not take an hand from you and not greet you agean.3 Iph you don’t want to tage1 me, that heppenz. And my mother said to Ar|10 chelaus, he upsets me; take him awway. But you dod well, you’ve sendt me gifts, big ones, peanuts.4 They deceived oz there on day 12, because you sayld.5 Nau, send to me,6 I beg you. Iph you don’t send, I won’t |15 eat, I won’t dreenk; that. I pr you fer well. Tybi 18.

(Back)

Deliver to Theon from Theonas,7 son.8

Notes 1 Twice in the letter (in lines 3 and 8), Theon should have written the same form of the aorist infinitive “to take” (in Greek ἀπενεγκεῖν) but in both cases he gets the form wrong though using two different forms, which I tried to simulate by translating “to takke” and “to tage.” The use of different versions of one and the same form, instead of one identical version, is typical for scribes who are basically “literate but not completely certain about what is correct, and consequently not interested in checking and deciding about the spelling” (Koroli 2018, 115).

30

Chapter 1

2 The Greek term ὑγιαίνω (“to wish someone health”) is also used in the very common opening greeting formula of Greek letters χαίρειν καὶ ὑγιαίνειν (literally “to rejoice and stay healthy”). Most probably, Theon refers to this formula and wants to tell his father that he won’t write him another letter. 3 In the Greek text, the term that is used here is χαίρω, the infinitive of which is the most common formula for the opening greeting of a letter. Theon may refer to both here, meaning that he will neither greet his father orally nor write him another letter. 4 The Greek term ἀράκιον that Theon uses here is a diminutive form of ἄρακος denoting already various small-seeded pea and vetch species, which, according to Pliny the Elder, Nat. 21.89, were eaten by the Egyptians. 5 The deception was probably that Theon was promised that his father would not sail without him, but that he was suddenly gone on the 12th day of the month. 6 The meaning is: “Send someone to me to fetch me” or “send for me.” 7 Theonas is Theon’s pet name which his family obviously used for him. 8 Theon wrote down the dative of “son” but should have used the genitive.

An orthographically corrected translation reads as follows: Theon to Theon his father, greetings. You did well, you did not take me with you to the city. If you do not want to take ⟨me⟩ with you to Alexandria, I won’t write you |5 a letter and not speak to you and not wish you health.2 And if you go to Alexandria, I will neither take your hand nor greet you again.3 If you don’t want to take me (with you), that’s what will happen. Even my mother said to |10 Archelaus, “He upsets me; take him away.” But you did well, you sent me big gifts, peanuts.4 They deceived us on the 12th day, because you sailed.5 Now, send for me, I beg you. If you don’t, I won’t |15 eat, I won’t drink. For sure. I pr(ay) that you fare well. Tybi 18.

(Back)

Deliver to Theon from Little Theon,7 his son.

Notes For notes 2–5 and 7 see above.

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

31

The “impudent boyish scrawl” (*Deissmann 1927, 229) of a “rebellious schoolboy” (Parsons 2007, 129) presumably requires no further comment. It is the most famous example of irony, and one of the most emotional as well, found in documentary papyri (cf. *Clarysse 2017, 73–74; *Kotsifou 2012b, 61, 77). It is, therefore, no surprise that, after its publication, the letter became famous far beyond the papyrological community (see p. 4). The departure of a family member to the big city of Alexandria was a special event and, in particular when it happened unexpectedly, could lead to envy and disappointment; cf. SB 20.14132.26–29 [2.101] (late I/early II CE). [1.2] BGU 1.37 (TM 9086) Letter from Mystarion to Stotoetis

Greek papyrus, Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), 12 Sep 50 CE Ed. F. Krebs 1895 (BGU 1.37). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:10; 2.2:14; 12:10; *Olsson 1925, 96 (line breaks). – Cf. *Olsson 1925, 96–98 n. 32; *Deissmann 1927, 170–72 no. 8, images: fig. 27–28 (after p.  170); *Finegan 1946, 326–27, image: fig. 136 (after p.  318); H.  Koskenniemi 1956, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n.Chr. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia B/102,2 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia), 104; N.  R.  Petersen 1985, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World (Philadelphia: Fortress), 43–88; *White 1986, 138 no. 89; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 98–99; *Burnet 2003a, 204 no. 130; *Luttenberger 2012, 118– 22, image: 119; *Reinard 2016, 229 (including n. 1087). – Online information: https:// berlpap.smb.museum/01712/. The layout of the following translation reflects that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Mystarion to Stotoetis his own, very many greetings. I am sending1 you2 my own Blastos on account of forked sticks for my |5 olive groves. See that you do not hold him back; for you know how (much) I need him every hour. (h2) Farewell.3 (Year) 11 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus |10 Germanicus Emperor, in the mo(nth) Seba(stos) 15.

(Back)

(h1) To Stotoetis, chief priest,

to the island …

32

Chapter 1

Notes 1 The aorist form is certainly an epistolary aorist (the writers of ancient Greek letters wrote such phrases from the perspective of the recipients, for whom the process of writing the letter, or sending someone or something along with the letter, was already in the past when they received it). 2 Only here in the entire letter does the author address his “own” Stotoetis in the plural, but we cannot be sure whether this is meant politely or whether the plural “you” should refer to the members of the whole house or other partners of the business of Stotoetis. 3 The farewell in line 8 is indented and aligned to the right margin.

With this letter Mystarion sends his “own” Blastos to Stotoetis to get some forks for his olive groves so that the branches can be braced and will not break under the burden of the ripe olives. Since “Blastos is merely identified as the one who is authorized to carry the sticks back to Mystarion,” *White (1986, 138) consequently and correctly argued against *Deissmanns (1927, 171) suggestion that it is in the wider sense a letter of recommendation. As observed by Koskenniemi (1956, 104), the epithet “own” serves as a designation for kind or acquaintance, but often for a slave, as certainly in the letters of L. Bellienus Gemellus to his slave Epagathos (P.Fay. 110–112, 116, 120–122, all written in late I or early II CE). Petersen (1985, 79 n. 10), however, argued that it is not clear, whether “Blastus is a slave or free(d)man employee,” but that it is clear “that he is in a position of social inferiority to both Mystarion and Stotoetis.” The request not to hold him back because he is needed by Mystarion “every hour” implies the importance of Blastos as a messenger but can also be taken as a further indication that he in fact is a slave, since only the slaveholder has authority over a slave and a slave should only be useful to his master. In a similar way, Paul describes the slave Onesimus in Phlm 11 as “formerly useless but now indeed useful” and admits in vv. 13–14 that he wanted to “hold back” the slave (Paul uses the same verb as Mystarion) but preferred to do nothing without Philemon’s consent. What in the passage of Paul’s letter may sound like a concession to Philemon, is in reality a tacit agreement with the stipulated reality: Paul did not act out of friendship, but he was not allowed at all to retain the slave Onesimus without the consent of his master Philemon (cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 210, 216–17 with further papyrological references; on the comparison of this papyrus letter with Phlm 4–22 see also Petersen 1985, 43–88).

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

33

[1.3] T.Vindol. 2.248 (TM 114892) Letter from Niger and Brochus to Flavius Cerialis

Latin tablet, Vindolanda (Chesterholm)/Britannia (TM Geo 3201), 97–103 CE Ed. A. K. Bowman and J. D. Thomas 1994 (T.Vindol. 2.248). – P. Cugusi 1992 (C.Epist. Lat. 89); A. K. Bowman 1994, Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier: Vindolanda and Its People (London: British Museum Press), 130–31 no. 26. – Online information and image: http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk (“View tablet number” = 248); https://www. britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_1980-0303-21.

Niger and Brocchus to their C̣ eriạḷịṣ, greetings. We pray, brother, that in doing what you are about to do you’ll be most |5 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. |10 You will assuredly meet o(ur) governor quite soon. (h2) We pray, brother and lord, that you fare well. … ẹx̣ p̣ẹc̣ṭụṣ (?) |15 (h1) [To Fl]ạṿ[ius] Ceṛịạḷ[is] pref(ect) of the coh(ort) … This letter was written by the same scribe who wrote T.Vindol. 2.291 [1.49] and other letters from Vindolanda (cf. p. 219). Only the final greeting in lines 12–14 was written by one of the letter senders, Niger or Brocchus. The entire letter is philophronetic in character, going far beyond mere formulas. Lines 3–9 clearly reveal a prayer report as the basis (see p. 195), but they are so personal and individualized that they express genuine appreciation. In this way, they compare well with personally designed prayer reports in Greek papyrus letters from Egypt.

34

Chapter 1

[1.4] P.Bas. 2.43 (TM 30799) Letter to Paulus from Arrianus

Greek papyrus, Theadelphia/Egypt (TM Geo 2349), ca. 230 CE Ed. S. Huebner 2020 (P.Bas. 2.43, image: 186). – Cf. previous edition E. Rabel 1917 (P.Bas. 1.16); *Ghedini 1923, 60 no. 2; A. K. Bowman 1971, The Town Councils of Roman Egypt, American studies in Papyrology  11 (Toronto: Hakkert); *Naldini 1998, 73–75 no.  4; P.  van  Minnen 2022, “Notes on Papyri: P.Bas. 2.43,” BASP 59:361–363; *Blumell and Wayment 2015, 458–611; *Huebner 2019, 19–23; S. Huebner 2021, “The First Christian Family of Egypt,” in Empire and Religion in the Roman World, ed. H. I. Flower (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 117–38; P. van Minnen 2022, “Notes on Papyri: P.Bas. 2.43,” BASP 59:361–63. Probably from the Heroninus archive (TM Arch 103).

Greetings, my incomparable lord brother Paulus. I, Arrianus, salute you, praying that all is as well as possible in your life Since Menibios was going to you, |5 I thought it nece⟨ssary⟩ to salute you as well as our lord father. Now, I remind you about the gymnasiarchy, so that we are not troubled here. For Herakleides cannot put his mind to it; […]1 has been nominated to the city council (boule). |10 Therefore, find an opportunity to buy the two […] arouras. But send me the fish liver sauce, too, whichever you think good. Our lady, who bore us, is well and salutes you as well as your wives |15 and sweetest children with our brothers and all our people. Salute our brothers […]genes and Xydes. All our people |20 salute you. I pray that you are well in the L(or)d. Note 1 In her edition, Huebner argues that line 9 refers to Herakleides, and thus narrows down the date of the letter to before November 239 CE. According to P. van Minnen (2022, 361 n. 2), the beginning of line 9 “may have contained another name, say, that of a relative of Herakleides, who would already be on the council himself.”

What identifies this letter as Christian is the final formula, a modification of one of the customary closings, “I pray that you are well” to which ἐν κ(υρί)ῳ (“in the Lord”) has been added. Kyrios (“lord”) in this phrase, moreover, is not written in full but instead is abbreviated as κ̅ω̅, with a superlinear stroke. This nomen sacrum is a typically Christian abbreviation, comparable with other

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

35

nomina sacra, found in early Christian manuscripts, where, for example, θ̅ϲ ̅ serves as an abbreviation for θεός (“God”), χ̅ϲ ̅ for Χριστός (“Christ”), and π̅ να̅ ̅ for πνεῦμα (“spirit”). These abbreviations were used not only in the copying of Biblical manuscripts, but also in the private letters of Christians (*Blumell and Wayment 2015, 458–611). The writer’s advice that Paulus should attend (?) to the duties of the gymnasiarch imply that Paulus, the writer’s brother, was a person of some wealth, since those appointed as gymnasiarchs usually belonged to the civic elite, that is, those who could afford to undertake the (unpaid) duties associated with this role. Herakleides could have been the Gymnasiarch of whose Gymnasiarchy Arrianus reminds his addressee in lines 6–9 (van Minnen 2002, 361 n. 2), which implies that he belonged to the civic elite. Huebner (2021, 122 and in P.Bas. 2, p. 187) concludes, “Paulus and his brother Arrianus thus seem to originate from the well-to-do social strata of their nome, given that Paulus or their father held this post.” Huebner (2021, 123 and in Bas. 2, p. 187–188) adds that Arrianus refers to their mother (line 13) not as “our mother” but with a term borrowed from poetry (“bearing us”), an indication that Arrianus had benefited from a relatively high level of education. The letter implies that Arrianus, along with Arrianus’s mother, Paulus’s wife, and their children are in the same location, while Paulus is elsewhere, perhaps in Theadelphia where the letter was found. Since Arrianus has information about recent nominations to the city council, he is likely in Arsinoë-Krokodilopolis, which had a city council at least since 202  CE (Bowman 1971, 19). Another papyrus provenanced in Theadelphia, but probably written in Arsinoë-Krokodilopolis is SB 16.12497 + 20.14584 (253 CE), a set of nominations for liturgical positions, that is compulsory services, probably in Arsinoë. One of the candidates eligible for a liturgy was a certain Antonius Dioskoros, named as a Christian (Χρηστιανός). Dioskoros is also identified as an Alexandrian, but he had evidently settled in the Fayum. And he had sufficient wealth to be eligible for compulsory service. This papyrus is important for it indicates that in the early third century CE, at least some Christians belonged to the propertied classes and could serve in municipal offices. This is consistent with some contemporary evidence elsewhere, for example, Bithynia, where a tomb inscription from Klaudioupolis commemorates a certain Marcus Aurelius Demetrinos, a Christian, who had served as the city’s first archon and who had who all civic other offices (I.Klaudiou Polis 44).

36

Chapter 1

[1.5] P.Princ. 2.24 (TM 17353) Declaration of sheep and goats

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), 25 Jan 21 CE Ed. E.  H.  Kase 1936 (P.Princ. 2.24). – Addenda/corrigenda: BL 8:2843; 12:163. – Cf. C. Balconi 1984, “ΑΠΟΓΡΑΦΑΙ ΠΡΟΒΑΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΙΓΩΝ dell’età di Tiberio e Caligola (P. Oxy. 354; 350; 356; 352; 355),” Aeg 64:35–60; J. S. Kloppenborg 2010, “Pastoralism, Papyri and the Parable of the Shepherd,” in *Arzt-Grabner Kreinecker 2010, 47–69; *Kloppenborg and Callon 2010. – Online information and image: https://dpul. princeton.edu/papyri/catalog/ft848v12x.

She(ep) 1̣0̣9̣, g[oa(ts) 3].1 (h2) To Ḥịẹṛạx̣ , strategos, from Taarmiysis |5 … I register for the current 7th (year) of Tiberius Caesar Augustus the one hundred nine sheep |10 and three goats belong(ing) to me, (making)2 she(ep) 109, goat(s) 3;1 and the lamb(s) and kids following, which will graze near Pela in the Western |15 Top(archy) and throughout the entire no(me), the sheph(erd) being Petseiris son of Petseiris, (registered for the) laogr(aphia) in Sesphtha in the Lower Toparch(y), for which |20 I will also pay the appropriate (sheep) tax. Be fortunate.3 —— (h3) I, Sarapion the top(arch) have regist(ered) sheep one hundred nine,1 |25 goats three,1 (making)2 sh(eep) 109, goat(s) 3.1 Year 7 of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Tybi 30. Notes 1 Throughout the document we observe a typical way of counting: first the object is mentioned (in this case sheep or goats), then the relevant number. 2 The Greek form γίνονται, which is translated here as “making,” is used for recording the sum. Rather typically, the numbers are given twice, first spelled out (“one hundred nine sheep, and three goats”) and then repeated in numerals to prevent tampering with the numbers. As usual, γίνονται is abbreviated as an oblique stroke (/). 3 The final greeting “be fortunate” (imperative; in Greek εὐτύχει) 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. Examples from private letters are rare; one from the first century CE is CPR 7.52.12.

The registration indicates that the owner of the sheep, a woman named Taarmiysis, is not the herdsman. In declarations of this type, the herdsman’s village of tax registration is typically named, since the herdsman (here Petseiris son of Petseiris) was mobile (ranging throughout the nome) and there is no

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

37

necessary reason why the herdsman and the flock owner should come from the same village. In this case the owner’s village is lost in the lacuna (line 1) but the herdsman is from Sesphtha (TM Geo 2126) in the Lower Toparchy. The flock is to range in the Western Toparchy (TM Geo 5478), near Pela (TM Geo 2875). The declaration also illustrates the point that a single herdsman could be responsible for a flock of a hundred (or more) sheep. In fact, other tax declarations indicate that flocks under the control of a single herdsman ranged from twenty-five to one hundred fifty animals (*Kloppenborg and Callon 2010, 226 n. 18), and that owners of smaller flocks might combine their animals into a larger flock and place them in the case of one herdsman rather than each individually employing a herdsman (see, e.g., P.Oxy. 84.5435 [1.6], 21 CE). Hence, the size of the flock is no indication of the wealth or status of the owner(s) of the flock, and so speculations as to the economic standing of the “man” in Matt 18:10–14 || Luke 15:4–7 are idle. P.Princ. 2.24 also illustrates the distribution of taxes between the herdsman, who paid the poll tax (laographia) and the flock owner, who paid the sheep-tax. The declaration seems to have been written by the owner, Taarmiysis, addressed to the strategos, but actually submitted by the toparch Sarapion, who in his own hand confirmed the registration. See also P.Oxy. 38.2850 with BL 8:262 (Oxyrhynchos, 29 CE) for a similar declaration, addressed to Chaireas with a subscription in Sarapion’s hand. Similar declarations of livestock to the strategos Hierax are P.IFAO 3.43; P.Oxy. 55.3779 (both 20–21  CE); 3778 (28 Jan 21 CE); P.NYU 2.12 (ca. Jan–Feb 21 CE); 84.5435 [1.6]; 5436 (both 21 CE); 5437 (25 Jan 21 CE); SB 12.10794 (21 CE). [1.6] P.Oxy. 84.5435 (TM 832225) Collective declaration of sheep and goats

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), 21 CE Ed. M. Langelotti 2019 (P.Oxy. 84.5435). – Online information and images: https://doi. org/10.25446/oxford.20465667.v1.

(h2) … Senepta. (h1) To Hierax, strategos, from Dionysodoros son of |5 Eros and Phetsi(ris) son of Eros and Pap[ontos] son of Eutychion. [We regi(ster)] for the current 7th [year] of Tiberius C[aesar Augustus] |10 the sheep belong[ing to us]: fifty-five sheep, five goats belonging to Dionysodoros, forty sheep belonging to |15 Phetsiris, ten sheep belonging to Papontos, (making) in to(tal) 105 sh(eep), 5 go(ats),1

38

Chapter 1

and the lambs and kids following, |20 mixed toge(ther), which (will) graze around Senepta in the Middle Toparch(y) and throughout the whole nome, the shepherd being one of the |25 aforementioned, Papontos, (registered for the) laogra(phia) at Sesphtha in the Lower Toparch(y), and for which we will pay the appropr(iate) (sheep) t[ax]. [Be fortunate.]2 |30 (h3) [?] I, Apollo(nios), top(arch), [have sign(ed) for sh(eep) one hu]ndred and five [, go(ats) five]1 … […] … […] Notes 1 See notes 1 and 2 of the notes on P.Princ. 2.24 [1.5]. 2 On the final greeting, which is restored here, see note 3 of the notes on P.Princ. 2.24 [1.5].

On this type of document in general, see the commentary on P.Princ. 2.24 [1.5]. Other contemporary collective declarations from the Oxyrhynchite nome are P.IFAO 1.5 (8/7 BCE), P.Berl.Möller 7 (27 Dec 8–25 Jan 9 CE?), P.Oxy. 71.4823 (30  BCE–14  CE), 55.3778 (28  Jan  21  CE), 3779 (20/21  CE), and 2.245 (30 Jan 26 CE). [1.7] P.Princ. 2.23 (TM 44956). Complaint about shepherds

Greek papyrus, Theadelphia/Egypt (TM Geo 2349), after 13 Apr 13 CE Ed. E. H. Kase 1936 (P.Princ. 2.23). – Cf. B. D. Shaw 1984, “Bandits in the Roman Empire,” P&P  105:5–52; T.  Grünewald 1999, Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality (London: Routledge); J.  S.  Kloppenborg 2009, “Unsocial Bandits.” In A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Sean Freyne, ed. Z. Rogers, JSJSup 132 (Leiden and Boston: Brill),  451–84; idem 2015, “Hirten und andere Kriminelle: Über die Anwendung von Modellen in der historischen Kritik,” in Alte Texte in neuen Kontexten: Wo steht die sozialwissenschaftliche Bibelexegese?, ed. W.  Stegemann and R.  DeMaris (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), 241–64. – Online information and image: https://dpul.princeton.edu/ papyri/catalog/n009w5816. Archive of the public farmers Harthotes and his brother Marsisouchos (TM Arch 99).

To Quintus Pacillius Euxinus, chief of the police, from Harthotes son of Marreis, one of the public farmers |5 from Theadelphia. On the night that leads up to the 18th of Pharmouthi, in the 42nd year

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

39

of Caesar, the shepherds of the village, having assaulted the royal land that is |10 farmed by me, destroyed half an aroura of my hay. Wherefore I ask if it seems right, that the accused be |15 brought to you at the coming assizes. Farewell. This papyrus illustrates important aspects of transhumance—that sheep are predators on agricultural crops and for that reason need to be kept away from farmsteads, except after the harvest, when sheep are useful in fertilizing the stubble. Yet because sheep are very efficient in reducing grass quickly, they must be moved from range to range on a daily basis. Hence, the temptation of herdsmen to let their sheep graze on agricultural fields and cause damage. In the case of P.Princ. 2.23, the complaint implies a degree of violence (lines 7–8 ἐπιβαλόντες), but the actual offence is likely allowing the sheep to damage the owner’s crop of hay. Complaints to the police typically inflate the offence, by claiming that the theft was “like banditry” (see Kloppenborg 2009, 475). Grünewald (1999, 24–31) has examined a collection of 29 police complaints from Euhemeria in the Fayum, P.Ryl. 2.124–152, all written between 28 and 42 CE. About one-half concern the theft of animals or crops, and six involve the theft of hay or wheat (P.Ryl. 2.129; 132; 135; 137; 139; 142). Nine are complaints against shepherds who allowed their sheep to graze on farmland (P.Ryl. 2.126; 131–132; 128; 141; 143; 147; 149; 152). These complaints take the same form as that seen in P.Princ. 2.23, although unlike the case in P.Princ. 2.23, all of the complainants in P.Ryl. 2 knew the identity of the shepherds. Herdsmen occupied a distinct niche in ancient agrarian societies: hired workers responsible for flocks that they did not own; low-status workers unsupervised by estate managers (because of the nature of transhumance); and workers who ranged widely throughout the nome, who were also armed. Roman sources sometimes equate shepherds with bandits (Shaw 1984, 31). These features of shepherding help to make sense of the relatively high incidence of complaints against shepherds who, because of the structural features of transhumance, existed on the vague boundaries between agricultural workers and criminals.

40

Chapter 1

[1.8] P.Oxy. 80.5245 (TM 388551) Six iatromagical recipes

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egpyt (TM Geo 1524), II CE Ed. M. Hirt 2014 (P.Oxy. 80.5245, image: plate XII). – Online information and image: https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21185587.v1.

[For] headache: wear a leaf of plantain. [For] styes in the eyes: decapitate [ants] and rub with the |5 [remainder] of the neck. [For sharp-]sightedness:1 smear Cyrenaic2 juice. [For ophthal]mia: write on a small piece of papyrus |10 […] … […] wear […]. [For drunken heada]che: wear leaves of Alexandrian [chamaedaph]ne strung together. […]: […] of cyclamen or |15 […] and the half […] … […] Notes 1 The initial symptom is a speck in mid-height. 2 Cyrenaic silphium was considered the most potent (for references see M. Hirt in P.Oxy. 80, p. 133).

Each of the six iatromagical recipes starts on a new line, with the line spacing between recipes slightly larger than that within a recipe. All six are concerned with the head or the eyes. The substances mentioned are listed without quantities. The recipe for ophthalmia seems to have included a magical formula to be written on the papyrus and worn close to the body as an amulet, but the formula has not been preserved. That the chamaedaphne (Ruscus racemosus L.), also called Alexandrian laurel, was used to treat headaches is also attested by Pliny the Elder, Nat. 24.132, and Dioscorides Pedanius  4.147. The “drunken headache cure” of stringing leaves of this shrub together and presumably wearing the strand around the neck is attested only here and, after its publication, even gained the attention of some mass media (e.g., Daily Mail, 22 Apr 2015, https://www.dailymail. co.uk/sciencetech/article-3050363/).

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

41

[1.9] P.Oxy. 80.5246 (TM 388552) Two recipes

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egpyt (TM Geo 1524), II–III CE Ed. M. Hirt 2014 (P.Oxy. 80.5245, image: plate X). – Online information and images: https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21185596.v1.

[…] I obtained from Maximus the stone cutter [… pre]pare: boil the juice of soaked linseed […] with oil and having made […] ointment, apply it. Immediately |5 [… it reduces ?] the inflammation. He said [that …] to boil […] due to the cooling effect for hot gout.1 I […] to make a juice that can (?) […] at once […] the seeds |10 […] the ointment […] |12 […] the external application […] … […] … […] Note 1 The Greek term used here is θερμὴ παδάγρα (translated above as “hot gout”); ποδάγρα is not only the term for “gout” but includes also more generally defined “arthritic pain in the feet” with symptoms similar to gout (for a definition of the disease and for other references in the papyri, see M. Hirt in P.Oxy. 80, p. 136).

The recipes were written on the back of a register. On the fragment the line between the two recipes is blank, but probably the first recipe ended in the lost left part of that line. The second recipe starts in a new line (line 12). The first is a remedy for hot gout (but see note 1). To mention from whom a recipe had been obtained was not uncommon (for evidence see M. Hirt in P.Oxy. 80, p. 129), since there was an exchange of such recipes among physicians, healers, and laymen alike. In this case, it was obviously received from a layman, Maximus the stone cutter. [1.10] SB 20.14440 (TM 14882) Census declaration

Greek papyrus, written in Theadelpheia (TM Geo 2349), found in Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), 22 Jan? 12 CE Ed. R. S. Bagnall 1991, “The Beginning of the Roman Census in Egypt,” GRBS 32:255–65, image: Plate I (= SB 20.14440). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:230. – Cf. B. Palme 1994, “Neues zum ägyptischen Provinzialzensus: Ein Nachtrag zum Artikel PzB 2 (1993) 1–24,” PzB 3:1–7. – Online image of lower part: https://papyri.info/apis/columbia.apis.p404. Archive of the public farmers Harthotes and his brother Marsisouchos (TM Arch 99).

42

Chapter 1

To Isidoros, village scribe of Theadelphia, from Harthotes son of Marres, public farmer and priest of the god Tothoes. |5 I have in Theadelphia a house inside the enclosure of the temple, in which (live) I myself, Harthotes, whose mother is Esersythis, fifty-five (years) old, Harpatothoes, my son, |10 nine (years) old, whose mother is Taanchoriphis, and my mother Esersythis daughter of Pasion, 70 years {years} old. I, Harthotes, the aforewritten, swear by Caesar Imperator Eleuther(ios) |15 divi ⟨filius⟩ Zeus Augustus1 that I have submitted the previous declaration salutarily and truthfully, reserving nothing. If I have sworn truthfully |20 may it be well with me, if falsely, the opposite. Harthotes son of Marres, the aforewritten, in the 20th (year) 55 (years) old, with a mole on his left cheek. |25 Harpatothoes, in the 6th (year) about 9 (years) old. Register(ed) (year) 41 of Caesar, Tyb[i 2]6. Note 1 The correct order would be “Caesar Imperator divi filius Zeus Eleutherios Augustus,” referring to the emperor Augustus, who is usually designated only as Caesar in the papyri.

As indicated by the date in lines 26–27, the census declaration is submitted in the 41st year of Augustus, that is 11/12 CE. Of critical importance to the interpretation of this document is the information in lines 22–25, which refers to the first registrations of Harthotes and his son Harpathotes: the father is now (the age of 55 years agrees with lines 8–9) in the 20th year since his first registration, the son, who is now nine years old (cf. line 10) in the 6th year since his first registration. That is, the father was registered for the first time in the census registers in the year 10/9 BCE, the son was registered in the year 5/6 CE. From this information, two things follow for the organization of the census under Augustus:  1) declarations were filed a year before registration, which means that the entire operation took two years; 2) census surveys were conducted on a seven-year cycle in this early period, not every 14 years as they were later. The following data are now documented for Egypt or can be clearly deduced: Since Harthotes was registered for the first time in 10/9 BCE, it can be assumed that the declaration for it was due in the year before, that is 11/10 BCE; according to the seven-year cycle, we can infer the following submission of declarations for 4/3 BCE and the corresponding registration for 3/2 BCE; declarations from the year 4/5 CE can also be inferred from this document, the corresponding

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

43

registration for 5/6 CE is attested here in line 25. Declarations are again due in the present year 11/12 CE; the registration in 12/13 CE is attested by P.Oxy. 2.288.41–42. This early period can be seen as a kind of experimental phase for the implementation of the census. Not only the terminology and formal design of the declarations differ from later practice, but the entire mode is different. While later the epikrisis, the verification of the personal status, is a separate process representing the prerequisite for the actual census declaration, the census procedure itself is called epikrisis under Augusts. In comparison with Lk 2:1–3, it is evident that Luke uses the correct terminology common in his day and that the census he describes was not a general census but a provincial census conducted in Judea a year later than in Egypt (Palme 1994, 6–7; cf. p. 23). [1.11] P.Worp 16 (TM 115550) Letter from -]sios Torieus to Phlelemouthis

Greek papyrus, Egypt, 30 Aug–28 Sep 11 CE? Ed. G. Messeri 2008 (P.Worp 16, image: p. 105). – Cf. T. Kruse 2010, “Urkundenreferat 2008 (1. Teil),” APF 56:174–91, here 178–79. – Online information and image: http://data.onb. ac.at/rec/RZ00006378.

…]ṣius Ṭọrieus to Phḷelemuthis, very many g(reetings) and good health. Do not be afraid because of the tools you have but secure them; if even the metallarches himself comes to question you, do not be afraid, [but] secure them. And I said to Chairemon, “Do not give even [one] |5 tool to either Epithymetos or Tryphonion unless you have secured the list,” convincing him that the prosecutor has heard that he has [given] in pledge the […]. Should you be questioned about the irons,1 [answer (?)] that they have been placed in custody and we do not know where they are, so that [… you have been enjoined (?)] to pay, you who have taken care [of …] |10 everything. […] Farewell. (h2) […] … (h1) (Year) 41 of Divus Caesar … […] … Thoth … Note 1 The “irons” were mining tools, namely chisels reinforced with specially hardened steel, which were produced in a complex forging or soldering process. They could only be used for about an hour, after which the steel reinforcements had to be rehardened in the forge (Kruse 2010, 178).

44

Chapter 1

The text, which is only fragmentarily preserved, concerns mining tools. The addressee should not be afraid concerning these tools, but should keep them safe, even if the mine director (metallarches) himself comes and inquires. Obviously, the two letter partners fear an investigation by their superiors about the location of equipment or expensive tools (see note 1). Probably the letter writer had been careless with their storage. Or had the tools in question been misappropriated for private use with his knowledge? Had some of the mine’s equipment been illegally pawned, and was the whereabouts of the tools now being investigated? The papyrus provides the first documentary evidence for μὴ φοβοῦ (“do not be afraid”, lines 2 and 3), a phrase so often used in the gospels (see p. 24). [1.12] P.Köln 10.413 (TM 47274) Petition to the strategos Polemaios from Alexandros and his partner

Greek papyrus, written in Thmoinausiris (TM Geo 3723), found probably in Herakleopolites/Egypt (TM Geo 2713), 9 Sep 142 BCE Ed. P.  Brosch 2003 (P.Köln 10.413, image: Tafel XVIII). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 13:118. – Cf. J.  F.  Oates 1995, “Equal in Honor to the First Friends,” BASP 32:13–21; P.  Arzt-Grabner 2016, “Different Wages for Workers in a Vineyard: PKöln X 413 and Matthew 20,1–16,” in *Arnal 2016, 407–418. – Online information and images: https:// papyri.uni-koeln.de/stueck/tm47274.

To Polemaios, equal in honor to the first friends1 and strategos, from Alexandros and his partners from the village Thmoinausiris. We are wronged |5 by Straton and Herakleides, both sons of Drakon, from (the unit of) Dionysios of the catoecic cavalry. For we had been employed … to water their own vineyard near Thmoinausiris |10 under the condition that—besides a payment in kind—they give to some of us, that is 5 (of us), as fixed payment2 15 (?) to each, but to the other two 12 to each, in total 99 (?), and as payment in kind for 2 months 2 per person, (in total) 28 pay(ments in kind),3 |15 and as provision for 3 months 300 (drachmas) per person, (in total) 2,800 (drachmas),4 but \although they owe (this),/ they do not pay, even though we have asked them frequently \and have fulfilled the irrigational work completely/. Therefore, because also we ourselves owe to others, we request you with a plea to send for them and to force |20 them to do us justice so that we receive utmost aid.

45

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

—— (h2) To summon. 

Be fortunate.5 (Year) 28, Mesore 17.6

Notes 1 The honorary title “equal in honor to the first friends” is attested between 142 and 136 BCE, and refers to an honorary upgrading of the strategy of several nomes (cf. OATES, Equal in Honor). 2 It is unclear if this refers to a monetary payment or to a payment in kind. 3 Seven laborers are to receive two payments in kind per month; for two months, that is a total of 28 payments in kind. 4 This calculation is inconsistent. By analogy with line 14, one would expect “300” to be understood again as payment per person (for three months, 300 drachmas per person, i.e., 900 drachmas for each of the seven laborers). But in this case the total would be 6,300 drachmas instead of the 2,800 on the papyrus. Following a suggestion by D. Hagedorn (cf. P. Brosch in P.Köln 10, p. 140), we should take two months, and if we take the clearly written “300 drachmas” as an error, i.e., written instead of “200 drachmas,” we finally arrive at the following consistent calculation: each of the seven laborers is to receive 200 drachmas per month, which gives a total of 2,800 drachmas for two months. 5 The final greeting “be fortunate” (imperative; in Greek εὐτύχει) 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. 6 The dating of the subscription converts to 9 September 142 BCE; the petition itself must have been written a bit earlier.

The seven persons submitting this petition are vineyard workers who, as partners, obviously run a business for viticultural labor. Before starting their irrigation work in the vineyard of Straton and Herakleides, they had all agreed on three different types of payment: a) a fixed payment in two different amounts: 15 units (the exact type of payment is not known due to damage of the papyrus) for five workmen, and 12 units for the other two; b) two payments in kind per month and per person for a term of two months; and, c) 200 drachmas per month and per person for a term of two months as provisions (cf. note 4). Although the laborers have completed their work, they have not yet been paid, even though they have asked their employers several times. There are some other papyri dealing with wage arrears of vineyard workers (P.Cair.Zen. 3.59317; PSI 4.414; P.Zen.Pestm. 37; P.Lond. 7.2061 with BL 8:196 and 10:111; PSI 4.421). In most cases, employees urge their employers to pay their debts (which is also evident in P.Köln 10.413), or they have an agent or administrator who urges the employer to do so. From our petition, it is obvious that these laborers

46

Chapter 1

had requested the employers several times before going to the official authorities. The subscription by the strategos indicates that, after reading the petition, he had given the order to summon Straton and Herakleides. The most interesting aspect of the petition is the payment of different wages to two groups of workmen. Different wages appear in only a few documents on viticulture (for examples see Arzt-Grabner 2016, 415), but P.Köln 10.413 is so far the only clear example of equal working hours and the same task (irrigation) for all seven laborers, who nevertheless receive different payments. This disparity, however, is not a reason for discontent among the laborers, which is of course due to the fact that they had agreed to these conditions (cf. lines 10–15). The papyri, and P.Köln 10.413 in particular, help us to understand the practical and legal aspects of viticulture on which the parable in Matt 20:1–16 is based. The daily workers of the parable are hired to do everything that is necessary without any specification, and the number of working hours is different. Different wages for identical labors (as in the case of P.Köln 10.413) do not cause any legal problem as long as they are in keeping with the agreement made by the employer with the employees. According to Matt 20:1–16, an agreement for the “usual daily wage” was only made with the group that worked the whole day (cf. vv. 2 and 13), not with the other groups who worked less. The comparison with the papyri confirms the importance of agreements. Dissimilar agreements cannot be challenged if they have been concluded by mutual consent. However, if no agreements are concluded at all, employees bear the risk of not being paid or being paid unfairly. In the parable, then, it is actually the second and third groups who took this risk but were rewarded by comparatively generous payment. [1.13] P.Köln 14.573 (TM 697580) Order for investigation of a death case

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II CE Ed. K. Maresch 2015 (P.Köln 14.573, image: Tafel XIV). – Online information and image: https://papyri.uni-koeln.de/stueck/tm697580.

Diophan-, the [stra]tegos [of the Oxyrhynchites], to Petee[sis …]. Since a petition has been given to me from … […] Theon […] … |5 […] …[…] … long time … in the house in the district of Pammenous Paradeisou climbed up into the upper |10 part of the house, fell on the Public Road and died … [a copy of which is forwarded to you], so that you call in a physician of the nome and

Excavations, Acquisitions, and Editions

47

examine this, so that the corpse of [Tha]ẹsis …, |15 … and so that you examine whether [it did not … but] actually fell down […] and […] … […] so that you report in writing […] The left part as well as a small part of the lower margin of the papyrus are preserved. Although only lines 9–11 are almost completely preserved, the background and content of this official letter can be reconstructed relatively well. A strategos has received a report informing him that a girl (named Thaesis?) had fallen from the upper floor of a house onto the public street and died. With the present letter, the strategos refers to the report received, which usually also included the request to have the case officially and medically investigated. The strategos thus forwards his information to a subordinate, together with the order to investigate the whole case, especially whether the girl had really fallen. Before arriving at the scene, the official should get a doctor of the nome to examine the corpse. Afterwards, he should file a written report. A similar accident is reported in Acts 20:9, where it is implied that someone had already determined the death of the boy before Paul arrived. The papyrus testifies to the steps to be followed in such a case. [1.14] P.Col. 8.215 (TM 17627) Letter from Apollonous to Thermouthas

Greek papyrus, found in Philadelphia/Egypt (TM Geo 1760), ca. 100 CE Ed. R.  S.  Bagnall and K.  A.  Worp 1990 (P.Col. 8.215, image: plate 25). – Addenda/ Corrigenda: BL 13:70. – Cf. N. Gonis 2003, “Remarks on Private Letters II,” ZPE 142:163– 170, here 163–165; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 261–262, image: 262 fig. 20 (extended eBook 2008, B1.4 no. 141 with image); *Kreinecker 2010a, 87–89; *Kreinecker 2013, 207–209; *Reinard 2016, 836–837 (the remark on pp. 195–196 refers to P.Col. 8.225 = SB 5.7662). – Online information and image: http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.col;8;215/images; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/17627. At about 9 cm from the left margin there is a kollesis which confirms that the sheet was cut from a papyrus roll before writing the letter.

Apollonous to Thermouthas, her mother, very many greetings. Before everything we pray that you are healthy, along with Apollonarion. I want you to |5 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. I ask you earnestly and beg you, take care |10 of yourself and also of the little girl, so that you

48

Chapter 1

may get through the winter, so that we find you being healthy. We, too, are all well. And concerning the Syrian woman, up to now nothing |15 bad. I ask you, when you hear about Thermouthas, send me word. I ask you—it is no big deal—when you find anyone coming down, send us word about |20 your and the little girl’s health. I ask you and beg, if it is possible, that you see the little girl three times a day. Think that I am near you. Now I will send you |25 the earring, for mine has not been made yet. If Eus son of (?) Thermuthas finds you a (good) price, sell (it). Also pay us a visit. Receive from E[…]ktor a basket, where there […] (Right margin, upwards)

|30 are twelve dried fish and twenty-two sesame cakes for the little girl, and give her one by one. Gaius wants to tell you that he cares greatly about you, as do Thermouthas, and Isidoros, and Diogenas, and we greet Apollonarion. We want to tell Ammia and her child that we care about them. All want to tell you that they care about you. Farewell. I want to tell Hera and her children that I care about them. Tybi 3.

(Back)

|35 Deliver to Philadelphia to Termouthas.

The handwriting is the same throughout the letter. After the height of the sheet had been completely inscribed, the papyrus was turned 90° clockwise, and first four more lines were added on the right margin with the final greeting at the end of the fourth line. Afterwards more than half a line of a postscript was added and—after some blank space—the date appended. On the main concern of this letter and the repeated request introduced with the verbs ἐρωτάω (“to ask”) and παρακαλέω (“to beg”) see p. 27. On the translation of secondary greetings which use middle forms of the Greek verb ἐπισκοπέω (cf. lines 31–34) see PNT 2, pp. 169–70.

Chapter 2

Writing Media and Implements Literature O.  Bonnerot et  al. 2020, “XRF Ink Analysis of Some Herculaneum Papyri,” ZPE 216:50–52; A.  Bülow-Jacobsen 2009, “Writing Materials in the Ancient World,” in *Bagnall 2009, 3–29; T. Christiansen 2017, “Manufacture of Black Ink in the Ancient Mediterranean,” BASP 54:167–95; *Eckardt 2018, 27–33; *Klauck 2006, 43–55; G. Nehring, M. Krutzsch, and I. Rabin 2021, “Tuschenanalyse im P 11702,” APF 67:277– 82; I. Rabin, C. Wintermann, and O. Hahn 2019, “Ink Characterization, Performed in Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana (September  2018),” Analecta Papyrologica 31:301–13; L. Raggetti, ed. 2021, Traces of Ink: Experiences of Philology and Replication, Nuncius Series: Studies and Sources in the Material and Visual History of Science 7 (Leiden: Brill); J.  D.  Sosin 2008, “The New Letter from Pasion,” ZPE 165:105–8; *White 1986, 213–14; A. Willi 2021, Writing Equipment, vol. 2 of Manual of Roman Everyday Writing (Nottingham: The LatinNow Project).

Papyrology and epigraphy work with comparable methods, and in fact there are no unambiguous criteria to clearly distinguish the two disciplines. J. Sosin (2008, 105) once referred to documents written on metal tablets as “those precious artefacts that too often slip through the cracks between papyrology and epigraphy.” As sources for this series, we propose to include documents from Greco-Roman antiquity on materials which can be defined as portable writing media,1 that is, artifacts that can be carried over long distances if necessary or required. In general, some of these documents were used privately, others were published, and some served business or administrative purposes. Those documents that exist as monumental inscriptions or are published on walls are excluded by this definition, although they can—together with graffiti—be another valuable source to add to the world of papyri, ostraca, and tablets. In the following, we briefly describe the portable writing materials used on a large scale in Greco-Roman antiquity. In addition to papyrus, these include leather and parchment, potsherds as well as wax, wooden, and metal tablets. A somewhat more complete list would have to include ivory, bones, textiles, bark, and bast, but such writing materials tend to be rare, and future finds may add to them. The most common materials were found not only in Egypt, but also in many other regions (for an overview see pp. 185–210). The various implements for text production (calamus, brush, stylus, various types of ink and inkwells) 1 For the idea of this comprehensive category, we would like to thank Andrea Jördens (Heidelberg).

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790418_003

50

Chapter 2

only in passing, although their examination has already provided many interesting details about the composition and transmission of ancient texts (see in “Literature” above).

Papyrus

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2020a, 71–74; R.  Ast et  al. 2015, “Papyrus,” in *Meier, Ott, and Sauer, eds. 2015, 307–21; *Bülow-Jacobsen 2009, 3–10, 18–25; K.  Fleischer 2022, Die Papyri Herkulaneums im Digitalen Zeitalter: Neue Texte durch neue Techniken – eine Kurzeinführung, Hans-Lietzmann-Vorlesungen 21 (Berlin: De Gruyter); J. Frösén 2009, “Conservation of Ancient Papyrus Materials,” in *Bagnall 2009, 79–100; J.-L. Fournet, ed. 2021, Le papyrus dans tous ses États: De Cléopâtre à Clovis (Paris: Collège de France); J.  Graf and M.  Krutzsch, eds. 2008, Ägypten lesbar machen – die klassische Konservierung/Restaurierung von Papyri und neuere Verfahren: Beiträge des 1. Internationalen Workshops der Papyrusrestauratoren, Leipzig, 7.–9. September 2006, APF Beiheft 24 (Berlin: De Gruyter); A. Hüttermann et al. 1995, “Making of Papyrus – An Ancient Biotechnology or: Pliny was Right Indeed,” Naturwissenschaften 82:414–16; R. Janko 2018, “Papyri from the Great Tumulus at Vergina, Macedonia,” ZPE 205:195– 206; R. Janko et al. 2021, “Excavating and Conserving Europe’s Oldest Books: A Papyrus from Mangalia on the Black Sea (P. Callatis  1),” AJA 125:65–89; *Jeffery 1990, 56–57; I. Karamanou 2019, “The Earliest Known Greek Papyrus (Archaeological Museum of Piraeus, MΠ 7449, 8517-8523): Text and Contexts,” in PapCongr. 28, 93–104; B. Leach and J. Tait 2000, “Papyrus,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, ed. P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 227–53; *Luiselli 2008, 683–88; R. Parkinson and S. Quirke 1995, Papyrus, Egyptian Bookshelf (London: British Museum Press); E. Pöhlmann and M. L. West 2012, “The Oldest Greek Papyrus and Writing Tablets Fifth-Century Documents from the ‘Tomb of the Musician’ in Attica,” ZPE 180:1–16; J.  F.  Quack 2005, “Medien der Alltagskultur in Ägypten und ihre Auswirkungen auf Palästina,” in Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der Palästinaarchäologie, ed. C. Frevel, FAT 2/10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 237–68; A. Verhoogt 2010, “Papyri,” in *Bakker, ed. 2010, 62–68; M. L. West 2013, “The Writing Tablets and Papyrus from Tomb II in Daphni  1,” Greek and Roman Musical Studies 1:73–92.

The oldest extant papyri with Greek texts come from Greece, from the socalled “Tomb of the Musician” in Daphne/Attica (TM 140212; before 430– 425 BCE) and from Derveni near Thessaloniki (so-called Derveni papyrus, TM 65795; ca. end IV BC), as well as from Kallatis (today’s Mangalia in Romania; ca. 350–325 BC). The oldest Greek papyri from Egypt to date are the Timotheos Papyrus from Abusir with “Persians” by Timotheos of Milet (TM 62931; second half IV BCE) and SB 14.11942, an order of Alexander’s general Peucestas written between 331 and 323 BCE in Sakkara (Janko et al. 2021).

Writing Media and Implements

51

The Greek term for a papyrus scroll is βύβλος (also βυβλίον, βιβλίον), which confirms that the earliest source for it was not Egypt but the Phoenician port of Byblos (today’s Jubayl in Lebanon, TM Geo 3820). It is not impossible that the Greeks already adopted the writing material from the Phoenician scribes along with the alphabet. Alternatively, papyrus may have been introduced to them at the end of the seventh century BCE, when Greek merchants settled on the western side of the Nile Delta. About fifty years later Greek interests in Egypt were officially recognized by Amasis’s formal grant of Naukratis. By the time of Herodotus at the latest, the papyrus scroll was a writing material familiar to the Greeks (cf. Herododuts, Hist. 5.58; see also Aeschylus, Suppl. 947; cf. Jeffery 1990, 56–57). Papyrus can certainly be considered the stationery of Greco-Roman antiquity. This is evidenced not only by papyrus finds from arid regions of the Greco-Roman world, including Egypt and other provinces, and papyrus documents found in Egypt that had originally been inscribed elsewhere (see pp. 185–210), but also by the numerous representations of papyrus scrolls on vases,2 frescoes,3 mosaics,4 or in the hands of statues.5 Another source of evidence for the wide distribution are hundreds of thousands of clay sealings with papyrus impressions on the back, found in areas where the papyrus documents themselves have not survived (see p. 17).

2 E.g., a certain Linos and his pupil Mousaios painted on the inner side of a red-figure cup: Linos is holding a papyrus roll while Mousaios holds writing tablets (painting attributed to the Eretria Painter and dated to ca. 440–435  BCE; now in Paris, Louvre inv. G457). A Muse reading a scroll is depicted on a lekythos from Boeotia (painting attributed to the so-called Klügmann Painter and dated to ca. 435–425 BCE; now Louvre inv. CA2220). For digital images of both as well as of other artefacts see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Category:Papyrus_rolls_in_art. 3 See, e.g., Naples National Archaeological Museum, inv. nos. 8925; 9058; 9083; 9085; 9072o; 120620a; for digital images see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Catalogue_of_the_ Museo_Archeologico_di_Napoli_(inventory_MANN). See also scene II on the North wall in the Hall of the Mysteries of the Villa dei Misteri in Pompeii depicting a seated woman with a papyrus scroll in her left hand and a child standing next to her on her right trying to read from another scroll (for a digital image see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Villa_ dei_Misteri_II_-_1.jpg). 4 E.g., a mosaic from III CE, discovered in the Hadrumetum in Sousse (Tunisia), depicting Virgil holding a scroll with the Aeneid (now in Bardo Museum in Tunis/Tunisia; for images see https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Virgil_mosaic_in_the_Bardo_National_Museum). 5 For some examples see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Papyrus_rolls_in_art; http://lupa.at/queries/2046375547.

52

Chapter 2

For the manufacture of the writing material,6 only the pith of the papyrus plant was used, which grew predominantly in the Nile delta in Egypt as well as in the remainder of the Nile valley. Occurrence of the plant in antiquity is also attested for such areas as Palestine, Babylonia, and Sicily; but only in Egypt was papyrus processed into a material for writing. From there, the rolls were exported to the entire Mediterranean world. In papyrus production, single sheets were produced at first, but already during production they were glued together to form a roll. Such rolls were available for purchase in standard sizes at a papyrus store. A common standard size was a roll of twenty sheets as ordered, for example, by the sender of the papyrus letter P.Oxy. 75.5063 (late III CE, cf. lines 19–20). This example also shows that the Greek term χάρτη or (as here) χαρτάριον does not denote the leaf made from strips of the pith of papyrus, but the “piece” in the sense of a whole roll. Although some private letters mention single sheets, the idea that the ancient scribes purchased such sheets, glued them together as needed, and inscribed them, is a misconception disproved by further documentary and material evidence. In P.Flor. 3.367.6–10 [2.174] (III CE), for instance, a certain Theoninos complains that, although he mailed his letter partner χάρτας ἐπιστολικο[ύς] to write back, he did not deem it worthy to do so; in BGU 3.822.28–29 (after 5 May 105 CE?), Thermouthas asks her brother Apollinarios to send her ἄγραφον χάρτην so that she might be able to write a (i.e., another) letter. Both letter authors do not refer to a single sheet of papyrus, but to “papyrus for writing letters” or “uninscribed papyrus” because the only remaining roll is coming to an end. The occasional scarcity of papyrus is also evidenced by the fact that many texts were written on the back of pieces already inscribed on one side (for examples see *Luiselli 2008, 686–87). If blank papyrus was on hand, the piece needed for a letter or another document was not necessarily cut off at the glued joints (κολλήματα), but as required and without regard to those. Depending on requirements, writers would inscribe the entire roll (e.g., when copying extensive literary works), or smaller pieces in various sizes would be cut off for receipts, tax returns, petitions, or letters. Alternatively, one could also inscribe the beginning of a roll with one or more columns and, after writing the text, cut off the inscribed piece from the roll. In numerous documents, therefore, the glued joints are still preserved, and more often than not the writing simply runs across.7 6 For a good and illustrated description of the process by M. Krutzsch, see http://eurasianmss. lib.uiowa.edu/2017/01/18/. 7 E.g., SB 5.8754 (5  Feb  77  BCE; for a digital image see http://www.papyrology.uw.edu.pl/ papyri/pberlin16876.htm); P.Fay. 109 [2.70] (19 Jun 10 BCE or 34 CE); P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96]

Writing Media and Implements



53

Leather and Parchment

Literature J. Becker, T. Licht, and B. Schneidmüller 2015, “Pergament,” in *Meier, Ott, and Sauer, eds. 2015, 337–47; *Bülow-Jacobsen 2009, 4, 11, 18–25; *Jeffery 1990, 56–57; A. Jördens, S. Kiyanrad, and J. F. Quack 2015, “Leder,” in *Meier, Ott, and Sauer, eds. 2015, 323– 35; R.  Reed 1972, Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers, Studies in Archaeological Science (London: Seminar Press); *Turner 1977, 35–42.

Leather seems to have been the preferred writing material in the Ancient Near East and Asia for centuries, as most Qumran scrolls and documents from Avroman and Bactria show (see p. 187). Unlike parchment, leather was always tanned and, above all, not stretched and dried while wet. The processes used to make raw animal skins durable are among the oldest techniques known to mankind, but it was not until the Romans at the turn of the eras that tanning techniques were developed to an extent comparable to today’s processes. Documents on leather are inscribed on one side only, which is probably due to tanning, because the flesh side of leather is too uneven and absorbs writing fluids too much. Parchment (Greek διφθέρα, δέρμα, Latin membrana, pergamena) is also made from animal hides, usually from sheep, calf, or goat. Compared to leather, however, its manufacture required more individual steps and was much more time-consuming: pickling, scraping off the hairs, liming, stretching and simultaneous drying, and smoothing. The high value of a parchment is reflected in the frequent reinscription of old parchments (a so-called palimpsest or codex rescriptus). Whether parchment was invented by Eumenes II (197–159 BC) in Pergamon due to a discontinued papyrus export from Egypt and therefore named pergamena is historically unlikely,8 but it is possible that the (new) technological (I–II CE); P.Oxy. 55.3810 [2.162] (II–III CE; cf. P.Oxy. 55, pp. 191–92); PSI 15.1553 [2.170] (first half III CE); for some further examples see *Arzt-Grabner 2020a, 71–74. 8 The legend is usually attributed to Pliny the Elder (Nat. 13.21 [70]), who, however, does not mention the alleged connection, but only reports—referring to Varro—that membranae (sic, not pergamenae) were invented in Pergamon (membranas Pergami tradit repertas) due to an absence of papyrus exports from Egypt. The explicit association between the city name Pergamum and pergamena is referred to by Isidore of Seville (560–636), who writes in Etymologiae 6.11.1: “When the kings of Pergamum had a shortage of papyrus (carta), they were the first to invent membrana. From there the pergamena also has kept its name until today, as it has been handed down to posterity. It is also called membrana because it is taken from the skins (ex membris) of animals” (Pergameni reges cum carta indigerent, membrana primi excogitaverunt. Unde et pergamenarum nomen hucusque tradente sibi posteritate servatum est. Haec et membrana dicuntur, quia ex membris pecudum detrahuntur).

54

Chapter 2

development that made parchment production possible in the first place had its origin in Hellenistic Pergamon. The changes in the fiber structure characteristic of parchment, in fact, only occur when the already depilated and limed but still wet animal skin is simultaneously dried and stretched in a frame. Especially in a humid climate, parchment is much more durable than papyrus, but the reasons for the transition from papyrus to parchment were certainly manifold; in addition to durability, the fact that animal skins did not have to be imported will also have been relevant.

Potsherds (Ostraca)

Literature *Bagnall 2011, 117–37; T. E. Balke et al. 2015, “Ton,” in *Meier, Ott, and Sauer, eds. 2015, 277–92; *Bülow-Jacobsen 2009, 4, 14–17; C. Caputo 2019, “Looking at the Material: One Hundred Years of Studying Ostraca from Egypt,” in Antike Texte und ihre Materialität: Alltägliche Präsenz, mediale Semantik, literarische Reflexion, ed. C. Ritter-Schmalz and R. Schwitter, Materiale Textkulturen 27 (Berlin: de Gruyter), 93–117; C. Caputo 2020, “Pottery Sherds for Writing: An Overview of the Practic,” in *Caputo and Lougovaya, eds. 2020, 31–58; *Ceccarelli 2013, 338–55; J. Cromwell 2020, “‘Forgive Me, Because I Could Not Find Papyrus’: The Use and Distribution of Ostraca in Late Antique Western Thebes,” in *Caputo and Lougovaya, eds. 2020, 209–33; P. Davoli 2020, “Papyri and Ostraca as Archaeological Objects: The Importance of Context,” in *Caputo and Lougovaya, eds. 2020, 11–29; *Dubois 1996, 55–67; M. S. Funghi and M. C. Martinelli 2003, “Ostraca letterari inediti della collezione Petrie,” ZPE 145:141–182, Tafel I–II, V–VI; M. S. Funghi and M. C. Martinelli 2008, “Ostraca letterari della collezione Flinders Petrie: Un addendum,” ZPE 164:63–73; P. Keegan 2014, Graffiti in Antiquity (London: Routledge), 32–33; S. Kiyanrad, M. R. Ott, and A. Sarri 2015, “Naturmaterialien,” in *Meier, Ott, and Sauer, eds. 2015, 397–409, here 404; J. L. Lamont 2021, “The Curious Case of the Cursed Chicken: A New Binding Ritual from the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 90:79–113; G. Lefebvre 1904, “Fragments grecs des Évangiles sur Ostraca,” BIFAO 4:1–15; J. Lougovaya 2018, “Writing on Ostraca: Considerations of Material Aspects,” in The Materiality of Texts from Ancient Egypt: New Approaches to the Study of Textual Material from the Early Pharaonic to the Late Antique Period, ed. F. A. J. Hoogendijk and S. M. T. van Gompel, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 35 (Leiden: Brill), 52–61; J. Lougovaya 2020, “Greek Literary Ostraca Revisited,” in *Caputo and Lougovaya, eds. 2020, 109–41; F.  Maltomini 2014, “Greek Ostraca: An Overview,” Manuscript Cultures  5:33–41; B.  Porten and A.  Yardeni 2014, Dossiers 1–10: 401 Commodity Chits, vol. 1 of Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns); B.  Porten and A.  Yardeni 2016, Dossiers 11–50: 263 Commodity Chits, vol. 2 of Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns); B. Porten and A. Yardeni 2018, Dossiers 51–300.6: 488 Commodity Chits, vol. 3 of Textbook of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea (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); C. E. Römer 2003, “Ostraka mit christlichen Texten aus der Sammlung

Writing Media and Implements

55

Flinders Petrie,” ZPE 145:183–201, Tafel III–IV; C. E. Römer 2008, “Das zweisprachige Archiv aus der Sammlung Flinders Petrie,” ZPE 164:53–62; A. Yardeni 2016, The Jeselsohn Collection of Aramaic Ostraca from Idumea, The Jeselsohn Collection: Archaeology – Writing (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press).

Potsherds incised with a sharp tool, usually of metal, are commonly known from the so-called ostrakismos in Athens. This type of ostraca was used in all periods of Greco-Roman antiquity in different regions and for different genres such as simple requests and letters. Agora 21.B1 [2.52] (mid VI BCE), for example, preserves a simple request found in the Ancient Agora of Athens, SEG 65.631 (second half IV BCE) is a letter from the Black Sea area, and SB 28.17089 (late I/early II CE) a letter from Maximianon (eastern desert of Egypt). Several hundred fragments of terra sigillata with incised inscriptions from the first and second centuries CE were excavated at the Gallo-Roman vicus of Condatomagus (today’s La Graufesenque in France, cf. p. 190). Approximately 60 potsherds with scratched inscriptions (exclusively in Greek) have been found in the ruins of late antique Ephesus (late IV–VII CE), preserving short business letters, instructions, and accounts (their edition by P. Sänger is in preparation). A unique example of a private curse ritual is attested by a chytra with over 30 incised personal names and a painted wreath; the vessel was found buried in the Classical Commercial Building at the Agora of Athens, where it had served as the medium for a binding curse during the fourth century BCE (Lamont 2021). It seems that potsherds incised with a sharp tool and those inscribed with a kalamos or brush and ink were used simultaneously for many centuries. Among the earliest ink written ostraca are 2,000 in Aramaic originating from Idumea, the earliest dating to the early sixth century BCE (Porten and A. Yardeni 2014; 2016; 2018; 2020; Yardeni 2016). In addition to thousands of ink written ostraca from Egypt, also the ostraca found at Bu Njem in Libya (O.BuNjem), at Chersonesos/Crete (O.Cret.Chers.), and in the central cemetery of Rhodes (edition in preparation) belong to this type (see p. 188). Due to the usually small size of the sherds, ostraca mostly contain short texts and were primarily used for receipts and letters or for semiliterary texts related to medicine, magic, worship, and education. Ostraca preserving literary texts may have been used for performance and occasional poetry. However, two archives of ostraca contain relatively large amounts of texts, one of them consisting of 20 ostraca, currently dated to the fifth or sixth century CE, and preserving texts from all four gospels of the New Testament (Lefebvre 1904). A similar archive was written in the vicinity of Thebes during the fifth century (O.Petr.Mus. 1–50); the ostraca preserve texts from Psalms and the New

56

Chapter 2

Testament, but the majority of them contain texts from Homer and Menander (nos. 21–50). The fact that both the pagan and the Christian texts consistently reflect ethical maxims or central contents of the Christian faith suggest that they were used in an educational setting (Römer 2008, 53). For a long time, documentary ostraca were considered less valuable than papyri and parchments. In the meantime, however, it is increasingly recognized that they offer a rich source of data on Roman finance and taxation as well as on social and economic affairs. This is especially true for ostraca archives, such as the archive of Philokles (TM Arch 621), which could be compiled as a result of systematic excavations in the eastern desert of Egypt (cf. p. 20).

Wax, Wooden, and Metal Tablets

Literature P. Arzt-Grabner 2021, “Griechisch-römische Fluchtäfelchen als Zeugnisse antiker Magie: Befund und neue Funde,” in Antike Fluchtafeln und das Neue Testament: Materialität – Ritualpraxis – Texte, ed. M.  Hölscher, M.  Lau, and S.  Luther, WUNT  474 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 221–44; L. Berkes, E. Giele, and M. R. Ott 2015, “Holz,” unter Mitarbeit von Joachim F. Quack, in *Meier, Ott, and Sauer, eds. 2015, 383–95; W. B. Brashear and F. A. J. Hoogendijk 1990, “Corpus Tabularum Lignearum Ceratarumque Aegyptiarum,” Enchoria 17:21–54; *Bülow-Jacobsen 2009, 4, 11–14; G.  M.  Cammarosano et  al. 2019, “They Wrote on Wax: Wax Boards in the Ancient Near East,” Mesopotamia 54:121–80; Camodeca 2000, “Per un primo aggiornamento all’edizione dell’archivio dei Sulpicii (TPSulp.),” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 11:173–91; G. Camodeca 2009, “Gli archivi privati di tabulae ceratae e di papiri documentari: Pompei ed Ercolano: case, ambienti e modalità di conservazione,” Vesuviana 1:17–42; *Ceccarelli 2013, 27–47, 334–38, 340– 56; 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; M. Dana 2017, “La lettre grecque sur plomb d’Agathè (Agde, Hérault): édition et commentaire,” ZPE 201:123–38; J.-C. Decourt 2014,“Lettres privées grecques sur plomb et céramique,” 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), 25–79; *Dubois 1996, 49–55, 63–66; E. Eidinow and C.  Taylor 2010, “Lead-Letter Days: Writing, Communication and Crisis in the Ancient Greek World,” ClQ 60:30–62; B. Hartmann 2011, “Die römischen Schreibtafeln (tabulae ceratae) aus Tasgetium/Eschenz,” in Tasgetium  I: Das römische Eschenz, Archäologie im Thurgau  17 (Thurgau: Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau), 123–56 (bibliography 237–46); B. Hartmann 2012, “Schreibtafeln/ tabulae ceratae,” in Tasgetium II: Die römischen Holzfunde, Archäologie im Thurgau 18 (Thurgau: Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau), 110–11 (catalogue 159–64 Nr. 218–274; Tafeln 232–39; bibliography 271–277; concordance 286–87); *Hartmann 2015; A. Jördens, M. R. Ott, and R. Ast 2015, “Wachs,” in *Meier, Ott, and

Writing Media and Implements

57

Sauer, eds. 2015, 371–82; S. Kiyanrad et al. 2015, “Metall,” in *Meier, Ott, and Sauer, eds. 2015, 293–306, here 301–305; R. D. Kotansky 2016, “A Gold Lamella for ‘Blessed’ Abalala,” Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 52:7–20; E. Martín González 2021, “Professional Scribes and Letter-Cutters in Archaic Greece,” in Observing the Scribe at Work: Scribal Practice in the Ancient World, ed. R. Ast et al., OLA 301 (Leuven: Peeters), 241–253, here 247–248; M. L. Neira Jiménez 2012–2013, “Representaciones de tabulae ceratae en los mosaicos romanos: A propósito de la carta en las escenas de Fedra e Hipólito,” Saitabi 62–63:51–60; I.  Radman-Livaja 2013, “Craftspeople, Merchants or Clients? The Evidence of Personal Names on the Commercial Lead Tags from Siscia,” in Making Textiles in Pre-Roman and Roman Times: People, Places, Identities, ed. M. Gleba and J. Pásztókai-Szeőke, Ancient Textiles Series 13 (Oxford: Oxbow), 87–108; *Sarri 2018, 16–18, 40–42, 53–56, 72–74, 87–90; R.  S.  O.  Tomlin 1998, “Roman Manuscripts from Carlisle: The Ink-Written Tablets,” Brittannia 29:31–84; Y. Vinogradov 1998, “The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Region in the Light of Private Lead Letters,” in The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology, ed. G. R. Tsetskhladze, Historia Einzelschriften 121 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner), 153–78.

Wax and metal tablets have in common that the text is incised into the surface of the tablet with a sharp tool made of iron, wood, ivory, or bone, the so-called stylus. Wax tablets (in Latin tabulae ceratae) are therefore also called stylus tablets. Although the panels of a “double-leaf” diptych or a polyptych consisting of more than two wax tablets are first made of wood and then covered with a layer of wax on the inner pages, the term wooden tablets refers to wooden boards or thin wooden sheets inscribed with ink. The ancient Latin name for the latter, mentioned on wooden tablets from Vindolanda, is tiliae. Tiliae were also frequently used in the form of diptychs. As a rule, only the inner pages of diptychs and polyptychs were inscribed or incised; the outer pages served as covers to protect the inner text from damage. After closing, the set of tablets could be locked and sealed; in this case, an address or an official or private remark could be written or incised on one of the outer pages. While more than 2,500 wax tablets have been found in almost all regions of the Roman Empire,9 the total of just over 1,100 tiliae found to date are distributed among only nine sites, with over 1,000 in Vindolanda and the majority of the other finds also coming from Britain. This suggests that tiliae were used so extensively in these northern regions because papyrus exports from Egypt hardly reached these distant areas (for an inventory of both tabulae ceratae and tiliae, see *Hartmann 2015; see also p. 190 in this volume). Unlike wooden tablets, tabulae ceratae could be reused several times. For this purpose, the stylus was flattened on one side so that it could be used to 9 See also the many depictions of wax tablets in Greco-Roman art (e.g., http://lupa.at/ queries/2048728867; http://lupa.at/queries/2123977537).

58

Chapter 2

smooth the wax and prepare the tablet for another incision. In many cases, the wax is no longer preserved today. However, if the text was incised vigorously enough, this left traces in the underlying wood that can sometimes be deciphered and reconstructed into a text—today also using photographic methods. In most cases, therefore, the text to be deciphered is the last that had been engraved on the tablet. A typical Egyptian use of wooden tags is evidenced by several thousand mummy labels found to date. The names and short notes carved or written in ink were intended to ensure that the corpses were not confused during the lengthy embalming processes and transport routes. The most commonly used metal for tablets was lead. The earliest private letters are preserved on lead tablets found in the Black Sea region, in Athens (e.g., SEG 50.276 [2.53] and Syll.3 3.1259 [2.54], both early IV BCE), other parts of Greece, and the Iberian Peninsula (Eidinow and Taylor 2010; *Ceccarelli 2013, 27–47, 334–38, 340–56). The number of lead letters, however, is surpassed immensely by the more than 1,700 curse tablets on lead that have been found to date.10 Only relatively few of these defixiones have survived on other writing materials (Arzt-Grabner 2021, 222), indicating that lead was the preferred material for this text genre. Simple lead tags with carved names, on the other hand, were used in the textile industry (Radman-Livaja 2013). Discharge from military service was confirmed by the receipt of a military diploma of which many have survived on bronze throughout the Roman Empire (see p. 132). Materials rarely used for tablets due to their high value include ivory, silver, and gold, with gold and silver lamellae sometimes used for precious amulets (Kotansky 2016).

A Closer Look #3: Damaged Papyri as Possible Reason for the Compilation of 2 Cor

Literature *Arzt-Grabner 2014, 138–46; *Arzt-Grabner 2020a, 91–102; H.-J.  Klauck 2003, “Compilation of Letters in Cicero’s Correspondence,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham  J.  Malherbe, ed. J.  T.  Fitzgerald, T. H. Olbricht, and L. M. White, NovTSup 110 (Leiden: Brill), 131–55; F. Lindgård 2005, Paul’s Line of Thought in 2 Corinthians 4:16–5:10, WUNT 2.189 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck); M.  M.  Mitchell 2003, “The Corinthian Correspondence and the Birth of Pauline 10 See Thesaurus Defixionum (TheDefix): https://heurist.fdm.uni-hamburg.de/html/heurist/ ?db=The_dema&website&id=41774&pageid=41776.

Writing Media and Implements

59

Hermeneutics,” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thrall, ed. T.  J.  Burke and J.  K.  Elliott, NovTSup  109 (Leiden: Brill), 17–53; M.  M.  Mitchell 2005, “Paul’s Letters to Corinth: Literary and Historical Reconstruction,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. D.  N.  Schowalter and S.  J.  Friesen, HTS  53 (Cambride, MA: Harvard University Press), 307–38; S. E. Porter 2004, “When and How Was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories,” in S.  E.  Porter, The Pauline Canon, Pauline Studies  1 (Leiden: Brill), 95–127; E.  R.  Richards 2004, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press), 210– 23; T. Schmeller 2004, “Die Cicerobriefe und die Frage nach der Einheitlichkeit des 2. Korintherbriefes,” ZNW 95:181–208; M. E. Thrall 1994, Introduction and Commentary on II Corinthians I–VII, vol. 1 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ICC (London: T & T Clark International); D.  Trobisch 1989, Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfängen christlicher Publizistik, NTOA 10 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht); 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).

The possible compilation of some of Paul’s letters, especially 2 Cor, has been controversial for a long time. Although the identification of which sections of 2 Cor could have been compiled has received a lot of attention, the question of how and why a compilation could have taken place at all has only been dealt with marginally. Some scholars have suggested that the arrival of 1  Clem in Corinth may have triggered such a process, in that Clement’s emissaries may have begun to search for other Pauline letters in addition to 1 Cor (referred to in 1 Clem 47:1) and eventually compiled 2 Cor (Thrall 1994, 43–46; Lindgård 2005, 58–62). As a possible basis for such a process, M. Mitchell assumes a “Corinthian epistolary archive” (Mitchell 2003, 17 et passim; 2005, 312 et passim). In the following, the plausibility or necessity of a compilation of 2 Cor will be examined using papyrological observations. In principle, it can be assumed that a secondary compilation of originally separate letters was not reasonable or even necessary per se, but that the editor or compiler must have seen it as having some advantage over a separate publication of the individual letters or even that he felt compelled to compile these letters or parts of them due to special circumstances. In other words: a compilation hypothesis is more plausible if the compiled text explains the hypo­ thesis better than the separate transmission of the individual sources does. The simple fact that in the course of publishing letters of a famous personality, originally separate letters were sometimes combined into one letter, has been sufficiently demonstrated, for example, by the way Cicero’s letters were edited. However, H.-J.  Klauck (2003) and T.  Schmeller (2004) observed that

60

Chapter 2

only minor changes were executed during such an editorial process, such as the omission of the end or the beginning of a letter. Transferring this observation from Cicero’s letters to Paul’s, it has to be assumed that a compiler of Paul’s letters would also only have made minor changes of a similar kind. Such an assumption can, at least, be based on actual examples, while there has not been any evidence so far to confirm more complex compilation theories. Turning now to papyrus letters, it is noticeable that the letter senders obviously had a great interest in keeping even jointly sent letters distinct as they valued a discernible design over harmony. P.Brem. 61 [1.15] is only one selected example among many. This suggests only two plausible explanations for the possible compilation of 2 Cor: Either the compiler(s) intended to change the content or form of the previously separate parts—or even to erase them—by the composition, or at least one of the individual letters was already damaged and only incompletely preserved so that a compilation offered the possibility to save and transmit the rest of the damaged letter. The first option seems extremely unlikely since, in the canonical version of 2 Cor, there are several alternations between positive and negative descriptions of the Corinthian Christ group and of the relationship of its members to Paul. Thus, neither a tendency to whitewash nor a tendency to consistently criticize the community can be detected. Most importantly, there is no evidence for such editorial processes. On the contrary, the published version of Cicero’s letters again shows that there was no effort whatsoever to smooth out intratextual inconsistencies that arose in the process of compilation, and that such contradictions were apparently not considered irritating (Klauck 2003, 154; Schmeller 2004, 201–8). For the second possibility, however, that at least one of the original letters was no longer completely preserved and was therefore compiled with another letter, some papyrological parallels can be found. In general, private and business letters were not sent via the official postal service of the state, as this was reserved for the Roman administration and the military.11 From the very start, the transportation of private or business correspondence could therefore face greater difficulties than the cursus publicus. If, for example, a messenger or ship was not available or the letter carrier proved to be unreliable, the time required for the successful delivery of a letter had to be drastically extended. In addition, a letter or a shipment of goods could easily get lost, let alone the danger that goods, in particular, were sometimes

11

The documentary papyri prove, however, that members of the administration or the military sometimes knew how to use the official channels for their private purposes.

Writing Media and Implements

61

misappropriated, as shown by numerous requests for confirmation of receipt and inquiries as to whether certain goods had arrived.12 The fact that a letter could be badly damaged shortly after it was written or sent is well documented. There is also evidence that damaged, illegible letters were no longer kept, for example, P.Col. 4.68.25–27 (ca. 253 BCE) and PSI 4.403.2–7 (mid III BCE). In P.Lond. 7.2033 (257–248 BCE), a certain Epharmostos informs Zenon in lines 2–7 that “the letter you wrote to Menon about Kallikon’s money was eaten by mice,” and he asks Zenon to “write as soon as possible so that Kallikon won’t be delayed.” That such dangers had not changed more than five centuries later can be seen in the official letter P.Panop. Beatty 1.389–391 [1.16] (22 Sep 298 CE), where the strategos of the Panopolite nome informs a certain Horion: “The letters you delivered, written by my lord, the perfectissimus praefectus of the Thebaid, Julius Athenodoros, one to me about skins for fastening gates and side doors, but the other to Besas, the accountant, about the same skins, I received today, nibbled by mice and mutilated. And the one I kept with me, but the other I gave to the aforementioned Besas.” At least both letters were obviously still legible. For a possible compilation of 2 Cor, however, such examples are, at most, of secondary importance, since there is no evidence that any of Paul’s letters had arrived in a damaged state of preservation. Yet there is evidence of loss of letters in the Pauline corpus because not all of what was originally at least four separately existing letters of Paul to the Christ group in Corinth made their way into the collection of Paul’s letters in a separate form. This could have been due to a deliberate selection or because the letters mentioned in 1 Cor 5:9 and 2 Cor 7:8, 12 were no longer preserved, or at least not completely preserved, at the time of the collection and publication of the Pauline letters. In this context, the papyrus examples mentioned above show how susceptible the writing material was to damage or even destruction. What these examples reveal about the transport of papyrus letters also applies to their later preservation and storage: hungry mice, worms, and moisture have been the great enemies of papyrus at all times and in every situation. Now, what is the state of preservation of longer papyrus letters, namely those consisting of two or more columns? It is noticeable that, whenever there is damage, it is always the beginning of the papyrus that is most severely affected, which is not surprising since it is precisely the outer part that has been most exposed to various adversities. This can be demonstrated by P.Ammon  1.3 [2.188] (324–330  CE?), the most extensive Greek private letter edited so far, for which a length comparable to Paul’s Letter to the Galatians 12

For further details and references see PNT 2, pp. 195–96.

62

Chapter 2

can be reconstructed. The first column is so badly damaged that only traces of a few characters are extant.13 Another very extensive papyrus is P.Harrauer 35 (ca. 245–260 CE), which was found in Hermopolis but written in Alexandria. Unlike the previous example, it contains not a single document but several in a total of five columns: a private letter from Aurelius Nikon, also known as Aniketos, to his mother; a petition to the Roman prefect L. Titinnius Clodianus; an administrational letter from the prefect to some liturgists ordering them to come to Alexandria. The state of preservation tends to improve from column to column.14 One could, of course, object that the state of preservation of these two examples only demonstrates that the material has, over many centuries, been exposed to the ravages of time and that their present state may not preserve any information whether the first parts of these documents were damaged within a few decades of their production. In this context, a closer look at the present appearance of, for example, the much older petition P.Gen. 3.126 with BL 12:75 (170–156 BCE?) is instructive. The (parts of the) three columns reproduced in the edition are preserved on two separate fragments,15 retrieved from the same mummy cartonnage (together with P.Gen. 3.127). It is noticeable that in both fragments the respective left part has been lost, which is why the modern editor (P. Schubert in P.Gen. 3, p. 81) could not exclude the possibility that on the left of col. 1 and/or between columns 2 and 3 one or more columns are missing. Since the preserved fragments are in very good condition, it is quite probable that the damages had already happened in ancient times, before the remains were processed into mummy cartonnage. Something comparable may apply to the following examples, which—with one exception—comprise only two columns. From the official letter P.Cair.Zen. 1.59021 (23 Oct 258 BCE), the right of the two columns is excellently preserved, the left one, however, shows major damages.16 Of the first column of P.Oxy. 4.743, a private letter dated 4 October 2 BCE, the upper 16 lines show only ink traces, while, of lines 17–18, probably a little more than half the lines are preserved; col. 2, however, is complete. BGU 3.884 (ca. 76–84 CE) is a private letter preserved on a papyrus scroll with damages running through the upper margin; apart from this, the poor state of preservation of col. 1 is striking, while col. 2 is practically undamaged.17 P.Brem. 2 is an official letter 13 14 15 16 17

Digital images: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/records/177r. html. Digital image: http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/RZ00003566. Digital images: http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/imageZoom/?iip=bgeiip/papyrus/ pgen401-1ri.ptif and …/pgen401-2ri.ptif. Digital image: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/Cairo-Zenon.1.html (select no. 59021). Digital image: http://berlpap.smb.museum/02182/.

Writing Media and Implements

63

in two columns, probably written in 119 CE. The lower part of the scroll was torn off at some time. From the right part of the first column, only remains of individual characters are preserved, so that a reconstruction of col. 1 is impossible; col. 2, on the other hand, is almost fully intact up to the lower tear-off.18 The preserved part (two complete columns) of the letter P.Giss.Univ. 3.20 (113– 117 CE) is in very good condition, only on the left margin the papyrus is badly damaged. In the upper left corner, the preserved text begins in the middle of a sentence, which proves that at least one complete column has been lost on the left side, of which not even a single letter has been preserved.19 P.Oxf. 2 (after 4 Aug 141 CE) contains a copy of an official correspondence. Of col. 1, more than half is missing, col. 2 is partially torn off at the bottom and a larger piece of the upper half is missing in the middle, but lines 42–46 only have small gaps, so their complete text can be reconstructed.20 SB 20.14662 is written in two columns and contains an edict of M. Sempronius Liberalis dated 29  August  154 CE. Again, the damage decreases significantly from left to right.21 BGU 1.326 is the Greek translation of the Latin testament of the veteran Gaius Longinus Castor, written down at Karanis/Arsinoites on 21 February 194 CE in two relatively wide columns; col. 1 is damaged but col. 2 is completely preserved.22 The papyrus containing the private letter P.Oxy. 6.936 [2.175] (III CE) was first inscribed on the right side, which is why this is numbered in the edition as col. 1. The editors, B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, describe the layout in the following way: “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” (P.Oxy. 6, p. 303). Again, the severe damage to the papyrus thus affects the left side. SB 5.8754 (5 Feb 77 BCE)23 is in no contradiction to this, because the damage to the right half of the papyrus, instead of the left, could, on the one hand, result from the fact that the document originates from mummy cartonnage, which means that it was used as a kind of papier-mâché. On the other hand, it could also be possible that the papyrus was ultimately rolled up from left to right. After all, the individual parts on it are in reverse 18 19 20 21 22 23

Digital image: http://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/papyri/content/titleinfo/770846. Digital image: https://papyri.uni-leipzig.de/receive/GiePapyri_schrift_00003440. Image on plate II of P.Oxf. Digital image: http://berlpap.smb.museum/01951/. Digital image: http://berlpap.smb.museum/02275/. On the transcription of the Greek text see also BL 3:208–9; 6:148; 8:335; 13:198. Digital image: http://www.papyrology.uw.edu.pl/papyri/pberlin16876.htm.

64

Chapter 2

chronological order: the earliest text, the copy of an official order, occupies the right column; the copy of an official letter referring to it is in col. 1, and, above this copy, are the two lines of the original letter, which refer to the subsequent copy. Thus, all of the above examples do not indicate a more or less uniform process of damage that lasted several centuries but, rather, the great differences in damage between the different columns or sections of the aforementioned papyri suggest that they developed over a relatively short period of time. If we apply these observations to a possible compilation of 2 Cor, we can assume the following: 2 Cor 10–13 could have originated from the letter mentioned in 2 Cor 7:8, 12. This, then would not have been completely preserved at the time of the first redaction of Paul’s letters, since the beginning of the text (opening greeting and a possible transition to the letter body), which, in a roll, was most exposed to external adversities, would have become illegible or been completely lost. In order to preserve and transmit the remaining portion, it would have been appended to another letter. In the course of this compilation, the final part of the still completely preserved letter, which now came first, contrary to the chronological order, would then simply have been omitted. It can only be speculated why the letter fragmentarily reproduced in 2 Cor 10–13 might have been available only in a damaged form at the time of the collection of letters. Because of its reproachful content, it would at least be understandable that this letter was not kept in the best conditions by the community in Corinth. Such a conjecture would then be an additional argument against the assumption that the collection of Corinthian letters was based on copies that Paul himself would have kept. But, as said, that would be pure speculation. Also, the possible time of the compilation (arrival of 1 Clem in Corinth?) can ultimately only be a matter of guesswork. From a papyrological point of view, a compilation process could thus easily be explained by the simple possibility that, at the time of the collection of the letters, not all of the original letters were preserved in a complete and undamaged form, and by the understandable interest in not disregarding and excluding an entire letter from further transmission solely because of a lost or damaged beginning. In order to save it for later generations, it could simply be appended to another letter and, if necessary, doing so by omitting incomplete sentences or unnecessary introductions at the beginning of the still preserved part(s). Adherence to a chronological order, which is not decisive for the Corpus Paulinum anyway, was irrelevant. According to this explanation, the assumption that the original letters kept in the “Corinthian epistolary archive” were the starting point of the letter

Writing Media and Implements

65

collection is more probable than the assumption that Paul himself created the first collection with the help of his letter copies.24 The latter is not impossible, because copies kept by Paul himself could also have been damaged in the course of time, in particular during his extensive travels. On the other hand, Paul’s travels probably prompted him not to always carry his draft letters or copies with him, but to give them to trusted persons for safekeeping. Moreover, Paul would have been quite capable of completing damaged parts, such as the beginning of a letter, which a collector and editor would have refrained from doing, especially since the possibility of compilation, as described above, was easily available as a simpler alternative. The advantage of explaining the compilation process in this way is, in any case, that all one has to reckon with is the evidenced possibility that papyrus letters could have been damaged but were still considered valuable, instead of speculating about the completely unknown considerations of a potential compiler.

Texts [1.15]–[1.16] [1.15] P.Brem. 61 (TM 19646) Letter from an unknown sender to Apollonios, letter from Chairas to Apollonios, and letter from Diskas to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, Hermopolis/Egypt?, 113–120 CE Ed. U.  Wilcken 1936 (P.Brem. 61). – Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 142–43 (extended eBook 2008, A7.9 no. 39 with image; only first letter); F.  Winter in *Arzt-Grabner 2006, 81–82, 101–102. – Online information and images: https://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:46:1-1471. Archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Arch  19; *Reinard 2016, 563–692; *Sarri 2018, 262–63); see also SB 10.10277 [2.126]; P.Brem. 56app [2.127]; 20 [2.128]; 5 [2.129]; PSI 4.308 [2.130] is uncertain.

24

On this theory see Trobisch 1989, 100–102, 119–36; 1994, 83–136; 1996, 93–94; Richards 2004, 210–23. For proponents of this theory before Trobisch, see Porter 2004, 95–127, 116 n. 82, and Trobisch 1989, 119 n. 37. Critical of Trobisch’s theory, e.g., Porter 2004, 113–21, who considers this theory very probable in essence and sees either Paul himself or one of his companions (perhaps Timotheus) at the beginning of the collection of Paul’s letters (see esp. pp. 126–27). That Paul possessed copies of at least some of his letters is also considered probable by, e.g., Schmeller 2004, 203. For other theories on the origin of the collection of Paul’s letters, see the overview by Porter 2004, 98–113.

66

Chapter 2 (Col. 1)

[ ̣ ]… to Apollonios her brother, many greetings. I greet you. From the day I departed from you and arrived in the Hermopolites, |5 I have been busy with the strategos. [… th]e thieves wanted me to [confirm] that I the content of the b[ox], swearing about its value. [But I] didn’t want to |10 swear sooner than I could collect the money, knowing [that witho]ut a threat from the strategos they do not […] anything but it only […]. But how are you? I am distressed daily that |15 [you are] ill again. Send me news about [your] well-being. For above everything I regard [your] well-being [rather] than all the things I’m seeking after. For I know how you value me and I often testify |20 to all about what you have done for me. Greet Aline in a sisterly way and Eudaimonis (your) mother and your unenchanted children.1 (h2) I pray that you fare well. Pharmouthi 16. |25 (h1) You are not unaware how the fool is bothering me again because of his mother, because he is such a fool and doesn’t have you (here) to shake out his foolishness. However, take care, when I send you |30 the children, Pausas and Kotteros, to advise them regarding that matter and to bring it to an end.

(Col. 2)

Chairas to Apollonios his brother, greetings. |35 I greet you many times and constantly expect you to write to me about your wellbeing, how you are. For I am distressed the whole time until you write to me |40 about your health. Also Herodes your brother greets you. I greet all those who love you. (h3) I wish that you fare well. |45 (h4) Diskas to Apollonios his lord, many gree(tings). Above everything else I greet you and I make obeisance for you at every hour before the lord Hermes. As you know, I am distressed about |50 you when you are ill, until I come to you, and you get through it well. I greet you. But you think that I will stay away from you because of our pledges,2 |55 to whom I prefer your welfare even more than my own. Greet all who love you. Farewell, lord.

|60 (h5) [To Apollonios] ⪥ the strategos of Apollo(nopolites Hepta) komias.

(Back)

Writing Media and Implements

67

Notes 1 Aline is known from other papyrus letters as Apollonios’s wife and Eudaimonis as his mother. 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 Already U. Wilcken (in P.Brem., p. 136) noted that this remark is hard to understand but may refer to a judicial dispute which, according to P.Flor. 3.332, Diskas had to settle with his sister Eudaimonis and her son Apollonios.

The papyrus contains three letters to Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias. The first letter is from a woman who was a sister (or a close relative) of the strategos (cf. lines 20–23 and note 1), the second from a certain Chairas, and the third from his uncle Diskas (cf. P.Flor. 3.332.22–23). Five handwritings can be distinguished: The first two letters were written by a secretary (h1); the author of the first letter adds the final greeting in her own handwriting (h2); likewise Chairas at the end of the second letter (h3); Diskas wrote his entire letter himself (h4); the address on the back seems to have been written by another scribe (h5). All three letter writers have apparently heard about an illness of the strategos and are deeply concerned about him, which the female author expresses in the most personal way. *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 143) therefore assume that she had taken the initiative, while the two men may simply have taken advantage of the messenger. However, she too first writes quite upset about a theft that had taken place in her house, and after affirming her concern about the illness of the strategos, she gets upset in a postscript about some fool who is harassing her again. The Greek terms for “fool” (μωρός), “to be a fool or foolish” (μωραίνω), and “foolishness” (μωρία), used together here in four short lines, are highly emotive and rarely used, but also show up in the Corinthian correspondence of Paul of Tarsus (cf. 1 Cor 1:18–27; 2:14; 3:18–19; 4:10; see F. Winter in *Arzt-Grabner 2006, 81–82, 101–102). [1.16] P.Panop.Beatty 1.389–391 (TM 44881) Copy of official letter

Greek papyrus, Panopolis/Egypt (TM Geo 1589), 22 Sep 298 CE Ed. T.  C.  Skeat 1964 (P.Panop.Beatty  1). – Cf. J.  Gascou and K.  A.  Worp 1996, “The Panopolitan Village Συνορία,” ZPE 112:163–164. – Online information and image: https:// viewer.cbl.ie/viewer/object/PapPan_I_13/1/. Archive of Apollinarios strategos of the Panopolite nome (TM Arch 229).

68

Chapter 2

To Horion, cavalryman, stationed at the fort of Toeto-Psinabla.1 The letters you delivered, written by my lord, the perfectissimus praefectus of the Thebaid, Iulius |390 Athenodoros, one to me concerning hides for fastening gates and [side doors], but the other one to Besas the accountant concerning the same hides, I received today, nibbled by mice and mutilated. And the one I kept with me, but the other one I gave to the aforementioned Besas. (Year) 15 and (year) 14 and (year) 7, Thoth 25. Note 1 Toeto (TM Geo 7670) and Psinabla (TM Geo 8201) are two villages of the Panopolite nome. As already indicated by the editor (T. C. Skeat in P.Panop.Beatty, p. 129) and further suggested by Gascou and Worp (1996), Τοετὼ Ψινάβλα should be understood as “Toeto ⟨and⟩ Psinabla.” It appears, at least, that Panopolitan toparchies were frequently named after two important villages whose names were simply strung together.

The papyrus scroll P.Panop. Beatty 1 contains copies of letters sent by the strategos of the Panopolite nome to his superiors or to local officials of the nome in September 298 CE. Excluding the first two very fragmentary columns, it is somewhat more than six meters long. Two features are typical for these letter copies. First, they do not begin with an elaborate opening greeting, but only the addressee is mentioned at the beginning (the same peculiarity is also found at the beginning of draft letters; cf. PNT 2, pp. 53–54). And second, the letters do not end with a final greeting, but with the phrase σεσημείωμαι (“I have signed”), added to the dating in a different handwriting, thus obviously written by the strategos himself to “check on the dispatch of the letters” (T. C. Skeat in P.Panop.Beatty, p. xxii). Only a few letters, like the present one, were not signed in this way, which probably happened here only by mistake. The present letter is part of col. 15. The strategos notifies a certain Horion that one of the two letters received from him had been mutilated by mice (cf. P.Lond. 7.2033.2–7; 257–248  BCE). Obviously, however, enough was still preserved to be able to recognize what this letter was about and to deliver it to the actual addressee, a certain Besas.

Chapter 3

Literacy and Illiteracy

Levels of Literacy

Literature R.  S.  Bagnall 2011, Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East, Sather Classical Lectures 69 (Berkeley: University of California Press); J. Bodel 2014, “Inscriptions and Literacy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Latin Epigraphy, ed. C. Bruun and J. Edmonson (Oxford: Oxford University Press),  745–63; A.  K.  Bowman 1991, “Literacy in the Roman Empire: Mass and Mode,” in *Humphrey 1991, 119–31; S. D. Charlesworth 2014, “Recognizing Greek Literacy in Early Roman Documents from the Judaean Desert,” BASP 51:161–89; *Cribiore 1996; T. de Bruyn 2017, Making Amulets Christian: Artefacts, Scribes, and Contexts (Oxford: Oxford University Press); R.  A.  Derrenbacker 2016, “Ancient Literacy, Ancient Literary Dependence, Ancient Media, and the Triple Tradition,” in *Arnal 2016, 81–95; S.  A.  Frampton 2019, Empire of Letters: Writing in Roman Literature and Thought from Lucretius to Ovid (Oxford: Oxford University Press); A. E. Hanson 1991, “Ancient Illiteracy,” in *Humphrey 1991, 159–98; A. E. Hanson 2015, “Papyri and Efforts by Adults in Egyptian Villages to Write Greek,” in Learning Latin and Greek from Antiquity to the Present, ed. E. P. Archibald, W. Brockliss, and J. Gnoza, YCS  37 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 10–29; W.  V.  Harris 1989, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press); W.  V.  Harris 2018, “Literacy in Everyday Ancient Life: From Gabii to Gloucestershire,” in *Kolb 2018, 143–58; 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; 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; C. Keith 2009, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus, NTTSD 38 (Leiden: Brill); C.  Keith 2011, Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee, LNTS  413 (London: T&T Clark International); *Kloppenborg 2014; J. Pearce 2004, “Archaeology, Writing Tablets and Literacy in Roman Britain,” Gallia 61:43–51; P. Schubert 2018, “Who Needed Writing in Graeco-Roman Egypt, and for What Purpose? Document Layout as a Tool of Literacy,” in *Kolb 2018, 335–50; G. Woolf 2000, “Literacy,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., ed. A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 875–97; Woolf 2009, “Literacy or Literacies in Rome?,” in Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome, ed. W.  A.  Johnson and H. N. Parker, Studies in Book and Print Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 46–68; *Yiftach 2016; H. C. Youtie 1971a, “ΑΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΟΣ: An Aspect of Greek Society in Egypt,” HSCP 75:161–76; H. C. Youtie 1971b, “Βραδέως γράφων: Between Literacy and Illiteracy,” GRBS 12:239–61; H. C. Youtie 1975, “‘Because They Do Not Know Letters’,” ZPE 19:101–8.

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790418_004

70

Chapter 3

One of the ironies of the ancient Greek and Roman world is that despite relatively low rates of reading literacy and even smaller numbers of those who were capable of composition, literate communication was ubiquitous, and the operations of the government and many sectors of the economy presupposed literacy (Bagnall 2011, 1–3; de Bruyn 2017, 241). Inhabitants of the empire encountered writing in public spaces on imperial decrees, building inscriptions, publicly posted lists of names, honorific inscriptions, and funerary epigraphy; the state generated census documents, nominations for liturgies, reports of taxes, and tax receipts; courts recorded transcripts of judicial proceedings; interactions with state officials produced thousands of petitions, complaints, and tax declarations; commercial interactions generated records of loans, leases, sales, and resulted in substantial administrative archives; the military produced a variety of documents on stone, wooden tablets, metal plaques, and papyri—all of these, in addition to thousands of private letters on papyrus, potsherds, or wooden tablets, farm and club accounts, receipts on papyri or ostraca, curse tablets on lead, and a variety of other documents. Although levels of literacy were low, literacy was not the exclusive preserve of the elite. On the contrary, literate persons could be found at most levels of society (Hanson 1991, 160), which also meant that it was possible for illiterates and semi-literates to find someone who could read a letter for them and assist them in composing a reply, submitting a petition, or responding to official demands. Moreover, it does not appear to be the case that literacy was segregated into “scribal literacy” (that is, restricted to the sector responsible for maintaining palace records, as was the case in Near Eastern empires), and “craftsman’s literacy,” where the majority of craftsman enjoyed literacy while women and unskilled laborers were illiterate, as may have been the case in the Mediaeval period. Nor is it possible to identify other segregated literacies such as “military literacy,” “commercial literacy,” or “monumental literacy” (Harris 1989, 7–8). On the contrary, literacy was a generalized or “joined-up” skill because of the interconnections that existed among the political elite, the military, and agricultural and commercial sectors. Those who had acquired literacy in the legions could also employ that skill in businesses, on farms, in civic administration, or other contexts. Literate slaves served both as administrators of estates and as the teachers of the children of their owners. Local administrators were not only engaged in the production of financial, fiscal, and administrative documents, but also read and sometimes copied literary texts for pleasure. Landowners needed to be able to read and understand the records of their estate managers; commercial and administrative records had to be intelligible to landowners and artisans. These interconnections inhibited

Literacy and Illiteracy

71

the development of segregated literacies (*Cribiore 1996, 5; Woolf 2009, 53; Bodel 2014, 756). Modern definitions of literacy and illiteracy cannot easily be exported to antiquity without the risk of misunderstanding. In 1978 UNESCO defined the two terms in this way: A person is literate who can with understanding both read and write a short simple statement on his[/her] everyday life. A person is illiterate who cannot with understanding both read and write a short simple statement on his[/her] everyday life (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114032.page=183).

UNESCO added another term, “functional literacy”: A person is functionally literate who can engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning of his group and community and also for enabling him [sic] to continue to use reading, writing, and calculation for his own and the community’s development.

For UNESCO, “functional illiterates” were those unable to engage in all those activities. These definitions treat literacy as including both the ability to read and to write, even though from cognitive and practical standpoints, these are quite different operations. Moreover, as intuitive the packaging of reading and writing might be for modern persons, the insistence that both must be present turns out not to be especially useful in thinking about literacy in antiquity. The 2013  OECD definition is perhaps more applicable to antiquity (and to some contemporary cultures), although it is still oriented toward the telos of economic advancement: Literacy is defined as the ability to understand, evaluate, use, and engage with written texts to participate in society, achieve one’s goals, and develop one’s knowledge and potential.

Importantly, for the OECD, literacy did not necessarily entail the ability to write.1 Data from the ancient Mediterranean world indicate that it is necessary to parse “literacy” and to distinguish quite distinct operations. One of the important indices of the ubiquity of “illiteracy” is the high frequency of the formula, 1 See https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/0e96cba5-en/index.html?itemId=/content/ component/0e96cba5-en.

72

Chapter 3

“x wrote this because y does not know letters,” appended to lease and loan instruments. Although we might be inclined to take this as consistent with UNESCO’s definition of illiteracy, there are in fact several levels of literacy: complete illiteracy; persons who are illiterate but who owned and valued texts; those able to recognize and sign their names (signature literacy); the ability to read slowly but not to write; semi-literacy (sometimes called “slow writers”); and full reading and writing literacy. In bilingual environments such as Egypt, Judea and later Syria-Palestine, and many other locations in the Mediterranean, it is also important to consider the possibility that a person could read and/or write in a local language but not in Greek or Latin. These variables will make it very difficult to arrive at a simple statistic of literacy levels, since we need to ask what kind of literacy is at issue? Although a business contract could be written by one of the contracting parties, it was just as common for a scribe to prepare the contract. But for legal reasons, at least in Greek, a contract normally included a subscription, called a hypographe, in which the contracting parties authenticated the contract by adding their names and usually a short declaration. In the many cases that one or both parties were illiterate, a scribe or other literate person could write on behalf of the illiterate, identifying themselves usually with a patronym and other identifying features. A local survey of contracts drawn up in Tebtynis in the early first century, P.Mich. 5.249–355, shows that in over 90% of the cases, one of the contracting parties was unable to affix their own signature (Hanson 1991, 167). In 2016 a broader study by U. Yiftach of almost 1350 legal documents from archives in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods produced strong evidence of illiteracy: of the 316 hypographai of the early Roman period, 235 or almost 75% were written by someone other than the contracting party “because he or she does not know letters.” Analyses of military documents and acknowledgements of public distributions of hay and grain indicate that twothirds had to ask others to sign for them (Hanson 1991, 167). Analysis of grapheion documents—that is, copies of legal documents preserved in village archives—indicates that the ability to affix one’s own hypographe also varied widely by gender, location, and the challenges inherent in writing. Yiftach’s study indicates that men wrote 34% of their own hypographai (often only a name and a simple formula), while only 6.7% of women could write a subscription. Geography as well as gender was a variable. In Tebtynis and Ptolemais Euergetis 42–43% of the subscriptions were written by one of the contracting parties but a meagre 3.5% of subscriptions in Soknopaiou Nesos were autographs (*Yiftach 2016, 278). Approximately half of men could write a 1–3 line hypographe themselves; but with longer subscriptions of 4–9 lines this dropped to 25–27%. Less than one quarter of men could write a

Literacy and Illiteracy

73

subscription of ten or more lines. See P.Mich. 5.346a (29 Aug 12–27 Mar 13 CE) [1.17] for an example of a contract signed by one of the principals who was able to add a two line hypographe, and by a scribe who wrote the contract on behalf of the other, who was illiterate. Yiftach also considered memoranda (hypomnemata) to lease land, where he observed that the great majority of lessors could write the memorandum themselves (96%). But only 68% of women lessees and 32% of male lessees could write. This disparity seems indexical to differences in social standing. Landowners (that is, the lessors) were more likely to be from the curial classes—members of the municipal elite –; lessees, however, were mostly farmers. Curiously, female lessees were more likely to be literate than their male counterparts (*Yiftach 2016, 274). For an example of a literate lessor and an illiterate lessee see P.Mich. 3.188 [1.18] (17 Aug 120 CE). Yiftach also examined longer hypographai. When these displayed flawless orthography, they also tended to have been written by persons with Greek names and patronyms. It is probable that such persons had enjoyed some degree of Hellenistic education. With longer hypographai that contained many errors, however, there was a strong correlation with writers having Egyptian names. Hence, the mere ability to write a lengthy hypographe does not necessarily imply full writing competence. Still less would it imply that the writer was sufficiently literate to serve in the role of a professional scribe, able to compose longer documents from a template or to engage in free composition. In some of these instances, at least, the writer was merely copying a formula that indicated the acknowledgement of a contract or the willingness to undertake a lease, or taking dictation of the relevant formula. In the process, orthographic and grammatical errors were introduced. That hardly translates into full literacy. A famous example of the “illiterate writers” was a certain Petaus, who between 184 and 186  CE served as the village scribe (komogrammateus) for Ptolemais Hormou. Unlike his brother Theon, Petaus was illiterate. How did Petaus manage to accomplish his job? As village scribe, he had to authenticate various documents, often with a formula, “I Petaus, have issued this.” Among the documents preserved in his archive his practice sheet was found, on which he rehearsed this formula twelve times (P.Petaus 121). As he reproduced the formula, he introduced new mistakes and dropped letters. His last two attempts are entirely unintelligible (Youtie 1971a and P.Petaus 121). What do Yiftach’s findings imply, that almost one quarter of men could write a subscription of some length? In the first place, as Yiftach concedes, it is far from clear that evidence of literacy from grapheion documents maps onto Egyptian society as a whole and that one quarter of Egyptian men were

74

Chapter 3

literate. Strictly speaking, grapheion evidence pertains only to that sector of the population that were in contractual relationships with others and needed to file copies of those contracts with the local grapheion. There was no need for day laborers, slaves, most artisans, and others to file such documents and hence, the grapheion does not offer evidence of their rates of literacy. Moreover, as Yiftach notes and as the example of Petaus illustrates, even those who could write a longer hypographe were not necessarily possessed of full literacy. Yiftach wisely concludes that those who could compose flawless Greek of some length probably did not amount to more than 10% of the male population (*Yiftach 2016, 277). Even that figure might be too high. Although the formula, ‘x wrote this because y does not know letters’ is extremely common, it is not always an indication of illiteracy. In some instances, it only means that the person is not able to write in Greek but might have been able to write in a native language. P.Yadin 1.17 [1.19] provides an example of a Greek document with a subscription in a local language (cf. P.Yadin 2.52 [1.41], a letter written in Greek because a scribe to write in Hebrew or Aramaic script was not at hand). There are cases in which one of the contracting parties was literate, but not in Greek. That is, he was able to compose a contract in a local language, but because in Egypt the subscription had to be written in Greek, he had to seek a Greek-speaking scribe able to write the subscription. P.Dime 3.29 [1.20] provides an instance of just this possibility—a contract written in Demotic, affixed with a Greek summary of the contract and a scribal note indicating that the principal was unable to write in Greek. In this case, it is also worth noting that although the scribe contributed the Greek hypographe, other subscriptions written by the same scribe suggest that the scribe was not a fully competent writer. In the composition of a private letter, it was unnecessary to have a subscription, but it was nonetheless a possible courtesy for the letter writer to add a subscription in his or her own hand. P.Oxy. 31.2559 [1.21] (II CE) seems to be a letter written by a professional scribe who produced an extremely legible and mostly error-free letter. The sender added own greetings in a less regular hand. This is not to say that all letters were dictated by the ostensible sender and written by a secretary or scribe. P.  Arzt-Grabner (PNT 2, pp. 47–48, 270–73) has pointed to the rather extensive correspondence by Lucius Bellienus Gemellus who settled in Aphrodites Berenikes Polis in the Arsinoite nome in the early first century CE. A landowner, Gemellus had extensive correspondence with his steward Epagathos (TM Arch 134). Only one of those letters, P.Fay. 110 [2.91] (11 Sep 94 CE) was written for Gemellus by a professional scribe,

Literacy and Illiteracy

75

whose hand can easily be distinguished from Gemellus’s final greetings. All the other letters were in Gemellus’s own cursive hand. Although it is common to encounter both grammatical and orthographic errors in many papyri, there are some notable exceptions. P.Wisc. 2.84 [1.22] (late II CE) appears to be the letter of a civil servant residing in Alexandria, written in his own hand, and largely error-free. In contrast to the rather simple grammar of many papyrus letters, it shows some attempts at a higher literary style.

Writers or Readers?

Literature *Cavallo 2009. – See also p. 69.

The irony has already been noted that, in spite of relatively low levels of literacy, literate communication was ubiquitous. The discussion above has indicated that few could write, even their own names, and that many who had very basic literate skills could not write much more than a line or two, often with a very unpracticed hand and with numerous orthographical and grammatical errors. It might be guessed that more could read than could write—that is, more could identify their names on a publicly displayed list and some could even read—undoubtedly very slowly—an imperial or procuratorial decree. Indeed, the fact that multiple copies of imperial decrees were distributed throughout Egypt and posted in cities and villages seems to presuppose that at least some proportion of the population could read. SB 14.12144 [1.23] (198/199 CE) provides an example of such an edict of the prefect Q. Aemilius Saturninus (?), outlawing divination and magic. As the orthography indicates, this papyrus was not the actual copy of the edict to be set up in public space, because the hand is not very legible. A much more legible copy of a prefect’s edict is found in P.Oxy. 8.1100 [1.24] (28 Oct–26 Nov 206 CE), with lettering that resembles the hands found in literary papyri (*Cavallo 2009, 126). Because of the quality of its lettering, it was likely the work of a professional scribe, either the prefect’s scribe in Alexandria or a professional copyist attached to the strategos in Oxyrhynchos (the copy was found in Oxyrhynchos). Since the first part of the document is the prefect’s instruction to local strategoi, P.Oxy. 8.1100 cannot be the posted edict, but only the text of the edict along with a letter of instruction. It is, nevertheless, written in a beautifully legible hand and one that presumably represents an approximation of how the posted version should have looked.

76

Chapter 3

Perhaps the closest approximation to a posted decree is represented by PSI 5.446 [1.25] (133–137 CE), the edict of Marcus Petronius Mamertinus regarding misconduct by soldiers in requisitioning persons and traction animals without appropriate authorization. The copy is almost error-free, and its lettering approaches a calligraphic hand. It is designed to be maximally legible, even to a reader with very modest reading skills. SB 14.12144 [1.23], P.Oxy. 8.1100 [1.24], and PSI 5.446 [1.25] suggest that governors could assume that the public posting of administrative decrees would be effective in disseminating knowledge of those edicts and in obtaining compliance. This in turn implies that there existed sufficient persons in every metropolis and village who were able to read—even if they could not write— and able to convey the information to illiterates and sub-literates.

Texts for Education in Literacy

Literature *Cribiore 1996; *Cribiore 2001; R.  Cribiore 2009, “Education in the Papyri,” in *Bagnall 2009, 320–37; R. Cribiore 2015a, “Literary Culture and Education in the Dakhla Oasis,” in R. S. Bagnall et al., An Oasis City, ISAW Monographs 6 (New York: Institute for the Study of the Ancient World), 179–92; R.  Cribiore 2015b, “School Structures, Apparatus, and Materials,” in *Bloomer 2015, 149–59; E. Dickey 2015, “Teaching Latin to Greek Speakers in Antiquity,” in Learning Latin and Greek from Antiquity to the Present, ed. E. P. Archibald, W. Brockliss, and J. Gnoza, YCS 37 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 30–51; W. A. Johnson 2015, “Learning to Read and Write,” in *Bloomer 2015, 137– 48; T. Morgan 1998, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Cambridge Classical Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

The fact that some ostensibly could write but were essentially illiterate becomes intelligible once the methods of literate schooling are known. *Cribiore (1996; 2001) and Johnson (2015) have elaborated the stages in literate education: first, memorizing the shape, phonetic and numeric value of letters, and then memorizing alphabets. This sometimes involved such exercises as memorizing the alphabet backwards or reciting the alphabet by skipping every other letter or every third letter, or the sequence of the first letter, then the last, then the second, and the second last, and so on (O.Ont.Mus. 1.65). It is likely that at this stage the student was taught to recognize and write his or her name (*Cribiore 2001, 164–67). The second stage involved the memorization of syllables, first two letter syllables (ba, be, bi, bo, bi, by, bō, ca, ce, ci, co, cy, cō, etc.), then three letter syllables (bab, beb, bib, bob, bub, etc.), then entire words. A number of papyri include

Literacy and Illiteracy

77

such syllable and word lists, for example, TM 59942 (Cairo, Egyptian Museum JdE 65445; late III BCE) which contains a list of gods, monosyllables, months, names, and rivers presumably used in a classroom for students to reproduce. A further stage was the copying of short sentences, often taken from Homer, Euripides, or Menander, or the chreia of Diogenes of Sinope (*Cribiore 1996, 46). Although it is possible that the student at this stage might have developed some sense of grammar, examples of this largely mechanical method of copying suggest that a student often copied strings of letters without much comprehension. TM 61495 [1.26] is an example of such an exercise, in which the teacher reproduced a line of Menander (Sententia 476 along with a hitherto unknown maxim) and the student copied it twice. Since the student made an error in the first line and then duplicated that error, and since the student replicated an error of the teacher’s, it seems doubtful that the student actually understood much what was being copied. He or she simply imitated the graphical characteristics of the teacher’s example (*Cribiore 1996, 145). Further stages included the copying of longer passages, usually with a more fluent hand, and then scholia minora of Homer, with moderately fluent or fluent hands. Another stage was achieved with the composition of summaries and paraphrases, often of Homeric episodes. The composition of summaries and paraphrases presupposes that the student had now developed some sense of grammar, parts of speech, and syntax, even though such school compositions often include grammatical and orthographical errors. Grammatical exercises include conjugations of verbs, declensions of nouns, and definitions of grammatical terms. One of the more interesting exercises is a wooden tablet with a paradigm of the optative and participles of νικάω (“to conquer”) on one side, and a chria of Pythagoras inflected in five cases and three numbers (CPF 2.2, pp.  381–390 [1.27]). Although these grammatical exercises required the student to replicate grammatical forms that either would never be used in practice, or that were rather absurd, the point of these grammatical gymnastics—to use Cribiore’s term—was to equip students with the ability to transform a sentence grammatically so that it could be deployed correctly in any given speech context. *Cribiore (1996, 33, 135) has coordinated these several stages of learning with four different hands: (a) a “zero-grade hand,” the hand of a beginner, which shows a lack of coordination and poor knowledge of letter shapes (evidenced in letters, alphabets, and short passages); (b) an “alphabetic hand,” also clumsy but with at least correct letter shapes; (seen in letters, alphabets and short passages);

78

Chapter 3

(c) “the evolving hand” which displays some irregularities, but is moderately fluent (in syllabaries, lists of words, long passages, and also seen in some paraphrases, and grammatical exercises); and (d) “the rapid hand,” which shows fluency (attested in long passages, scholia minora, compositions, paraphrases, grammatical exercises). These types of hands map roughly onto four levels of writing outlined by *Cribiore (1996, 10): 1. “writing as handwriting, the physical act of tracing characters or words”; 2. “writing as copying and taking dictation, recording of others’ words”; 3. “writing as crafting lexical, syntactical, and rhetorical units of discourse into meaningful patterns”; and 4. “writing as authoring or producing an independent and original text for a specific audience and purpose.” It is doubtful that many students progressed to the fourth stage. On the other hand, even a young boy like Theon, who wrote P.Oxy. 1.119 [1.1] (II–III CE), reproaching his father for not taking him to Alexandria, managed to express his anger and frustration very well, albeit with many orthographic errors. Many who acquired the ability to recognize and form letters and to copy—albeit slowly—short texts from an exemplar may have been prepared for a role as a village scribe. P.Köln 15.613 [1.28] (Jan–Feb 56 or 66 CE) provides an example of a writing exercise that did not take a literary text such as Homer or Menander as its model, but instead the standard opening for a sale or manumission of a slave. The rather alphabetic hand suggests a student at a relative early stage of literate training, perhaps being prepared to take the role of a komogrammateus. The example of Petaus (above) suggests that at least some ostensibly literate persons had not moved much beyond “writing as copying,” whether knowledge of grammar and spelling were still rather basic. On an entirely different level are those professional scribes who, as well-paid writers of documents, not only mastered the Greek language, but also a variety of genres (deeds of sale, marriage contracts, wills, etc.). BGU 3.887 [1.51] (8  Jul  151  CE), for example, preserves a slave sale contract concluded in the forum of Side in Pamphylia. Some parents were able to send their children to Alexandria for education. An example is SB 22.15708 [1.30] (ca. 100 CE), a letter from an unknown student studying in Alexandria to his father in Oxyrhynchos. Given the quality of Greek in the letter, the writer had progressed far, and was capable of writing with few orthographical and grammatical errors, and even with a touch of specialized rhetorical vocabulary. The ability of the family to support that level of Alexandrian education for the writer and his brother, who was studying literature, and perhaps an even younger brother, was presumably a function of the wealth and social status of the father, who was a high priest of Oxyrhynchos.

Literacy and Illiteracy

79

Outside of Alexandria and a few of the larger metropoleis, it is probable that much of the initial stages of education occurred within the house, except for the families that could afford to send their children to Alexandria. P.Mich. 8.464 [1.29] (16 Mar 99 CE), however, provides an example of schooling taking place in Karanis, a village likely too small to have a school or a full-time grammarian. Nevertheless, the children that belonged to Apollonous and her brother Terentianus were being schooled in Karanis, perhaps with an itinerant teacher or a local with some degree of literacy. Apollonous, to judge from her hand and composition, had progressed well beyond the early stages of education, whether in Karanis or somewhere else. In sum, the relatively high frequency of the formula, “x wrote this because y does not know letters” coupled with an understanding of the stages of literate education and a variety of illustrations of those stages underscores how difficult it is to arrive at simple percentages of literacy and illiteracy in the ancient Mediterranean world. If Egypt is indexical, it should be obvious that the frequency of the illiteracy formula in papyri cannot be translated into a statistic of literates versus illiterates, since it is clear that the formula in some instances only meant that the subject in question could not read or write in Greek. This means that the number of persons who could read or write might be higher than the frequency of the formula suggests. And the fact that the imperial administration posted public notices implies that even if the number of persons who could read was quite small, literate skills much have been sufficiently disbursed within the population to allow the contents of those notices to be conveyed to the illiterates by a few with some ability to read. On the other hand, given the methods of literate education, it is by no means certain that someone who was able to write their own name or a short hypographe and append it to a contract had much of a grasp of what he or she had written. An examination of the subscriptions that scribes added on behalf of illiterate principals to a contract also raises some suspicions as to whether the scribe himself had a very deep command of grammar. The example of the illiterate scribe, Petaus, is not likely to be entirely exceptional. Given the ways that literacy was taught, at least in the initial stages, it was entirely possible for a student to acquire the ability to reproduce with some accuracy a string of letters or a formula but have very little understanding of the grammatical principles involved. It is not until one progressed to the higher stages of education—composing summaries, paraphrases, progymnastic and grammatical exercises—that a knowledge of parts of speech, conjugations and declensions, and the principles of syntax can be inferred. In offering statistics about literacy then, it is essential to ask: “what kind of literacy is at stake?” While the ability of persons to write a short subscription might indicate that a quarter of

80

Chapter 3

men and fewer women could write, if only haltingly and without much comprehension, the incidence of the ability to read and write with some fluency is likely to be no higher than the 10% that Yiftach ventured.

Literate Women

Literature *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006; R. Cribiore 2002, “The Women in the Apollonios Archive and Their Use of Literacy,” in Le rôle et le statut de la femme en Égypte hellénistique, romaine et byzantine: Actes du colloque international, Bruxelles – Leuven 27–29 novembre 1997, ed. H. Melaerts and L. Mooren, Studia Hellenistica 37 (Leuven: Peeters), 149– 66; R.  Flemming 2007, “Women, Writing and Medicine in the Classical World,” ClQ 57:257–79; S. R. Huebner 2018, “Frauen und Schriftlichkeit im römischen Ägypten,” in *Kolb 2018, 163–78. – See also p. 69.

As Yiftach noted (above, p. 72), the examination of grapheion documents suggests differential literacy rates for men and women, with men showing a greater incidence of the ability to write (at any level of literacy) than women, except in the case of memoranda (hypomnemata) to lease land, in which literate female lessees outnumbered male lessees. Given Yiftach’s data, we might expect a priori that women with Greek names, who lived in larger population centers, and who belonged to the land-owning classes would be more likely to be able to write than those with Egyptian names, who lived in villages, and who were lessees and tenants. There is, however, an immediate problem in concluding from a letter ostensibly written by a woman (or a man, for that matter) that it was in fact written by that person. As the discussion above makes clear, scribes wrote on behalf of the semi-literate and illiterate and unless the scribe self-identified with the illiteracy formula, “x wrote this because y does not know letters,” it is difficult to know whether the ostensible writer was in fact the actual writer. The illiteracy formula was typical of legal enactments and for legal reasons: the principals in a contract, lease or loan agreement had to attest their compliance with the agreement, and in the case of a principal who was illiterate, the scribe, who typically self-identified with a patronym and other indications, attested on behalf of the illiterate. No such legal requirement existed in the case of private letters and hence it is rare to find examples of the illiteracy formula in private letters. Yet this hardly means that the ostensible sender wrote the letter. Even with those who belonged to the social levels in which one might reasonably expect some degree of writing literacy, *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 6) observe that “ironically, those most capable of writing [are] who are least likely

Literacy and Illiteracy

81

to do so,” limiting themselves to writing “greetings and signatures on letters prepared by others from dictation.” A letter produced with a calligraphic hand is likely the work of a professional scribe taking dictation from the sender. But is a letter or document that looks like that of a “slow writer” with an “evolving hand” the work of its ostensible author? The discussion above has suggested that there was a rather wide range of scribes, from professional scribes capable of neat and strictly bilinear compositions, but also many whose hands were not much better than the unpracticed “alphabetic hand.” And women could also turn to family members with a basic level of writing literacy in order to compose a letter for them. These too could have taken dictation from the letter sender. It is for these reasons that *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 42) conclude that “[p]robably at least two-thirds of the women’s letters in Greek were written by someone other than the named author, mainly from dictation.” P.Rain.Cent. 70 [1.31] (II–III CE) offers an example of a woman’s letter of condolence to another woman (both names are lost). But the calligraphy of the letter is neat and clear, and the grammar is flawless. The presence of sophisticated vocabulary and rhetorical touches are likely indications that the actual letter was the work of a trained scribe, taking dictation. While women could progress to advanced stages of grammatical preparation, it is unlikely that they could benefit from rhetorical training. In this case, it was likely the professional scribe who framed the letter in a way appropriate to the occasion. P.Mil.Vogl. 2.76 [1.32] (138–147 CE) appears also to be largely the work of a scribe taking dictation from a woman writer to add her own greetings. This papyrus may be an instance of those who *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 6) describe—women who “are most capable of writing who are least likely to do so.” The author, Diognis was a wealthy landowner, whose daughter was being educated (by a female teacher), but Diognis only added her greetings to a letter to her estate manager, Kronion. PSI 12.1247.v [2.171], from Oxyrhynchos in the early third century offers an example of a letter that was written mainly by a scribe, but in which the sender, Ammonous, has added not only greetings in her own hand, but a more extensive subscription that introduces new information not included in the letter body. Her subscription is without grammatical errors and the only orthographical issues are common iotacisms. A noteworthy reversal of the more typical circumstance of the husband (or other male) writing a subscription for an illiterate woman is offered by P.Oxy. 12.1463 [1.33] (215 CE). Here is it the woman who is sufficiently literate to affix her own hypographe, while her husband, acting as her guardian, required a literate scribe to attest his agreement, since he was illiterate.

82

Chapter 3

A short letter from a mother to her son Ptolemaios, now in Oxyrhynchos, may be by the mother herself (P.Oxy. 6.930 [1.34]). The family was evidently sufficiently wealthy to send their son accompanied by a slave/pedagogue to Oxyrhynchos for education. Although the mother was typically interested in his health, she was most concerned with his progress as a reader and was happy to learn that he was at the stage of reading the Iliad. When she learned that his teacher had departed (for Alexandria?), she insisted that he and his pedagogue locate a suitable replacement. Although the letter might have been written by a professional scribe, the lettering is, in *Bagnall and Cribiore’s judgment, “respectable but not particularly attractive” (2006, 375). Of course, the letter might have been written by a less accomplished scribe, or by another family member. But equally it might well be the hand of the mother. The archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias between 113 and 119  CE, includes a number of letters from several female members of Apollonios’s family, including his mother Eudaimonis, his wife Aline, and several other women. P.Brem. 63 [1.35] (16 Jul 116 CE?), a letter from Eudaimonis (probably dictated and only signed by her), notes that Aline’s daughter Heraidous is progressing well in her studies, no doubt learning to write and read. A later letter shows that Heraidous was able to write to her father. P.Oxy. 42.3059 [2.144] (II CE) is also a short letter but one with well-designed lettering, a single iotacism, and as *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 275) comment, “notably more literate than most letters, with an indirect statement using the participle, an articular infinitive as object of preposition, [and] good use of connectives.” There is no doubt that this is the letter of an educated woman. Another letter, O.Did. 451 [1.36] written before ca. 176–210 CE not on papyrus but on an ostracon, is also likely the composition of a woman, Kroniaina. Her letter to her parents has several orthographic mistakes but interestingly also quotes a proverb that is otherwise unknown, which may be the reason why it seems to have survived in a rather garbled form.

Reading Cultures in the Papyri

Literature S. Barbantani 1998, “Un epigramma encomiastico ‘alessandrino’ per Augusto (SH 982),” Aevum antiquum 11:255–344; G. B. Bazzana 2016, “‘You Will Write Two Booklets and Send One to Clement and One to Grapte’: Formal Features, Circulation, and Social Function of Ancient Apocalyptic Literature,” in *Arnal 2016, 43–70; G. Cavallo 1994, “Discorsi sul libro,” in La produzione e la circolazione del testo, 3. I Greci e Roma, vol. 1 of Lo

Literacy and Illiteracy

83

spazio letterario della Grecia antica, ed. G. Cambiano, L. Canfora, and D. Lanza (Rome: Salerno editrice), 613–47; G. Cavallo 1999, “Between Volumen and Codex: Reading in the Roman World,” in A History of Reading in the West, ed. G. Cavallo and R. Chartier (Cambridge: Polity Press),  65–89, 373–78; C.  Gousopoulos 2021, “Sub-Elite Readers and the Transmission of Christian Literary Texts,” ETL 97:37–59; T. J. Kraus 2007, “The Lending of Books in the Fourth Century C.E.: P.Oxy. LXIII 4365—A Letter on Papyrus and the Reciprocal Lending of Literature Having Become Apocryphal,” in idem, Ad Fontes: Original Manuscripts and Their Significance for Studying Early Christianity— Selected Essays, TENT 3 (Leiden: Brill), 185–206; A. Luijendijk 2010, “A New Testament Papyrus and Its Documentary Context: An Early Christian Writing Exercise from the Archive of Leonides (P.Oxy. II  209/𝔓10),” JBL 129:575–96; A.  Luijendijk 2018, “Books and Private Readers in Early Christian Oxyrhynchus: ‘A Spiritual Meadow and a Garden of Delight’,” in Books and Readers in the Premodern World: Essays in Honor of Harry Gamble, ed. K. Shuve, WGRWSup 12 (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press), 101–35; D. Obbink and R. Hatzilambrou 2007, “Readers and Intellectuals,” in *Bowman 2007, 271–86; P. J. Sijpesteijn and K. A. Worp 1974, “Literary and Semi-Literary Papyri from the Vienna Papyrus Collection,” CdE 49/98:309–31; G.  Smith and B.  C.  Landau 2019, “Canonical and Apocryphal Writings Copied by the Same Scribe: P.Oxy. II 209 (=𝔓10) and P.Oxy. II 210, and the Archive of Aurelius Leonides,” ETL 95:143–60; E. G. Turner 1956, “Scribes and Scholars of Oxyrhynchus,” in PapCongr. 8, 141–46, 3 plates; P.  van  Minnen and K. A. Worp 1993, “The Greek and Latin Literary Texts from Hermopolis,” GRBS 34:151– 86; P. van Minnen 1994, “House-to-House Enquiries: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Roman Karanis,” ZPE 100:227–51; P. van Minnen 1998, “Boorish or Bookish? Literature in Egyptian Villages in the Fayum in the Graeco-Roman Period,” JJP 28:99–184.

Despite the majority of the population of Roman Egypt being unable to read or write in Greek, and even those who had a basic level of literacy unable to handle a literary text of any length, it may come as a surprise of just how many literary texts on papyrus have been found. Perhaps even more surprising is the number that have come from excavations in the villages of the Fayum. That literary texts were available in the large metropoleis is of course certain. Yet the number of papyri provenanced in Alexandria are few, both for reasons of climate—the Delta is less friendly to the preservation of papyri, except those contained in mummy cartonnage—and because of the deliberate destruction of cultural institutions in the fourth century CE in the context of conflicts between Christians and pagans. Many villages in the Fayum, by contrast, seem to have been abandoned in the third or fourth centuries, leaving behind the literary and other texts they possessed. The majority of literary texts come from Fayum villages such as Tebtynis, Karanis, and Soknopaiou Nesos, and from Oxyrhynchos and Hermopolis. A fragmentary fourth century papyrus (P.Turner  9) is a list of books, perhaps in a private library, which include Archilochos, Callimachus, Aischines, Demosthenes, Homer’s Iliad, Callinicus, Herodotus, Xenophon, Aristoteles’s

84

Chapter 3

Athenaion Politeia, and Thucydides. Thousands of classical texts appear among the papyri from Oxyrhynchos. Van Minnen and Worp (1993, 153) report 167 classical texts at Hermopolis and van Minnen (1998) has tabulated thousands of texts that have come from various villages in the Fayum. While classical texts—especially Homer, Euripides, Isocrates, and Menander—were commonly used in Hellenistic schools as writing exercises, the sheer number and range of the literary texts found in the Fayum and elsewhere makes it very unlikely that all (or even most) of these were designed for school usage. “Among literate villagers one might find Homer or a couple of school exercises, but not the more specialized literature that has also been retrieved from villages in the Fayum” (van Minnen 1998, 101). Who, besides schoolteachers and Egyptian priests, would use literary texts? The discovery of literary texts in the archives of a variety of local administrators provides evidence that these administrators—no doubt the local elite— prized literature and the ability to read and discuss it in a manner analogous to the ways in which literary pursuits were a mark of social capital for the elite of Rome and other metropoleis. For example, the archive of Akousilaos, the sitologos of Lysimachis in the Arsinoite nome (TM Arch 263), has, in addition to the expected copies of documents related to the delivery and taxation of grain, an epigram about Augustus’s victory at Actium (TM 63120; new edition by Barbantani 1998, 280) written upside down on a receipt, before the papyrus was discarded and glued into a roll, which was then used to copy a literary text.2 Two other documents that relate to the delivery of seeds were pasted together and a list of books written on the verso (SB 24.16328). That this list of books is not a school exercise but a catalogue of someone’s library has been argued by Worp and Sijpesteijn, who note that in a school exercise there would be no point in cataloguing, as this list does, books of Homer separately, and that not all parts of certain works are listed (1974, 328). Although the epigram clearly belonged to Akousilaos, it is less certain that the list of books was an inventory of Akousilaos’s library or that of one of his successors; that, however, is a possibility (Gousopoulos 2021). An even clearer example of an archive that included many literary texts is that of Sokrates son of Sarapion (TM Arch 109, see also p. 21), a collector of money-taxes and a laographos (census official) in Karanis in the mid-second century CE. Of course, this archive contained many documents pertaining to Sokrates’s various roles, and others concerning his family, many of whom

2 As van Minnen (1998, 110–111) points out, it is impossible to establish a link between Akousilaos’s receipt and the user of the newly created papyrus roll.

Literacy and Illiteracy

85

were also involved in administration in and around Karanis. The University of Michigan excavations at Karanis in 1926 recovered some 200 documents from houses B16–18, houses that evidently belonging to Sokrates. Related documents were found in house B2, the house of Sokrates’s wife Gemella. These houses also yielded a rich cache of literary texts—a grammatical papyrus (TM 63555), Menanders’ Epitrepontes (P.Cair.Mich. 2.3), and Callimachus’s Aitia (TM 59378). Gemella’s house had a copy of the Iliad (van Minnen 1994). Other texts found in proximity to Sokrates’s and Gemella’s houses include copies of the Iliad (books Α, Β, Γ, Δ, Η, Θ, Φ; P.Cair.Mich. 2.1–2; 6–8; 3.1–5), a commentary on Iliad A (P.Cair. Mich. 2.4), a list of titles of comedies (P.Cair.Mich. 2.5; 3.7), Demosthenes’s De Corona (P.Cair.Mich. 3.6), a surgical treatise, Epictetus’s Discourses (P.Cair.Mich. 2.11), and an oracle question addressed to the “greatest god Soxis Pnepheros” (P.Cair.Mich. 3.31; see also the overview by M. G. El-Maghrabi and C. Römer in P.Cair.Mich. 2, pp. IX–XVIII; 3, pp. IX–XVIII). These literary texts are certainly not school exercises—the selection is far too broad and idiosyncratic for use in schools. Instead, they point to a literate agent or agents who, collected and read literature not as a function of their occupation but because it was a mark of social capital—in Cicero’s terms, they read not for utilitas but voluptas, not for utility but for pleasure (Fin. 5.52). They are those whom E. G. Turner (1956, 142) called amateur “lovers of literature” and G. Cavallo (1994, 639–40) called “free readers.” As local elite, these officials adopted some of the same markers of prestige as their counterparts in larger metropolitan centers. The growth of urban culture in Roman Egypt brought with it the premium that was attached to the knowledge of Greek literary culture, the prestige attached to owning classical works, and the ability to discuss them. Hence it is no surprise that one finds occasional allusions to Homer in private letters (e.g., in BGU 4.1080.10 [2.180] and P.Flor. 2.259.13–14 [2.182]). The administrative sector in Fayumic villages was also ideally positioned to be able to acquire a library such as Sokrates had, through the large networks that were essential to their work as financial and other officers: they were necessarily in contact with peers in adjacent villages, with administrators in the nome capital, and, in many instances, with persons in Alexandria (Gousopoulos 2021, 48, 51). Evidence of the practice of book borrowing can be seen, for example, in O.Bodl. 2.2000 [1.37], an ostracon on which the sender has written a simple request that the recipient bring with him “the vocabulary of Iliad  A.” More complex requests can be seen in P.Oxy. 18.2192 (Oxyrhynchos, II CE), in which the writer asks the addressee to send copies of Hypsicrates’s Characters in Comedy, and to have copies made of Seleukos’s Tenses. The letter indicates that the sender knows of others who have books, including a bookseller (new

86

Chapter 3

edition in Obbink and Hatzilambrou 2007, 282–86). A Christian example of this system of book loans is offered by P.Oxy. 63.4365 (IV CE), in which the writer asks the recipient to lend a copy of “Esdras”—probably 4 Ezra—recalling that the sender had lent the addressee “the little Genesis” (probably Jub.; Kraus 2007; Bazzana 2016). It is likely that Leonides, the member of a tow worker guild in Oxyrhynchos, acquired both a copy of Paul’s letter to the Romans and a noncanonical gospel through a similar network of contacts, perhaps in Alexandria (Luijendijk 2018; Smith and Landau 2019). Irrespective of literacy, educational level, scribal skills, and practices, people moved between literacy and orality in everyday life, that is, they were confronted by the necessity of using literate media (and for some, the social prestige that attached to the possession and reading of literary texts), and the reality of a largely illiterate population. As far as can be determined, there was no disgrace attached to illiteracy; it was a fact of life, and strategies were in place to allow for illiterate persons to interact with nome officials and to effect leases, loans and to submit petitions and declarations without having to pen those instruments themselves.

Texts [1.17]–[1.37] [1.17] P.Mich. 5.346a (TM 12155) Apprenticeship of a slave to a weaver

Greek papyrus, Tebtynis/Egypt (TM Geo 2287), 29 Aug 12–27 Mar 13 CE Ed. E.  M.  Husselman, A.  E.  R.  Boak, and W.  F.  Egerton 1944 (P.Mich. 5.346a, image: pl. VI). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 7:111; 12:122. – Cf. H. C. Youtie 1971b, “Βραδέως γράφων: Between Literacy and Illiteracy,” GRBS 12:239–61. – Online information and images: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-3178/948r.tif.

I, Orsenouphis alias Psosneus son of Kalales, a weaver, acknowledge that I am required to teach Helene, the female slave of Herakleon son of Eirenaios, the weaver’s trade as I myself know it,1 for the period of two years and six months, |5 from Pharmouthi of the current forty-second year of Caesar, Helene being fed and clothed during the aforementioned time. I shall give to Helene a tunic worth eight silver drachmas. If I do not teach (her) |10 or if she is judged not to know what she has been taught, you will have

Literacy and Illiteracy

87

her taught at my own expense. When he was asked (to acknowledge this), Herodes son of Herodes wrote (this) for him because he (Orsenouphis) does not know letters. (h2) I, Herakleon son of Eirenaios, have apprenticed the |15 aforementioned slave girl as specified above. Note 1 In Greek, the term used here means “to understand, to know, to master” (ἐπίσταμαι), which, by the way, is used both for learning and mastering a craft (τέχνη) and for being an expert in a scientific discipline (ἐπιστήμη). As is common in apprenticeship contracts, the master weaver uses this term to indicate that he himself has learned the craft and is now proficient in it.

Apprenticeship contracts come in several forms, one in which the contracting parties make first person declarations, and another, a third person declaration, taking the form “x has apprenticed y to z, the weaver.” These declarations typically indicate the period of apprenticeship and details for the upkeep of the apprentice, usually distinguishing which of the contracting parties has to provide food and clothing and who has to pay for it. In this case, the weaver master takes care of everything. P.Mich. 5.346a [1.17] is from the Kronion archive (TM Arch 93), a bilingual Greek and Demotic archive of almost 200 documents. Herodes son of Herodes, the scribe used by Orsenouphis, is known from at least nine other papyri from the Kronion archive: P.Mich. 5.243 (14–37 CE); P.Mich. 5.252 and its duplicate PSI 8.905 (25/26 CE); P.Mich. 5.348 (21 May 26 CE); P.Bingen 59 (33 CE); P.Mich. 2.121.r (42 CE); 5.257 (24 Apr 30 CE); 269 and its duplicate 270 (28 Aug 42 CE); 293 (early I CE); and from PSI 10.1130 (2 Jan 26 CE)—not obviously part of the Kronion archive. All of these documents are from the first half of the first century CE. In nine of these Herodes served as a scribe who wrote out a contract because one of the principals was illiterate. In P.Mich. 5.243 Herodes is named as the member of a guild, and in 269 and 270 he was party to the sale of a house. Although Herodes was literate, he made numerous orthographical mistakes—almost one in every line, though none of them especially egregious. Herakleon, the owner of Helene, however, added a subscription in his own hand, although in rather irregular letters. It is doubtful that Herakleon could have composed the entire contract himself, but he at least had a basic command of writing and could affix a short subscription. He perhaps would have been known as a “slow writer” (Youtie 1971b).

88

Chapter 3

[1.18] P.Mich. 3.188 (TM 11991) Contract to furnish lodging

Greek papyrus, Bakchias/Egypt (TM Geo 392), 17 Aug 120 CE Ed. A. E. R. Boak 1936 (P.Mich. 3.188). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 3:110; 5:68; 6:80–81. – Cf. C. Kreuzsaler 2014, “Capital: Loan Contracts Serving Other Purposes,” in Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the Arab Conquest: A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary, ed. J.  G.  Keenan, J.  G.  Manning, and U.  Yiftach-Firanko (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 265–75, here 267–69. – Online information and images: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/ apis/x-1314. Archive of Horos and Tapekysis (TM Arch 101).

The fourth [year] of the Emperor Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, the twenty-[fourth] of the month Kaisareios, Mesore 24, in Bakchias in the division of Herakleides of the Arsinoite [nome]. Hermas son of Ptolemaios, the son of Ammonios, about eighty-five years old, with a scar [in the middle of his forehead], acknowledges to Tapekysis daughter of Horos, the son of Katoites, about forty-five years old with a scar on her upper lip |5 [to the left], with a guardian (kyrios), her husband Horos son of Horos, about fifty years old with a scar on his left eyebrow, [that he (Hermas) has received from her] the agreed-upon sum of [three hundred] drachmas of coined silver of Augustan issue in cash out of the house, and that instead of the interest on this (he) has agreed that she (Tapekysis) and her heirs and whoever she may wish shall reside (there), for so long as he (Hermas) owes [the aforesaid] money, in the house that belongs to him, in the aforesaid village, |10 [whose neighbors] are, as they have stipulated on the basis of an agreement: to the south [the building sites] belonging to Katoites son of Menches and his associates and a portion of a common entrance and exit; to the north, the royal road; to the west, building sites belonging to the aforementioned Katoites and his associates; to the east a courtyard of Horos son of Katoites, the son of Belles, and his brothers; and that he (Hermas) and his heirs guarantee the conditions of [this] contract of occupation to Tapekysis and her heirs with [every] guarantee, and let him (Hermas) see that no one prevent Tapekysis or her heirs from |15 [dwelling] and lodging others in it and collecting the rents and using [all] the appurtenances without any hindrance. And if it seems that Tapekysis has

Literacy and Illiteracy

89

incurred expenses for repairs on the house [… whenever] Hermas wants to repay the above-mentioned sum, he shall reimburse (her) along with the aforementioned money, the responsibility resting upon Tapekysis. Hypographeus (signatory) for Tapekysis [and her] guardian1 (is) Ammonios son of Dioskoros, about 45 years old with a scar on his forehead to the right below the hair. |20 (h2) I, [Hermas] son of Ptolemaios, acknowledge that I have received from Tapekysis daughter of Horos three hundred [drachmas] in silver in cash and instead of the interest I shall agree that she shall [live in] the aforesaid house for so long as I may owe (the debt), [and …], and I shall guarantee (it) with every guarantee and shall deliver it free from […], and (whenever I repay the money), if it appears that she has incurred any expense, I shall repay it as mentioned above. |25 (h3) I, [Tapekysis] daughter of Horos, acting with her husband Horos as guardian, have received the agreement as mentioned above. I, Ammonios son of Dioskoros, wrote for them because they do not know letters. (h4) Recorded through the gra(pheion) at Bakch(ias). Note 1 A very similar formula is found in P.Mich. 3.196.16–19 (18  May  122  CE) where Ammonios son of Dioskoros was again acting for Horos: The papyrus is a receipt for the payment of rent to Horos’s landlord. The landlord Haryotes son of Alexas was illiterate and so had Heliodoros son of Heliodoros sign for him, while Ammonios signed for Horos. “Hypographeis (signatories) for the first party (i.e., Haryotes) (is) Heliodoros son of Heliodoros, about 49 years old with scar on his right cheek, and for the other (i.e., Horos) Ammonios son of Dioskoros, about 45 years old with a scar on his forehead to the right” (lines 16–19).

The situation described in this agreement is clear: in exchange for an interestfree loan of 300 drachmas, Hermas agreed to provide a house owned by him as lodging for Tapekysis at least until such time as the debt was repaid. The agreement also stipulates that any improvements that Tapekysis made to the house would be reimbursed at the time that Hermas repaid the loan. A later document from the Horos and Tapekysis archive suggests that Tapekysis eventually acquired ownership of this house. Although both Tapekysis and her husband Horos have Egyptian names, and Hermas a Greek name, it is clear that Tapekysis is a woman of some wealth, able to make a substantial loan. The body of the document was not written by

90

Chapter 3

either Hermas or Tapekysis, however, but by a trained writer whose lettering is an “elegant, upright cursive” (Boak in P.Mich. 3, p. 213), probably a trained scribe. Nevertheless, as the papyrus indicates, Hermas was able to write (h2), even a hypographe of several lines. But the “crude uncials” in which he writes shows that he is not a practiced writer. Neither Tapekysis nor her husband acting as her guardian were able to write and so the hypographe was added by another writer as signatory, Ammonios. The editor describes Ammonios’s hand as an “irregular cursive” which is also seen in P.Mich. 3.196 (18 May 122 CE; see note 1). The principal scribe (h1) made several orthographical errors, mostly iotacisms (interchange of epsilon-iota and iota) and omicron for omega, but also wrote ἐξυμφώνου (which is meaningless) for ἐκ συμφώνου, “from an agreement” (line 10). Moreover, Ammonios misspelled his own name as Ammonis. [1.19] P.Yadin 1.17 (TM 23497) Deposit

Greek papyrus, written at Maoza (TM Geo 3146), found at Naḥal Ḥever/Israel (TM Geo 3367), 21 Feb 128 CE Ed. N. Lewis 1989 (P.Yadin 1.17, images: plates 15, 16). – Cf. J. C. Greenfield 1993, “‘Because He/She Did Not Know Letters’: Remarks on a First Millennium C.E. Legal Expression,” JANESCU 22:39–44; *Kraemer 2004, 149 no. 62E. Archive of Babatha (TM Arch 41).

The papyrus contains two versions of the agreement, an inner text and an almost identical outer text (to minimize the possibility of tampering or fraud). The translation below is Lewis’s translation of outer text, modified slightly. |18 [In the year that Publius Metilius Nepos for the 2nd time and Marcus Annius Libo were consuls, ten days before the Kalends of March and by the compute of the new] province of Arabia, year twenty-two, the sixth of the month Dystros, in |20 Maoza, Zoara district, of his own free will and consent Judah son of Eleazar alias Khthousion, from En-Gedi, acknowledged to Babatha daughter of Simon, his own wife, with Jacob son of Jesus present with her as her guardian (kyrios) for the purpose of this matter, all of them residing here, to the effect that Judah |25 has received from her

Literacy and Illiteracy

91

on account of a deposit three hundred denarii of silver in coin of genuine legal tender, on condition that he have and owe them (as a debt) on deposit until such time as it may please Babatha, or anyone acting through her or for her, to request the said Judah (to return) the aforesaid denarii of the deposit. And |30 if Judah when so requested does not promptly repay, in accord with the law of deposit he shall be liable to repay the deposit to her twofold in addition to damages, he also being answerable to a charge of illegality in such matters, the said Babatha or anyone producing |35 this contract on her behalf having the right of execution upon Judah and all his possessions everywhere—both those which he possesses and also those which he may validly acquire—in whatever way the executor may choose to carry out the execution. In good faith the formal question was asked, and it was agreed in reply that this is thus rightly done. |40 (h2, in Aramaic) I, Yehudah son of Elazar, acknowledge that I have received from Babatha my wife, with the knowledge of Jacob son of Yeshuʿa as her guardian, on account of deposit, three hundred silver denarii, and I will return them to her at any time she wished, as is written above, with nothing withheld (?) according to the law of deposit. Yehudah son of Elazar wrote it. (h1, in Greek) I, Theënas son of Simon, librarius, wrote [this]. (Back, in Aramaic)

(Lines 44–46 are illegible) Tomah son of Shimʿon, witness. ? son of Yehudah, witness. Yohsef son of Ḥananiah, witness. |50 Elazar son of ? , witness.

This document suggests, as do other documents from the Babatha archive, that Babatha was illiterate (Greenfield 1993), and hence needed the assistance of a scribe (librarius, hand 1, cf. line 43) capable to composing a document in Greek. However, her husband, Yehudah son of Elazar, though he was probably not capable of writing in Greek, could add a subscription in Aramaic. And the witnesses to the agreement were also able to sign their names in Aramaic.

92

Chapter 3

[1.20] P.Dime 3.29 (TM 45786) Sale of a house

Bilingual Demotic and Greek papyrus, Soknopaiou Nesos/Egypt (TM Geo 2157), 23 Nov 55 CE Ed. S.  L.  Lippert and M.  Schentuleit 2010 (P.Dime  3.29, image: Tafel  19). – Cf. H.  C.  Youtie 1971a, “ΑΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΟΣ: An Aspect of Greek Society in Egypt,” HSCP 75:161–75.

(Text in Demotic that helped to restore the Greek text where it is lost) (Greek text) [I, Apynchis the Elder, son of Stotoetis the Younger, whose mother is Tapiomis, acknowledge that I have sold] to my daughter Stotoetis, whose mother is Tapetesouchos, the [two-story house belonging to me and a courtyard situated on its southern and western side, including] all the appurtenances, (located) in Soknopaiou Nesos in the [division] of Herakleides, [whose neighbors are: to the south the house of Pekmeeis and his partners, to the north and] east [royal] roads, to the west the house [and courtyard] of Thesos (?) daughter of Stotoetis [and the part of the house of Thenyris lying to the north. And I have] already received the |5 [full price] that was agreed upon, from hand to hand out of the house, [and I guarantee (this sale) from the current] day and for all time, and I shall do the other things as [aforesaid. Herieus wrote this because he (Apynchis) does not know] Greek letters but writes in Egyptian. (h2, in Demotic) Apynchis the Elder, son of Stoetis the Younger: I have been paid in full. (h1, in Greek) [I, Stotoetis daughter of Apynchis, whose mother is Tapetesouchos, have purchased as aforesaid]. Satyros son of Apynchis [has written for] her [because she does not know letters. (h3) (Contract of) sale and cession of a two-story house and a [courtyard] situated on its southern and western side, [including all the appurtenances, (located) in Soknopaiou Nesos in the division of Herakleides, whose] dimensions are those aforesaid, whose neighbors are: to the south [the house] of Pekmeeis and his partners, |10 [to the north and east royal roads, to the west] the house and ⟨courtyard⟩ [of Thesos daughter of Stotoetis] ⟨and the part of the house of Thenyris.

Literacy and Illiteracy

And⟩ I have received ⟨the price⟩. And Apynchis the Elder, son of Stot[oetis the Younger, whose mother is Tapiomis, about … (years) old, with a scar …,] shall guarantee [for Stotoetis daughter of] Apynchis, whose mother is Tapetesouchos, about 40 (years) old, with a scar on the left foot, that which (the deed) establishes. Writing assistant [of the seller is NN son of NN, about … (years) old, with a scar …, and of the other (i.e., of the purchaser Stotoetis) Satyros son of Apynchis, about 20 (years) old, with a scar on his left … [Year] two of Nero [Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator, month Hathyr 26. It has been registered through the] grapheion [in Soknopaiou Nesos].

93

As the scribal comment indicates, Apynchis was literate and so was able to write the contract in Demotic. But he could not add the required hypographe in Greek, and so employed Herieus to do this. Herieus imitates the first-person declaration (“I, Apynchis …”) of Apynchis’s Demotic declaration. Apynchis is known from at least five other documents, all from Soknopiaou Nesos, and appears to be routinely engaged in house sales, lending, and leasing: (a) PSI 9.1051 (27 Jan 26 CE), a loan of 544 drachmas at (the standard) interest rate of 12% (the end of the text is damaged, but appears to contain the formula, “x wrote this because y does not know letters”); (b) CPR 15.30 (first half I CE), a register of cereal crops where Apynchis is named along with Stotoetis; (c) SPP 22.173 (7–16 Oct 40 CE), the application of Stotoetis and Apynchis to lease an olive pressing facility with a press (the papyrus breaks off before the subscription); (d) P.Dime 3.19 (42 CE), a record of a loan to Apynchis and the sale of two parts of a house, also mentioning Stotoetis; Herieus son of Herieus appended an extremely poorly written and barely intelligible Greek hypographe to 44 lines of Demotic text; and (e) P.Dime 3.22 (29 Oct 45 CE), a contract concerning the sale of a house, where the first 17 lines are written in Demotic and a Greek subscription is added that refers to Apynchis, not in the first person but in the third, recapitulating the details of the sale; it appears to be the hypographe of a scribe (but framed as a third person declaration). These documents confirm that Apynchis was not illiterate but was able to write in Demotic. Because he had no facility in Greek, he relied on a scribe, apparently Herieus son of Herieus, to add the required Greek subscription (see Youtie 1971a, 163).

94

Chapter 3

[1.21] P.Oxy. 31.2559 (TM 26931) Letter from Arrius Eudaimon to Dionysios

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II CE Ed. J.  W.  B.  Barnes, P.  Parsons, J.  Rea, and E.  G.  Turner 1966 (P.Oxy. 31.2559). – Cf. J.  E.  G.  Whitehorne 2006, Strategi and Royal Scribes of Roman Egypt (Str.R.Scr.2), rev. ed., Papyrologica Florentina 37 (Florence: Gonnelli), 5. – Online information and images: https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21165208.v1.

Arrius Eudaimon to Dionysios1 his brother, greetings. This is the first and only letter I have received from you through |5 Sarapiakos. It is good that you are doing well and are applying yourself to your work and share my happiness in recovery. I expect that you will come in accordance with the provisions under |10 office of the Idios Logos2 recently issued concerning the agreement. My wife and children greet you. Please give greetings from me … |15 to our mother Stephanous Demetrous. (h2) I pray that you are well, most honored brother. (Back)

(h3) To Dionysios (h1?) my brother, stra(tegos) of the Apoll(onopolite nome). (Docket) F(rom) Arrius Eudaim(on).

Notes 1 Dionysios is identified as the strategos of the Apollonopolite nome (line 18). It is unclear whether this is Apollonopolites (TM Geo 2717) or Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Geo 3017). According to Whitehorne (2006, 5), P.Oxy. 31.2559 is the sole attestation of Dionysios as strategos. 2 The office of the Idios Logos (pros tō idiō logō) was in the second century responsible for the sale of abandoned or confiscated property and eventually matters pertaining to inheritance. The particular issue concerning Eudaimon and Dionysios is not clear, but evidently has something to do with one of these matters.

This letter is written in an extremely clear and legible hand and is error free, pointing to the work of a professional scribe with beautiful handwriting. Hand 2 is more irregular and may be the greeting added by Eudaimon himself. Line 18 begins with the name of Dionysios in a highly stylized chancery hand, but then shifts back to a hand resembling hand 1. The docket is written in a small sloping hand. Since the mother’s name was initially written incorrectly and had to be crossed out and corrected to Demetrous, it might be concluded that Eudaimon and Dionysios were not actual brothers. There is another possibility, however.

Literacy and Illiteracy

95

If hand 2—the more irregular hand—is that of Eudaimon, then the main text was probably prepared by a professional scribe who made the error, and then after confirming the name of Dionysios’s mother, corrected it. It is important to note that the correction was done in the same hand (h1). [1.22] P.Wisc. 2.84 (TM 26689) Letter from Sempronius to Valerius, letter from Sempronius to Satornilus, and letter from Sempronius to Satornila

Greek papyrus, probably from Alexandria (TM Geo 100), but other documents from the “Happy Family” archive are probably from Karanis, late II CE Ed. P.  J.  Sijpesteijn 1977 (P.Wisc. 2.84, image: pl. XXXIX). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 8:513; 11:291; 12:290. – Cf. P.  J.  Sijpesteijn 1976, “A Happy Family?” ZPE 21:169–81; G.  H.  R.  Horsley 1982 (New Docs. 2.21.7); N.  Gonis 1997 in ComunicazioniVitelli 2:60 n. 29.; *Chapa 1998, 73–86 no. 4 (new edition); *Rowlandson 1998, 146–47 no. 110; R. Luiselli 1999, “A Study of High Level Greek in the Non-Literary Papyri from Roman and Byzantine Egypt” (Thesis PhD, University College London), 270–71; *Reinard 2016, 532. – Online information and images: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-5448. Archive of Saturnila and her sons (TM Arch 212); see also SB 3.6263 [2.153]; P.Mich. 3.209 [2.154]. (Col. 1)

(Traces of ten lines)

(Col. 2)

[Semp]ronius to Satornilus his brother, greetings. I have received your two letters, one concerning the things I have notified to (our) brother Maximus, the other |5 about our lady mother, that she has been in danger and that she was still constrained by her illness. You must know now, brother, that I am quite worried, but that I am not sleeping at night until you notify me how she is doing in this condition. Do not waste |10 time until you find someone who will sail down1 to me. Comfort (our) brother Maximus as well as you can. I have also written to (our) brother Valerius about that. And I hope that he too is not unaware how difficult our life has become with regard to [her], but how can we |15 be of any help thereby? For not he alone is bereaved2 of her but all of us are as well. Therefore, it is necessary—since we (you?) cannot do anything nor even help—to think of the human condition,3 especially in such a moment.  Farewell.

96

Chapter 3 (Col. 3)

|20 Semp[ronius] to Sat[o]r[nila], (his) mother, greetings. When receiving this letter let me know at the same hour how you are doing for I am not a little |25 worried until I learn about your affairs. About my brother Maximus I will now (?) write to you so that you console him. I do not know if superfluously, |30 for I think of saying these same things, but the untimeliness of the moment does not allow me to, for I fear that out of the sorrow he himself may also turn to something else. |35 For I know that you, too, are in more sorrow than him, but, as soon as possible, be serene because of my siblings and the child, for this perhaps relieves the daughters and (our) |40 sister the housekeeper (Oicuron?).1 But what can we do against which [nobod]y can do anything? Farewell.

(Back)

[De]li(ver) to Valerius, his bro[the]r, [and to Sator]nilus, (my) brother, f(rom) Semp[ronius].

Notes 1 Sempronius was evidently in Alexandria (also in SB 3.6263 [2.153] and P.Mich. 15.752), and so Satornilus is asked to “sail down” to him (καταπλέω; also in SB 3.6263.8), whereas in P.Mich. 15.752.7 Sempronius mentions a letter carrier who would “sailing up river” (ἀναπλέω) to his mother. 2 The aorist passive of στερέω often means to be bereaved, and it does here. 3 The sense of οὐδ̣ὲ [ὀ]φ̣έλῃς τὰ ἀ̣ν̣[θ]ρ[ώ]πινα φρονεῖν is not clear. In P.Oxy. 55.3819 (early IV CE), a letter of consolation, the addressee is exhorted, “Don’t grieve for these things are human.” Both Aristotle (Eth. nic. 1177b32) and Lucian (Dial. meretr. 9.4) use the term to mean “mortal thoughts” as contrasted with thoughts of divinity or greatness. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 27.6.1, uses the phrase to mean “practice moderation” in contrast to vengeance. In the case of P.Wisc. 2.84 the phrase appears to authorize more immoderate grief. The singular τι ἀνθρώπινον (“something human”) is regularly used in wills to refer to human mortality or in particular to death, such as in P.Mich. 9.549.7 (Karanis, 117/118 CE): “However, when I suffer something human” (in the sense of “when I die”).

This letter belongs to the “Happy Family” Archive (TM Arch 212), a group of eight letters. The archive includes, in addition to P.Wisc. 2.84, P.Mich. 3.206, 209 [2.154], 15.751, 752, P.Heid. 7.400, SB 26.16758, and 3.6263 [2.153], and in total represent 12 letters, since some papyri (including P.Wisc. 2.84) have included more than one letter. Five of the letters—P.Wisc. 2.84, P.Mich. 15.751, 752, SB 3.6263, and P.Heid. 7.400—are attributable to Sempronius and show the same hand. All appear to have been written by Sempronius rather than by a scribe.

Literacy and Illiteracy

97

Although P.Wisc. 2.84 is unprovenanced, several other letters in this archive are from Sempronius, apparently in Alexandria, writing to his mother and brothers in Arsinoites, perhaps in Karanis. Given the contents, evidence of travel, and contact with soldiers in Sempronius’s letters, Sipjesteijn (1976, 170) surmises that Sempronius was a civil servant. That might account for the fact that his orthography is generally correct, apart from tending to use ei where Attic spellings call for i and the misspelling of “occasion” (κερός for καιρός) and “certainly” (ἐξερέτως for ἐξαιρέτως). On the other hand, Sempronius’s five letters display several common grammatical peculiarities, including inattention to the gender of participles (Sempronius several times uses the masculine in place of the feminine), the use of nominative for a vocative, and μίαν … ἑτέραν in place of τὴν μίαν … τὴν ἑτέραν (“the one … the other,” lines 3–4), and the use in lines 35–36 of ὑπέρ with λυπέω (“to grieve for”) instead of the genitive (αὐτοῦ, which Sempronius incorrectly writes as αὐτον; Luiselli 1999, 270–71). On the other hand, as Luiselli observes, there are some gestures toward higher style: Sempronius uses a μὲν … δέ construction to accentuate the contrast between the two letters in lines 3–5, and the entirety of lines 3–7 is an elegant periodic sentence, with single finite verb and three participles. Lines 7–9 has a finite verb of cognition with an accusative-infinitive construction, circumstantial participle and a temporal clause (Luiselli 1999, 273–74). These features suggest a degree of Hellenistic paideia on the part of Sempronius. [1.23] SB 14.12144 (TM 18193) Edict of a prefect

Greek papyrus, Egypt, 198/199 CE Ed. J.  R.  Rea 1977, “A New Version of P.  Yale  Inv.  299,” ZPE, 27:151–56 (= SB 14.12144). – Cf. N. Lewis 1977, “A Ban on False Prophets: P. Coll. Youtie 30,” CdE 52/103:143– 46; N.  Lewis 1979, “When Did Septimius Severus Reach Egypt,” Historia 28:253–54; G. H. R. Horsley 1981 (New Docs. 1.12); N. Lewis 1986, “The Process of Promulgation in Rome’s Eastern Provinces,” in Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller, ed. R. S. Bagnall and W. V. Harris (Leiden: Brill), 127–39, here 130; M. Beard, J. A. North, and S. Price 1998, Religions of Rome: Volume 2: A Sourcebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 272–73 no. 11.7b; A. Jördens 2008, “Griechische Texte aus Ägypten,” in T.  Abusch et  al., Omina, Orakel, Rituale und Beschwörungen, TUAT Neue Folge  4 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus), 417–45, here 445 no. VII.6. – Online information and images: https://findit.library.yale.edu/catalog/digcoll:2757056.

[Since many people] believe they have been deceived by divination, [I thought it necessary], so that no danger should

98

Chapter 3

follow from their foolishness, to proclaim clearly here to all that they should refrain from indulging in a curiosity that brings danger. |5 Therefore, let no one pretend to know about the supernatural or proclaim his expertise about the obscurities of the future, whether it be through oracles, that is, written documents allegedly originating in the presence of the divine, or through the procession of images or such-like trickery, nor let anyone |10 give his services to those who want to know about it, or give any reply at all. But if anyone is discovered persisting in this profession, let him be sure that he will be sentenced to the ultimate penalty. Each of you must have a copy of this letter, written in clear and legible script, set up on |15 white boards in public in the metropolitan centers and in each village, and each of you must continually make enquiries; if you find someone breaking the prohibitions, you must send him under guard for my cognizance. For you too will be at risk if I learn again that such behavior is being disregarded in the areas under your control. Indeed, you will suffer the |20 same punishment as those who are detected. For each of those people, if he actually dares to do what has been banned, is only one individual; but an official who fails to repress this activity is himself responsible for danger to many. |25 (h2) In the seventh year of Emperors Caesars Luc[ius Septimius] Severus Pius [Pertinax Arabicus Adiabenicus Parthicus] Maxi[mus and Marcus Aurelius] Antoninus Augusti […] … […]. This document illustrates the practice of the Roman governors of Egypt, who issued edicts and ordered copies of those edicts to be set up in public spaces throughout the province. There are several reasons for supposing that SB 14.12144 is not the actual edict that was set up in public space, but rather an exemplar of the edict, sent to local administrators to copy. In the first place, it is rather unlikely that a papyrus set up in public space would have survived long, and much more likely that this is from a scribal archive. Second, although the edict calls for the public copies to be in “clear and legible letters” (line 14), this copy not only contains many orthographic and grammatical errors, but it is also written in a documentary hand that would have been quite difficult for most readers to follow. Presumably the publicly posted edict would have been more legible.

Literacy and Illiteracy

99

[1.24] P.Oxy. 8.1100 (TM 21725) Edict of a prefect

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), 28 Oct–26 Nov 206 CE Ed. A.  S.  Hunt 1911 (P.Oxy. 8.1100, image: plate V). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:331; 7:135; 8:241. – Cf. *Roberts 1955, no. 20b; *Cavallo 2009, 126, image: fig. 5.21. – Online information and images: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/ ecd69d31-e388-4122-b5f0-d06244279235/.

Subatianus Aquila, to the strategoi of the 7 nomes and the Arsinoites, greetings. I sent you a copy of the edict posted by me in most illustrious Alexandria, which you will take care to post in clear letters in the metropoleis and the most conspicuous places of the nomes, for a period of not less than thirty days. |5 I wish you farewell. Year 15, Hathyr … (The decree itself is too fragmentary to translate but it appears to concern the suppression of official extortion). As was the case with SB 14.12144 [1.23], P.Oxy. 8.1100 is not the actual edict to be posted, but the governor’s letter to the strategoi of the nomes, ordering them to post the decree. In this case, the strategoi are those of the Heptanomia, the designation for the nomes south of the Delta, that is Memphites, Herakleopolites, Aphroditopolites, Oxyrhynchites, Kynopolites, Hermopolites, and perhaps Letopolites, to which the letter adds Arsinoites (the Fayum). The copy is not error-free, but the errors are mainly the use if i in place of ei, and the omission of one letter from an infinitive. The lettering resembles the hands found in literary papyri (*Cavallo 2009, 126). [1.25] PSI 5.446 (TM 19292) Decree concerning illegal requisitioning by soldiers

Greek papyrus, Egypt, 133–137 CE Ed. G. Vitelli 1917 (PSI 5.446). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:399. – Cf. A. S. Hunt and C.  C.  Edgar 1934 (Sel.Pap. 2.221); *Johnson 1936, 626 no. 373; *Johnson 1961, 206 no. 247; S.  Daris 1964 (Doc.Eser.Rom. 49); S.  Daris 1988, “Documenti minori dell’esercito romano in Egitto,” ANRW II.10.1:724–42, here 736; 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), 140–43 no. 80; *Campbell 1994, 176–77 no. 293; G. Messeri in *Cavallo 1998, 195–196, no. 122, image: Tav. CXI; *Cavallo 2009, 127, image: fig. 5.22; G. Flamerie de Lachapelle, J. France, and J. Nelis-Clément 2012, Rome et le monde provincial: Documents d’une histoire partagée (IIe s. a.C.–Ve s. p.C.), Collection U (Paris:

100

Chapter 3

Colin), no. 241. – Online information and images: http://www.psi-online.it/documents/ psi;5;446.

Marcus Petronius Mamertinus, prefect of Egypt, declares: I have been informed that many of the soldiers, while travelling through the country, without a certificate, requisitioned boats, animals, and |5 persons beyond what is proper, on some occasions appropriating them by force, on others getting them from the strategoi by exercise of favor or deference. Because of this, private persons are subjected to arrogance and abuse, and the army has come to be censored |10 for greed and injustice. I therefore order the strategoi and royal secretaries to furnish to absolutely no one any travel facilities at all without a certificate, whether he is travelling by river or by land, on the understanding that I shall punish severely anyone who, |15 after this edict, is caught giving or taking any of the things mentioned above. [(Year) ?] of Hadrian Caesar, the lord, Ṭḥọṭḥ 8̣ . The text on the back is written in a different hand and mostly unintelligible but appears to concern grain and is probably not related to the edict. Probably more closely than SB 14.12144 [1.23] and P.Oxy. 8.1100 [1.24] this papyrus resembles the publicly posted document. It is mostly error-free, except for θεραπείαν (“deference”) misspelled as θαραπείαν and two instances of i instead of ei. What is more striking is that the scribal hand is almost calligraphic, extremely legible, and clearly the work of a professional scribe. [1.26] TM 61495 (London, British Library Add MS 34186 [1] + [2]) School exercise with Menander’s Sententiae

Greek wax tablet, Egypt, II–mid IV CE Ed. W.  A.  Johnson 2022, “A Trifle Reprised: British Library School Tablet ADD MS 34186(1)(2),” BASP 59:205–20, images: 206 fig. 1, 211 fig. 2, 213 fig. 3, 216 fig. 4. – Cf. W.M. Brashear 1991, “A Trifle.” ZPE 86:231–32, image: Tablet 2; *Cribiore 1996, 271–72 no. 383; P.  Parsons 2007, “Copyists of Oxyrhynchus,” in *Bowman 2007, 262–70; W. A. Johnson 2015, “Learning to Read and Write,” in *Bloomer 2015, 137–48. – Online information and images: https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_ MS_34186. – See also fig. 7 with detail.

Literacy and Illiteracy

101

(Side 1A)

(h1) […] … [for/among good and] evil men; but among gods …

(Side 1B)

(h2) |1 Accept1 counsel from a wise man Do not rashly trust2 all friends (h3) el is |5 Accept counsel from a ise man not s Do not rashly trust all friends c̣ounsel   Accept counsel from a ise man   |10 Do not rashly trust all friends (h4) e p s s

(Side 2A)

(Cols. 1 and 2: h5, set of multiplication tables in 2 cols., see below) (Col. 3: h3, syllabification exercise, see below)

(Side 2B)

(Back cover of the set of tablets: a few characters)

Notes 1 The imperative “accept” is in the singular. 2 The imperative form “trust” is in the plural.

This tablet is from a codex and consists of two wax tablets (tablet 1, 2). Side A of Tablet 1 is mostly erased but a partial line could be made readable with the help of High-resolution MSI. Side 1B contains a writing exercise, in which the teacher (h2) in a neat and legible hand has written two lines—the first from Menander, Sententiae 476, and the second an unknown gnomic sentence. The letters are strictly bilinear with only the descender on the phi going below the guideline, and clearly separated. Side A of Tablet 2 contains in a fifth hand a set of multiplication tables in the first two columns (e.g., α α α; β α β; β β δ; i.e., 1 × 1 = 1; 2 × 1 = 2; 2 × 2 = 4; etc.), and a syllabification exercise in col. 3: θαρ | ων; θ̣υρ | ων; θω | αις; θε | ων; θα̣ρ | σος; π̣ορ̣ | σ̣ο̣ν (Brashear 1991). Cribiore (1996, 272) notes that hand 5 is similar to the teacher’s hand (h2) but “much quicker, informal, and with some cursive

102

Chapter 3

elements.” Side 2B is unwaxed and served as the back cover, but has a few characters scratched in the wood (Johnson 2022, 218). Side 1B is clearly a writing exercise in which the teacher wrote two lines. The student twice copied the teacher’s lines but omitted the first sigma of the first gnome (οφοῦ for σοφοῦ, “wise”), thus producing nonsense. There are some erased letters in lines 5 and 7. The teacher himself mistakenly wrote πιστεύεται (line 2) for πιστεύετε (imperative plural “trust”), a mistake which the student dutifully reproduced. R. Cribiore (1996, 272) describes the hand as “alphabetic,” that is, hesitant: some of the letters are idiosyncratically formed; several letters are not bilinear; and some of the alphas and epsilons are ligatured. The teacher had also added guidelines below his two lines of text, and guidelines above and below the student’s writing space, in order to encourage more consistent lines. Despite this, the student’s lettering is not consistent: line 4 extends too far to the right and line 9 is squeezed vertically and horizontally. The fact that the student has written οφοῦ for σοφοῦ (“wise”) in lines 4, 8 suggests that the student did not understand what he or she was writing, even though the graphic reproduction of the teacher’s letters is reasonably accurate. This provides a parallel to Petaus’s practicing of the formula “I Petaus have issued this” (see above, p. 73), a formula that he could duplicate, but which he clearly did not understand. [1.27] CPF 2.2, pp. 381–390 (TM 62680) Grammatical exercise

Greek wooden tablet, Egypt, IV CE Ed. V. Piano 2015 (CPF 2.2, pp. 381–390 CHR 4). – Cf. F. C. Kenyon 1909, “Two Greek School-Tablets,” JHS 29:29–40, here 29–31, image: pl. VI; E.  Ziebarth 1910, Aus der antiken Schule: Sammlung griechischer Texte auf Papyrus, Holztafeln, Ostraka, Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen  65 (Bonn: Marcus und Weber), 10–12 no. 22; J.  Debut 1974, L’enseignement des langues anciennes, Collection SUP. L’Éducateur 46 (Paris: Presses universitaires de France), no. 336; G. Nachtergael 1980, Dans les classes d’Égypte d’après les papyrus scolaires grecs (Bruxelles: Ministère de l’Education nationale), 18; *Cribiore 1996, 264–65 no. 364 (description); R. F. Hock and E. N. O’Neil 2002, The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Classroom Exercises, WGRWSup 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill), 9–12 (partial edition). – Online information: https:// relicta.org/cpp/detail.php?CPP=0370.

The second side (back) of this wooden tablet (not reproduced here) is a grammatical exercise containing a paradigm of the optatives and participles of the verb νικάω (“to conquer”), in the present, perfect, aorist, and future, for the singular, dual, and plural, and then passive and participial forms. *Cribiore (1996, 265) describes the hand as “rapid” with many ligatured letters, suggesting either the teacher’s hand or that of a practiced student. There are, however,

Literacy and Illiteracy

103

a number of mistakes in the conjugations, perhaps due to the fact that several of the forms were obsolete by the fourth century (*Cribiore 1996, 94). The front of the tablet can be translated as follows: Pythagoras the philosopher, when he had disembarked and was teaching letters, used to advise his students to abstain from red meat. The saying of Pythagoras the philosopher, when he had disembarked and was teaching letters, is remembered for advising his students to abstain from red meat. To Pythogoras the philosopher, when he had disembarked and was teaching letters, it seemed best to advise his students to abstain from red meat. They say that Pythagoras the philosopher, when he had disembarked and was teaching letters, advised his students to abstain from red meat. |5 O Pythagoras, you philosopher, when you had disembarked and were teaching letters, you once advised your students to abstain from red meat. And in the dual: Both Pythagorases, the philosophers, when they had disembarked and were teaching letters, used to advise their students to abstain from red meat. The saying of both Pythagorases, the philosophers, when they had disembarked and were teaching letters, used to advise their students to abstain from red meat. To both Pythagorases, the philosophers, when they had disembarked and were teaching letters, it seemed best to advise their students to abstain from red meat. |10 They say that both Pythagorases, the philosophers, when they had disembarked and were teaching letters, advised their students to abstain from red meat. O you two Pythagorases, the philosophers, when you had disembarked and were teaching letters, you two once advised your students to abstain from red meat. And in the plural: The Pythagorases, the philosophers, when they had disembarked and were teaching letters, advised their students to abstain from red meat.

104

Chapter 3

The saying of the Pythagorases, the philosophers, when they had disembarked and were teaching letters, is remembered for advising their students to abstain from red meat. |15 To the Pythagorases, the philosophers, when they had disembarked and were teaching letters, it seemed best to advise their students to abstain from red meat. They say that the Pythagorases, the philosophers, when they had disembarked and were teaching letters, advised their students to abstain from red meat. O you Pythagorases, you philosophers, when you had disembarked and were teaching letters, you two once advised your students to abstain from red meat. The front of the tablet is a complete κλίσις (“inflection”) of a chria ascribed to Pythagoras, inflecting it in five cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and vocative) and three numbers (singular, dual, plural), thus fifteen in all. Apart from the knowledge of conjugations and declensions that this exercise required—there are several mistakes—the point of such an exercise with its seemingly absurd statements was to develop the student’s skill in transforming any complex statement so that it fits the grammatical context in which that statement might be used. Such exercises were part of the rhetorical training evidenced in the progymnasmata or “preliminary exercises,” in use in grammatical and rhetorical schools. [1.28] P.Köln 15.613 (TM 703398) Document copied as school exercise

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), Jan–Feb 56 or 66 CE Ed. R.  W.  Daniel (P.Köln 15.613, image: Tafel XIIa). – Online information and image: https://papyri.uni-koeln.de/stueck/tm703398.

(Year) 2 (or 12)1 of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator Mecheir, in Oxyrhynchos of the Thebaid, before the agoṛạṇọṃọị.2 (Traces) Notes 1 The numeral appears as βτε, an unusual abbreviation of δευτέρου or δωδεκάτου (“second” or “twelfth”).

Literacy and Illiteracy

105

2 The scribe has written ἀπ’ ἀγορ̣α̣ν̣ό̣μ̣ω̣ν̣ which should be ἐπ’ ἀγορ̣α̣ν̣ό̣μ̣ω̣ν̣, “before the agoranomoi.” The formula is associated at Oxyrhynchos especially in connection with the sale or manumission of a slave or the sale of other property and is normally followed by the names of two to four agoranomoi. E.g. (all from Oxyrhynchos), P.Oxy. 34.2720 (41–54 CE), 1.99 (4 Sep 55 CE); 73 (25 Jul–28 Aug 94 CE); 4.722 (91–107 CE); 3.577 (117–118 CE); 4.723 (138–161 CE).

This is not the work of a teacher but rather a student with an unpracticed hand. The lettering, though quite clear, is not strictly bilinear and the letters vary in size, some with very thick pen strokes. The hand is best characterized as alphabetic. Caesar is misspelled as Καίραρος (which would be “Caerar”) instead of Καίσαρος. As noted above (note 2), the scribe has written ἀπ’ ἀγορ̣α̣ν̣ό̣μ̣ω̣ν̣ for ἐπ’ ἀγορ̣α̣ν̣ό̣μ̣ω̣ν̣, “before the agoranomoi.” P.Köln 15.613 appears to be a writing exercise by a student whose preparation was directing him towards a position as a komogrammateus or other administrative role. [1.29] P.Mich. 8.464 (TM 17238) Letter from Apollonous to Terentianus

Greek papyrus, Karanis/Egypt (TM Geo 1008), 16 Mar 99 CE Ed. J.  G.  Winter and H.  C.  Youtie 1951 (P.  Mich. 8 464). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 8:214. – Cf. *White 1986, 157–58 no. 101; N. Gonis 2003, “Remarks on Private Letters II.,” ZPE 142:163–70; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 347–48 (extended eBook 2008, B5.2 no. 240 with images). – Online information: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-2619/1; online image: http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/4DLink4/4DACTION/IPAPwebquery?vPub=P. Mich.&vVol=8&vNum=464.

Apollonous to Terentianus her brother, greetings and, above all, good health. I want you to know that since I wrote to you earlier about |5 my affairs, well, then … that the rental in kind and all the seed will be entirely available. And do not worry about the children: they are well and attend (the lessons of) |10 a woman teacher.1 And concerning your fields, I relieved your brother from two artabas of the rent; well, then, I receive from him eight artabas of wheat and |15 six artabas of vegetable seed. And do not worry about us and take care of yourself. I was informed by Thermouthas that you procured yourself a pair of belts and I was very glad. And with regard |20 to the olive groves, they bear good fruit so far. And if the gods are willing, come to us if you can. And I wish you to fare well, and your children and all your people greet you. Farewell.

106

Chapter 3

|25 Year 2 of the emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan Augustus Germanicus, Phamenoth (?) 20. (Traces of three lines) Deliver to Iulius Terentianus, ⪥ soldier.

(Back)

Note 1 [δ]εσκάλην for διδάσκαλον. A similar spelling is attested in P.Mil.Vogl. 2.76.15 [1.32]: ̣ δέσκαλον for διδάσκαλον.

Similarities between this letter and P.Col. 8.215 [1.14] (ca. 100 CE) suggest that the two letters are from the same woman (Gonis 2003). According to *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 347), P.Mich 8.464 was found at Karanis along with a receipt issued by the sitologoi of Philopator, located near Karanis (TM Geo 1776). In SB 6.9244 (Karanis, 92 CE), Apollonous was acting as an agent for Petalos son of Apollonios who paid land taxes for his farm at Bakchias. This suggests that in Terentianus’s absence, Apollonous is managing his farms. Hence the several details in her letter about the state of the farm income and its crops. Apollonous’s letters are quite legible, even though the text contains a number of orthographical errors—many instances of i for ei, and δεσκάλην ̣ for διδάσκαλον (see note 1). Nevertheless, it seems clear that she had learned to read and write, and as her letter indicates, her children are learning too. While Karanis was probably too small to support a school with a grammarian (*Cribiore 2001, 41), word lists and syllabaries for the earliest levels of instruction have been found there, as well as a copy of Iliad 18.45–49 followed by a prose summary, and a grammatical treatise (*Cribiore 1996, passim, and nos. 345, 359). Apollonous and her children may have learned by one of two scenarios: either itinerant teachers hired by wealthier families, or local elementary teachers “able to stretch their teaching functions to serve the needs of privileged students” (*Cribiore 2001, 82). [1.30] SB 22.15708 (TM 25933) Letter from a student to his father

Greek papyrus, written in Alexandria (?), found at Oxyrhynchos (TM Geo 1524), ca. 100 CE Ed. J.  R.  Rea 1993, “A Student’s Letter to his Father: P.Oxy. XVIII 2190 Revised,” ZPE 99: 75–88 (= SB 22.15708). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11:240. – Cf. E. G. Turner 1975, “Oxyrhynchus and Rome,” HSCP 79:1–24 (lines. 1–36 only); N.  Lewis 1983, Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon), 63–64; W.  Eck and J.  Heinrichs 1993, Sklaven und Freigelassene in der Gesellschaft der römischen Kaiserzeit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), 129–30 no. 185 (only lines 41–55); T. G. Parkin and

Literacy and Illiteracy

107

A. J. Pomeroy 2007, Roman Social History: A Sourcebook, Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World (London: Routledge), 140–42. – Online information and images: https:// doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21163057.v1; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/25933. (Col. 1)

[… to Th]eon1 his lord father, greetings. You have relieved us of our great depression by showing us that what happened in the theatre is indifferent to you, |5 but I hoped by hurrying in sailing down2 that I would find distinguished opportunities—but what have I achieved for my enthusiasm? Even now I am looking for a professor (philologos) and I have discovered that Chairemon3 the teacher (kathegetes) and Didymos son of Aristokles, with whom I have hoped that I might make progress, are no longer in the city,4 but |10 I found only garbage (katharmata) with whom most have taken the most direct road to ruin. Earlier I wrote to you, just as I wrote to those with Philoxenos, to deal with the matter, and I was introduced by them to someone who looked suitable. But you immediately rejected him, although he had begged for Theon’s pardon, |15 on the ground that you know him personally and he is totally lacking in skill (hexis). When I passed on your judgment to Philoxenos, he thought the same, saying that he pitied the city for its lack of teachers of rhetoric (sophistai). But |20 Didymos had sailed down,2 apparently a friend of his who had a school (schole) and he said he would take more care than the others—and in particular he has persuaded the students of Apollonios son of Herodas, to transfer to him (i.e., to Didymos). Up to now they have been seeking such a more powerful teacher after their professor (philologos) had died with whom they had |25 been enrolled. But I, having vowed not to even look at Didymos from afar if I found teachers (kathegetai) worth mentioning, am depressed by this very fact: that he who used to teach in the countryside4 is setting himself up in competition with the others here.

(Col. 2)

|30 So knowing this—that, apart from paying useless and excessive wages (misthoi), I have gained nothing from my teacher (kathegetes) but have achieved something on my own—please write back as soon as possible saying what I should do. I have Didymos, as Philoxenos will also say, always available to me and offering whatever help he is able. Furthermore, |35 by auditing to public

108

Chapter 3

performances, including those of Poseidonios, if the gods are willing, I will quickly make good progress. But it is my depression over those things that forces me to disregard my body, as it isn’t necessary for those who are not engaged in work to care about these things, especially when there is no one |40 to bring in some money. For once upon a time after a few days the “useful” Heraklas—O evil of evils—would bring in some obols, but now in addition to being restrained by Isidoros, as he deserved, he has fled and gone off, so it seems, to you. You should be well aware that he doesn’t shrink from plotting against you if he has the opportunity. |45 For he is not ashamed to happily spread stories of what happened in the theatre in the city and to spout lies that no prosecutor would declare—and he has done this although he hasn’t suffered what he deserved, but having been freed he is doing everything like a free person. But all the same if you don’t send him back |50 you can hire him out to a builder, for I hear that a young guy can make two drachmas a day. Or assign him some other work, where he can earn more money, so that the wages collected by him can be sent to us from time to time. For you know that Diogas is |55 studying literature as well. In the time it takes you to send the younger one, we will look for a bigger place in a private house; for in order that we might be Dionysios’s neighbors, we have been living in a very small place. We received the basket—everything you wrote about is safe: all the jars with the half-kados, |60 in which we found 22 choes, not 18. And to each of those you wrote about, I sent a half kados with a letter. I got the six me(asures) of whole lentils and a Koan5 (jar) full of vinegar, and 126 pieces of salted meat, plus what was in the jar, and 30 pieces of cooked meat. Farewell. Choiach 3 (= 30 Nov). (Back)

|65 […± 30 … to the ch]ief priest of the Nile.6

Notes 1 [– ca. 10 – Θ]έωνι, [… “to Th]eon.” While Theon is extremely well attested as a name, a number of other less common names are possible: [Κλ]εώνι, [Ἡρακλ]έωνι, and [Ν]έωνι. The reference to Theon in line 4 is then a reference to the recipient. On the restoration of the addressee, see below note 6. 2 “Sailing down” normally refers to sailing down river, that is to Alexandria. 3 Given the date of the letter, Chairemon cannot be identified with the famous Alexandrian teacher who became the tutor of Nero (before Seneca took that role).

Literacy and Illiteracy

109

Neither of the other names—Didymos and Philoxenos—can be identified with any known teacher. Poseidonios of Rhodes (who died 51 CE), although he was in Alexandria for some time, is far too early to be identified with the Poseidonios of this letter. 4 The writer invokes the typical contrast between the “city” (Alexandria) and the chora, “countryside” (Egypt). 5 The Koan measure refers to the island of Kos as origin of jars containing this kind of measure. 6 Earlier editions took [ἀρ]χ̣ιε̣ ρ̣ ̣εῖ Νείλου as a proper name, Neilos, and restored the opening address in line 1 as [Νεῖλος Θ]έωνι, “Neilos to Theon” (Turner 1975, 16). But in that case, Neilos should be in the dative (i.e., Νείλῳ) in the address of line 65, rather than the genitive. Rea (1993, 88) cites P.Wisc. 1.9.4–5 (Oxyrhynchos, 183 CE): ἐνάρχῳ ἀρχιερεῖ τοῦ ἱερωτάτου | Νείλου̣ (“the current high priest of the most sacred Nile”). If that understanding is correct, the name of the addressee is lost.

This papyrus letter is interesting from a variety of perspectives but for the purposes of this chapter, we will focus on matters pertaining to education. The letter is very well written, with complex grammar, and very few orthographic and grammatical errors. It was evidently composed in Alexandria, for the sender twice writes about “sailing down” (river), a stock phrase to describe travel towards Alexandria, and he contrasts (contemptuously) the chora (countryside) with the city, again a typical way to contrast Alexandria with the other parts of Egypt. The writer engages in irony in his description of a “useful” slave Heraklas, who in fact had decamped and fled back to the addressee. There is also plenty of vituperation too: many of the teachers in Alexandria are characterized as “garbage” who charge fees that are too high relative to their own competence; another teacher from the countryside is incompetent; and Heraklas the slave is “evil of evils,” disloyal, and prone to spread malicious gossip. In spite of the writer’s disappointment with his teachers, it is clear that he already had a firm command of grammar and vocabulary. J. R. Rea (1993, 75–76) observes that the writer is not only able to muster several technical terms from the vocabulary of education—καθηγητής, σοφιστής, σχολή, φιλόλογος—but also rhetorical terms—ἕξις, τῶν ἐπιδεικνυμένων ἀκροᾶσθαι and some “rather literary words and phrases”—ἐξ ἀπόπτου, κακὸς κακῶς, φημίζειν, and he adds the occasional particle (παραδοῦναί γε). He claims that, in spite of his inability to locate an acceptable professor (philologos), he had made progress on his own, at least in part by attending the lectures of Poseidonios, apparently a well-known orator, though not to be identified with his more famous namesake, Poseidonios of Rhodes. At the time of writing the letter sender’s brother (?) Diogas was also in Alexandria studying literature, and he seems to expect another younger

110

Chapter 3

brother (?) to arrive, and so was planning to rent a larger house (lines 54–55). This seems to imply that their father has the resources to underwrite or arrange for high level education. The writer had the service of a slave, Heraklas whose income would support the student. But as the letter indicates, Heraklas had fled back to the writer’s father, and so he proposes that the slave be hired out (in Oxyrhynchos?) in order to provide him with some income. In the meantime, he acknowledges the receipt of various foodstuffs. [1.31] P.Rain.Cent. 70 (TM 26539) Letter of condolence

Greek papyrus, Hermopolis (TM Geo 816), II–III CE Ed. H. Maehler 1983 (P.Rainer Cent. 70, image: Tafel 73). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 11: 184. – Cf. *Chapa 1998, 87–91 no. 5, image: Plate V; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 277–78, image: 278 fig. 22 (extended eBook 2008, B1.17 no. 154 with image). – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/04963/.

… For, remembering the extreme and unexpected |5 misfortune, I can’t sleep even briefly. But you yourself are also a support in it for me, and I am all inflamed in myself, being |10 unable to come to you and lament and weep with you. For perhaps I could have been relieved. I also asked … to permit … |15 to you … *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 277) note that the Greek is flawless and that the hand is “a clear, upright letter hand with some flair.” They take this as a sign that the letter was in fact penned by a professional scribe: “The scribe, who has clear and elegant handwriting influenced by the chancery style, uses a sophisticated vocabulary and a polished style” (p. 61). And although in general Bagnall and Cribiore suppose that women who were dictating to a scribe “are definitely expressing themselves on their own behalf and not through a male who controls the representation of their thought” (p. 10), in this case they conclude that the letter might express the woman’s personal loss, but the scribe was drawing on his own rhetorical resources in framing the letter: “Our knowledge of women’s education indicates that they were not exposed to rhetorical instruction; it is thus very unlikely that a woman could compose in such an elegant and elaborate personal style” (p. 71).

Literacy and Illiteracy

111

[1.32] P.Mil.Vogl. 2.76 (TM 15188) Letter from Diogenis to Kronion

Greek papyrus, Tebtynis/Egypt (TM Geo 2287), 138–147 CE Ed. M. Vandoni 1961 (P.Mil.Vogl. 2.76). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 6:85; 7:118; 12:127. – Cf. *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 184, image: 185 fig. 11 (extended eBook 2008, A11.1 no. 72 with image). Archive of Diogenis (TM Arch 276) or perhaps archive of Kronion son of Cheos (TM Arch 125).

Diogenis to her dearest Kronion, greetings. Be expecting me when I come up to you at Tali. |5 But I pray that once I am there, I will not find you at fault in anything, wherefore I hope that none of these things will happen. |10 My brother Lourios will communicate to you everything concerning me. I hope that you are well. (h2) Greet all my relatives and |15 Isidora, and let her go to a woman teacher. (h1) If Didymas opposes the payment to Lourios, produce my box, and send his documents under seal. |20 Epeiph 20. But if you also have need of him for the artabia1 or something else, go to him and he will do everything. (Back)

|25 [… from] Diogenis.

Note 1 A land tax of one artaba per aroura.

Diogenis was a wealthy landowner, whose archive has other correspondence or interactions with her manager, Kronion son of Kronion (see also P.Mil.Vogl. 2.77; P.Kron. 16; 35). *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 184) note that the first hand is “attractive, fluent, and proficient” while the second, much smaller hand, presumably Diogenis’s greetings, is rapid and inclining to the right. Their supposition is that Diogenis’s scribe (h1) has taken dictation, Diogenis has added her greetings (h2), and then continued to dictate the final instructions to the scribe. It is worth noting that like P.Mich. 8.464 [1.29], a letter also written by a woman, there is a reference to a female teacher (δέσκαλον for διδάσκαλον). In the present letter, however, it is a daughter (?), Isidora, who is being taught.

112

Chapter 3

[1.33] P.Oxy. 12.1463 (TM 21865) Application for the examination of a slave

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), 16 Sep 215 CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1916 (P.Oxy. 12.1463). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 3:137. – Cf. *Johnson 1936, 285–86 no. 176; J. Rougé in G. Charles-Picard and J. Rougé 1969, Textes et Documents relatifs à la vie économique et sociale dans l’Empire romain (31 avant J.-C.– 225 après J.-C.), Regards sur l’Histoire: Sciences auxiliaires de l’Histoire 6 (Paris: Société d’Édition d’Enseignement supérieur), 90–94 no. XXI; J.  A.  Sheridan 1996, “Women Without Guardians: An Updated List,” BASP 33:117–31; R.  Flemming 2007, “Women, Writing and Medicine in the Classical World,” ClQ 57:257–79, here 261–62. – No image available.

To Aurelius Ammonios, nomarch of Antinoopolis, through Aurelius Apollon alias Serenus, his deputy, from Aurelia Claudia daughter of Sarapion from the city of the Oxyrhynchians, with her guardian, her own husband, Marcus Aurelius |5 Ammonios son of Dionysios, the son of Amerimnos, of the Sosikosmian tribe and Althaean deme. Since I wish to buy from Aurelia Artemeis daughter of Amois and Taphamois from Choinothis of the Herakleopolite nome, acting without a guardian by the ius liberorum1, a female slave |10 called Tyrannis, of Asiatic descent, white-skinned, aged about 24 (years), ⟨or⟩ by whatever other name she is called, I request that her examination (ἀνάκρισις)2 be held in accordance with the orders on the subject. Farewell. (Year) 24 of Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus |15 Parthicus Maximus Pius Augustus, Thoth 18. (h2) I, Aurelia Claudia, have authorized this. (h3) I, Aurelius Ammonios, have signed as guardian (kyrios) for my wife. I, Serenus son of Sarapion, the son of |20 Chairemon, of the Phylaxithalassian tribe (of Alexandria), also of the Althaean deme, have written for him since he does not know letters {does not know}. (h4) I, Aurel(ia) Artemeis, approve. I, Aurel(ius) Kallinikos alias Kopreas son of Herakleides, whose mother is Isis, from Herakleopolis have written |25 for the wife of my brother since she does not know letters. (h5) Aurelius Ammonios, nomarch of Antinoopolis, through Aurelius Apollonios alias Serenus, his deputy […] … […] … […] |30 … […] making known […] complete […] … risk […] … […] I have signed [… (year) 24] of Emperor Caesar M[arcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus] Parthicus Maximus Britan[nicus Maximus Germanicus] |35 Maximus Pius Aug[ustus …].

Literacy and Illiteracy

113

Notes 1 The ius liberorum was an Augustan law that exempted women from guardianship who had three children (and freedwomen who had four children). For a list of women in papyri who claim this privilege, see Sheridan 1996. 2 Anakrisis was an examination of the slave preliminary to the sale intended to establish the identity and status of the slave.

While it might often be the case that a wife was illiterate and her husband literate—or at least sufficiently lettered in order to affix his signature on a legal instrument—this is a case of the opposite. The body of the agreement is probably the work of a professional scribe, but the prospective buyer, Aurelia Claudia, was able to affix her own hypographe, Αὐρηλία Κλ[α]υδία ἐπιδέδωκ[α] (lines 15–16). Since Aurelia Claudia apparently had fewer than three children, she was required to effect the transaction in the presence of her guardian, in this case her husband, Aurelius Ammonios. Yet since her husband was illiterate, he required the service of a scribe, Serenus son of Sarapion, the son of Chairemon, to attest his agreement. The seller needed no guardian, since she had invoked the ius trium liberorum, but since she was illiterate, she also needed someone to attest her agreement, in this case Aurelius Kallinikos, her brother in law. [1.34] P.Oxy. 6.930 (TM 28341) Letter from a mother to her son Ptolemaios

Greek papyrus, found at Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II–III CE Ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt 1908 (P.Oxy. 6.930). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 4:60. – Cf. A.  Laudien 1912, Griechische Papyri aus Oxyrhynchos für den Schulgebrauch ausgewählt (Berlin: Weidmann), 4, 38–39 no. 4; *Schubart 1912, 74–75 no. 62; U. Wilcken 1912 (Chrest.Wilck. 138); *Schubart 1923, 90–91 no. 65; A. S. Hunt and E. E. Edgar 1932 (Sel. Pap. 1.130); *Metzger 1974, 36–37 no. 41; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 375–77, image: 377 fig. 29 (extended eBook 2008, B9.2 no. 267 with image); M. Joyal, J. Yardley, and I. McDougall 2007, Greek and Roman Education: A Sourcebook, Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World (London: Routledge), 182–83 no. 8.16b; *Fournet 2012, 125–157; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 91–93 no. 12, image: 119 Abb. 8; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 178 no. 214. – Online image: https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/library/files/special/teach/ papyrus/oxyrhynchus930.html.

… do not hesitate to write to me about anything that you require. It grieved me to learn |5 from the daughter of our teacher (kathegetes), Diogenes, that he had sailed down river,1 for I had no anxiety about him, knowing |10 that he would look after you to the best of his ability. I took care to send and ask about your

114

Chapter 3

health and learn what you are |15 reading. He said that it was the sixth (book of the Iliad) and testified at length concerning your tutor (paidagogos). So, my son, I urge both you and your tutor (paidagogos)|20 to take care that you go to a suitable teacher (kathegetes). Your sisters and the unenchanted2 children of Theonis |25 and all our people by name greet you many times. Greet your most honored tutor (paidagogos) Eros. (Left margin, downwards)

[…] … Fare[ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ]3 Hathyr 2.

(Back)

|30 […] to her son Ptolemaios.

Notes 1 “Sailing down” normally refers to sailing down river, that is to Alexandria. 2 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.). 3 ἐρ̣ ̣ρ̣[ ̣ ] ̣ ̣ ̣ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ] suggests to think of a final greeting, but the editors remarked: “The letter next after the lacuna may be θ or α, but neither ἐρρ[ῶσ]θαι not ἐρρ[ῶσ]θ(αι) εὔχ(ομαι) suits, the plural ἔρρωσθ(ε) is unlikely, and there is not room for ἐρρ[ῶσθ]αι” (B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt in P.Oxy. 6, p. 296).

*Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 375) describe the hand as “respectable but not particularly attractive” and the style “competent and correct, with basic connective particles used as necessary.” There are relatively few errors—the rather common iotacism (exchange of i for ei, or vice versa), and ἐλοιπήθην for ἐλυπήθην (“I was grieved”). As *Bagnall and Cribiore (2006, 375) further observe, this is an important letter for the insight it sheds on the structure of education at higher levels. That the writer is a woman is indicated by the feminine participle εἰδυῖα (“knowing”) in line 9. The addressee, her son, had evidently moved to Oxyrhynchos along with his tutor or pedagogue. His teacher, Diogenes, however, had sailed downstream (to Alexandria?), but had evidently taken an interest in the boy and had thought well of his tutor, Eros, no doubt a slave. He had also informed the mother of her son’s progress—he was reading the Iliad, which suggests that he was at least at the level of composing summaries or paraphrases, perhaps reading scholia minora (see p. 82). The papyrus presupposes the differences in roles between the tutor (paidagogos), who was perhaps responsible for the initial states of literate education, and the teacher (kathegetes), responsible for more advanced levels.

Literacy and Illiteracy

115

[1.35] P.Brem. 63 (TM 19649) Letter from Eudaimonis to Aline

Greek papyrus, Hermopolis Magna/Egypt (TM Geo 816), 16 Jul 116 CE? Ed. U.  Wilckens 1936 (P.Brem. 63). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 5:19; 6:24; 8:68; 9:39; 13:49. – Cf. V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks 1960 (C.Pap.Jud. 2.442); *Rowlandson 1998, 121–22 no. 94; *Burnet 2003, 77–78 no. 25; M. Pucci Ben Zeev 2005, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights, Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion  6 (Leuven: Peeters), 34–37 no. 26; *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 143–44, image: 145 fig. 6 (extended eBook 2008, A7.11 no. 41 with image); G. Messeri 2006, “Donne dell’Egitto greco-romano attraverso i papiri,” Atene e Roma 51:75–96, here 90–91 no. 2; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 86–89 no. 10, image: 117 Abb. 6. – Online information and image: https://brema.suub.uni-bremen.de/papyri/ content/titleinfo/770781. Archive of Apollonios, the strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Arch 19); see also SB 10.10277 [2.126]; P.Brem. 56app [2.127]; 20 [2.128]; 5 [2.129]; PSI 4.308 [2.130] is uncertain.

Eudaimonis to her daughter Aline, greetings. Above all, I pray that you may give birth at the right time |5 and that I will receive news of a baby boy. You sailed away on the 29th and on the next (day) I had drawn down (? the wool). I finally got the material from the dyer on the 10th of Epeiph. I am working with |10 your slave girls (paidiskai) as far as possible. I cannot find girls who are able to work with us, for they are all working for their own mistresses. For |15 our people have been demanding more money throughout the whole city. Your sister Souerous gave birth. Teeus wrote me a letter |20 thanking you so that I know, my lady, that my instructions will remain in force, for she has left all her family to come with you. The little girl greets you and is persevering |25 with her studies. Know that I am not going to pay attention to god until I get my son back safe. Why did you send me 20 (drachmas) when I was having such bad luck? I already |30 imagine in my eyes that I will remain naked the whole winter. (h2) Farewell. Epeiph 22. (Left margin, downwards)

(h1) The wife of Eudemos doesn’t move from my side and I am grateful to her. To Aline ⪥ her daughter.

(Back)

116

Chapter 3

This papyrus is from the archive of Apollonios (TM Arch 19), who was strategos of Apollonopolites Heptakomias (TM Geo 3017), while his hometown was Hermopolis. Eudaimonis, who is known from other documents in the archive (P.Giss. 1.21–23), was Apollonios’s mother and Aline’s mother-in-law. Thus it appears that Eudaimonis was in Hermopolis, writing to Aline in Apollonopolis, where she will give birth. Apollonios’s wife Aline is also known from P.Giss. 1.78, a letter to her old servant, Tetes, and P.Brem. 64, a letter to Aline from Soeris remonstrating with Aline for complaining needlessly. In perhaps a later letter (P.Giss. 1.20, 117–118 CE), Aline is back in Hermopolis and writes to Apollonios, whom she addresses as “my brother,” still evidently in Apollonopolis. Teeus, a female slave now with Aline in Apollonopolis, seems earlier to have written to Apollonios (P.Giss. 1.17), concerned for his health, and to Aline (P.Giss. 1.77) in which she mentions Heraidous, another girl, perhaps the “small girl” of line 24 of P.Brem. 63 (see also P.Giss. 1.21). It appears that Eudaimonis has dictated the letter and only affixed her own name to the letter (h2). The postscript is in the hand of the scribe who wrote for Eudaimonis. Besides the information about the difficulties that Eudaimonis has had in keeping workers—apparently in the family’s weaving shop—she also mentions the progress that a young girl (Heraidous?) is making in her studies. In P.Giss. 1.78 Aline complains that “my little” Heraidous had written to her father (P.Giss. 1.24?) but had failed to send Aline greetings and wonders why. P.Giss. 1.77 seems to be a response to P.Giss. 1.78 since in that letter, Teeus greets Aline and immediately conveys Heraidous’s greetings to Aline. [1.36] O.Did. 451 (TM 145012) Letter from Kroniaina to Claudianus

Greek ostracon, Didymoi/Egypt (TM Geo 3125), before ca. 176–210 CE Ed. A. Bülow-Jacobsen 2012 (O.Did. 451). – Addenda/Corrigenda: 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 202–3. – Cf. Arzt-Grabner 2017, 202–6. – Online image: http://www.ifao.egnet.net/bases/publications/fifao67/ (“no ostracon” = 451). The ostracon, consisting of calcareous clay, was found in a rubbish dump of the Roman fort Didymoi which, according to the archaeological record of the site, is posterior to the repairs to the fort carried out under Marcus Aurelius. (Convex side)

Kroniaina to (her) father Claudianus, very many greetings.

Literacy and Illiteracy

117

Before everything I pray that you are healthy along with my mother. There is a proverb by … that says: “The thumb, if the one, who does not understand anything, |5 does not escape our notice a second time.” I ask you1 now urgently as my parents, to bring (me) back. And don’t2 even say “hello” to him. For it is not blameworthy to say so3 at this moment. I went hungry so that he could fill his belly, and even so, when he saw |10 my bread hanging in the basket. He maltreated and abused me so much that I don’t know how I should describe it for you. Now he should realize what he has done. What the man from Bouto has told me concerning the cloak, I will take care of it. Salute my mother |15 and my daughter and those who love us. Farewell, father. (Concave side)

|20 Ophellas greets you4, and the man from Bouto who is ill. Proclus greets you5 and also Sarapion. I pray that you fare well.6

Notes 1 Here, Kroniaina uses the plural, thus addressing both parents. 2 At this point, Kroniaina uses the singular form of the imperative, so as to beg her father to not greet the man in question anymore. Such a change between plural and singular (cf. also lines 20–22) is a more or less common feature in papyrus letters that are addressed to more than one person (*Arzt-Grabner 2003, 111–14). 3 Meaning: not to say hello. 4 If we take the singular literally, the greetings of Ophellas and the man from Bouto are only forwarded to Kroniaina’s father. 5 According to the plural here, the greetings of Proclus and Sarapion are forwarded to both parents. 6 The two lines of this final greeting (lines 23–24) are added below some blank space and are both indented. Contrary to the greeting in lines 17–19, which is addressed only to the father, Kroniaina uses the plural here, thus greeting both parents like in the opening greeting.

Kroniaina, the sender of this letter, has been with a man who maltreated her. According to the editor, she had signed a contract with a client that obliged her to prostitute herself and which forced her to leave her daughter with her parents (A. Bülow-Jacobsen in O.Did., p. 385). However, it is also possible that Kroniaina is writing about her husband and that her daughter is staying with her grandparents for a certain period of time, or perhaps is even raised by them because of the couple’s bad relationship. If a “contractual relationship” is mentioned in lines 7–8, which is not impossible, it could also refer to a marriage

118

Chapter 3

between Kroniaina and her husband, either with or without a written contract, since both types of marriage had the same legal value. Kroniaina complains that she is mistreated and abused by the man and tries to obtain help from her parents by sending this letter, which she most likely wrote herself. In spite of many orthographical errors, she is able to use several formulas correctly and to draft several clauses in a way that is certainly above average. But, most of all, she cites a proverb that is not attested elsewhere. A. Bülow-Jacobsen succeeded in reconstructing two iambic trimeters in lines 4–5, which he translated, “He who does not know his thumb, he shall not escape our notice a second time.” But this is not what Kroniaina wrote, and we cannot be sure that the proverb was actually based on a lyric form. It is possible that, in the form that Kroniaina quoted, it had already been written as prose. P.  Arzt-Grabner (2017, 205–6) restored Kroniaina’s proverb as, “The thumb if the one, who does not understand anything, does not escape our notice a second time.” If “the thumb” refers to the Roman infestus pollex, the “hostile thumb” (cf. Quintilian, Inst. 11.3.1; Anthologia Latina 415.27–28), the proverb might mean that if someone does not (yet) understand something, and he is found doing it a second time, simply show him “the thumb” as a sign of hostility. Applied to Kroniaina’s situation, it could mean: this man has maltreated her again and again, and more than once she was left hungry so that he could fill his belly; now it is time to leave him and consider him hostile and a complete unknown. [1.37] O.Bodl. 2.2000 (TM 72676) Request for a copy of a vocabulary of Iliad A

Greek ostracon, Thebes/Egypt (TM Geo 2355), II–III CE? Ed. J.  G.  Tait, C.  Préaux 1955 (O.Bodl. 2.2000). – Cf. *Fournet 2012, 132. – No image available.

My lord Isidoros: when you come bring me the Vocabulary of Iliad A as I have begged |5 you. As *Fournet (2012, 132) noted, this is surprisingly the only extant letter that mentions the exchange of a Homeric work, and even this is a Homerica, a glossary of the first song of the Iliad. However, this extreme rarity of allusions to Homeric books in letters could paradoxically be explained by the extreme diffusion of this author: the more widespread an author is, the less people there are to ask for the loan of it.

Chapter 4

Languages

A Multilingual Empire

Literature *Bagnall and Cribiore 2006, 56–59; Brixhe 2010, “Linguistic Diversity in Asia Minor during the Empire: Koine and Non-Greek Languages,” in *Bakker 2010, 228–52; *Cavallo 2009; *Cohen 2016; H.  M.  Cotton 1999, “The Languages of the Legal and Administrative Documents from the Judaean Desert,” ZPE 125:219–31; *Evans and Obbink 2010; J. Gascou 2009, “The Papyrology of the Near East,” in *Bagnall 2009, 473– 94; *Kreinecker 2010a, 19–31; C.  M.  Kreinecker 2022, “Mehrsprachigkeit am Kreuz: Papyrologische Anmerkungen zu Joh  19,20,” in The Gospels and Their Receptions: Festschrift Joseph Verheyden, ed. H.  J.  De  Jonge, M.  Grundeken, J.  Kloppenborg, and C. Tuckett BETL 330 (Leuven: Peeters), 337–360; H. Loebenstein 1983, “Von ‘Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer’ zur Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: 100 Jahre Sammeln, Bewahren, Edieren,” in Festschrift zum 100-jährigen Bestehen der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.) (Wien: Hollinek), 3–39; R. Mairs 2020, “Hermēneis in the Documentary Record from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: interpreters, translators and mediators in a bilingual society,” Journal of Ancient History 8/1:50–102; R. Mairs 2018, “κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν: Demotic-Greek Translation in the Archive of the Theban Choachytes,” in Scribal Repertoires in Egypt from the New Kingdom to the Early Islamic Period, ed. J. Cromwell and E. Grossman, Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 211–226; R. Mairs 2012, “Interpreters and Translators in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,” in Actes du 26e Congrès international de papyrologie, Genève, 16–21 août 2010, ed. P.  Schubert, Recherches et rencontres 30 (Genf: Librairie Droz), 457–462; B. Rochette 2010, “Greek and Latin Bilingualism,” in *Bakker, ed. 2010, 281– 93; C.  Wiotte-Franz 2001, Hermeneus und Interpres: Zum Dolmetscherwesen in der Antike, Saarbrücker Studien zur Archäologie und Alten Geschichte 16 (Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag); M. O. Wise 2015, Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents, AYBRL (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press); A. Zdiarsky 2022, “Alte Schriften – Alte Geschichten: Das Papyrusmuseum der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek in Wien,” AW 2022/4:84–87.

In Egypt, where most of the papyri and ostraca have been found, the Egyptian language (written in Demotic script) continued to be the first language of the native Egyptians during the Roman period. However, most of these documents originating in Egypt are written in Greek. Many people learned Greek and used it as a second language, or immigrated in the wake of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt with Greek as their mother tongue. They used Greek not only in documents addressed to the Roman administration, but also in their business affairs and private correspondence. Alternatively, Latin was used

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790418_005

120

Chapter 4

primarily in documents of the Roman Law and in military contexts, including texts of veterans. SB 16.12609 (Alexandria, 25 Aug 27 CE), for instance, is a soldier’s bill of debt in Latin, but the subsequent confirmation of the debtor is in Greek. Other bilingual Latin and Greek documents from Egypt are rare: The ostracon O.Did. 49 (Didymoi, before ca. 88–96 CE) preserves the fragmentary request of a donkey driver to be allowed to travel through the Eastern Desert of Egypt; the confirmation below is in Latin. Additionally, the verso of P.Köln 3.160 (I–II CE) preserves a fragmentary letter in Latin with a Greek translation. A relatively reliable picture of the distribution of the languages used on papyri, ostraca, and tablets from Egypt is provided by the well-documented holdings of the Vienna Papyrus Collection, almost all of which come from Egypt: the largest portion is represented by ca. 70,000 Greek objects, while Demotic objects number only ca. 2,000, and Latin objects only 167. The ca. 26,000 Coptic objects, which belong to the period from the fourth century CE onwards and are thus already influenced by Christianity, are as irrelevant to our context as the Old Egyptian and Arabic holdings. Small stocks of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac objects complete the picture.1 In the other provinces of the Roman Empire, too, the Roman conquest did not lead to linguistic uniformity. For example, in the Near East Aramaic continued to be spoken and written by the local population. Hebrew continued to be the language of Judaism’s sacred scriptures but experienced a revival in documentary texts during the Bar Kokhba revolt between 132 and 135 CE.2 Greek not only remained in use where it already existed, but the Roman conquest had the paradoxical effect of introducing it into countries where it had not been customary before (Gascou 2009, 474). In the Nabataean Kingdom the Nabataean script continued to be used, but disappeared progressively in favor of Greek after the Roman annexation and the establishment of the Roman province of Arabia in 106 CE, to which the documents of the archives of two Jewish women, Babatha (TM Arch 41; 93–132 CE) and Salome Komaïse, daughter of Levi (TM Arch 207; 125–131 CE), bear impressive witness. Twenty of the documents are in Greek,3 seven in Greek and Aramaic,4 four in Aramaic,5 six in Nabatean-Aramaic,6 three in

1 Cf. www.trismegistos.org/collection/357; Loebenstein 1983, 22–39. 2 See P.Hever 30; P.Murabba‘ât 43; 44; 45–52; P.Yadin 2.44–46; 49; 60; 61. 3 P.Yadin 1.5; 11; 13; 24–26; 28–32; 32a; 33–35; P.Hever 60 (with the final line in Aramaic); 61; 62 (with three out of four signatures of witnesses in Aramic); 63; 65. 4 P.Hever 64; P.Yadin 1.17–19; 23; 27; 31. 5 P.Hever 12; P.Yadin 2.7; 8; 10. 6 P.Yadin 2.1; 2; 3; 4; 6; 9.

Languages

121

Greek and Nabatean,7 and six in Aramaic, Greek, and Nabatean.8 Even when the Aramaic and Nabataean-Aramaic documents are combined into one category (ten in all), there are still twice as many Greek documents as Aramaic. It is not surprising that in a multicultural context like the ancient Mediterranean area, multiple languages are simultaneously present. As the language of the local population differed from that of the rulers and the official administration, translations and the need for translators (of written texts) and oral interpreters must have occurred regularly in provincial everyday life, it seems at first glance striking that interpreters are not mentioned more often (see Mairs 2020, 1–2; H. Harrauer in CPR 13, p. 79–81; Wiotte-Franz 2001, 64 n. 7). This is also the case for translations preserved on papyri, for example, from Latin to Greek (cf. Kreinecker 2022, 346–352): the translator of these texts is hardly ever mentioned. R. Mairs (2012, 461) pointed out that the silence about the presence and the identity of interpreters and translators is a fate shared across cultures and centuries. In those cases where translations of texts are preserved, often of legally relevant texts concerning heritage and property, the translated documents usually indicate that the text is a translation (ἑρμηνεία) and often even add that this translation was made “as far as possible” (κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν). In documentary papyri, this practice is not only attested for Greek translations of Latin texts but already for Greek translations of Demotic texts. R. Mairs (2012, 460) observed: As well as perhaps recognising the impossibility of utterly faithful translation, accurate in content and equivalent in sense, it is clear that this phrase is above all a legal caveat. […] Inaccurate transmission of information might have severe consequences for any one of the parties to a dispute or transaction, and all those involved—parties, translators and interpreters, attorneys, presiding officials— might seek to absolve themselves of any personal liability for inaccurate translation. In stressing that his translation is κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν, the writer cautions those involved that translation is not an exact science, and also excuses himself of responsibility.

For more on translators and their presence in court proceedings see below (“Latin in Particular”). Also the New Testament writings contain examples of translations, for example a Greek rendering of Aramaic words and names (see p. 127). Noteworthy in the context of multilingualism is the reference in John 19:20 that the title on the cross was written in three languages, namely Hebrew (meaning Aramaic), Latin, and Greek. In John 19:20, however, the text itself is only given in Greek. Trilingual texts as such are rare in documentary 7 P.Yadin 1.12; 16; P.Hever 62. 8 P.Yadin 1.14; 15; 20–22; P.Hever 64.

122

Chapter 4

papyri and are usually not a translation of a text but a mixture of languages within one document such as contracts with superscripts in other languages. Examples for such trilingual texts in Greek, Aramaic, and Nabatean from Maoza near Petra in the Roman province of Arabia (modern Jordan) are P.Yadin 1.14 and 15 (both 11 or 12 Oct 125 CE), P.Hever 64 (9 Nov 129 CE), P.Yadin 1.20 (19 Jun 130 CE), 21 and 22 (both 11 Sep 130 CE). The New Testament trias (Aramaic, Latin, and Greek) is not attested in extant documentary papyri. Yet, since the general pragmatic purpose of translations, also confirmed by documentary papyri, is that people can understand what is said or written, it can also be assumed for John 19:20 that the three mentioned languages tell the reader that the title on the cross was composed as such to be understood by everyone: the local population (Aramaic), the ruling power (Latin), and everyone else (Greek representing the lingua franca); for further details see Kreinecker 2022.

Greek in Particular

Literature N. J. Andrade 2017, “Drops of Greek in a Multilingual Sea: The Egyptian Network and its Residential Presences in the Indian Ocean,” JHS 137:42–66; P. Arzt-Grabner 2013, “Greek Language in the Roman Empire,” The Encyclopedia of Ancient History 6:2988– 90; R.  S.  Bagnall 2011, Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East, Sather Classical Lectures 69 (Berkeley: University of California Press); G. B. Bazzana 2015b, “Galilean Village Scribes as the Authors of the Sayings Gospel Q,” in Q in Context II: Social Setting and Archeological Background of the Sayings Source, ed. M. Tiwald, BBB 173 (Göttingen: V&R unipress), 133–48, here 141–48; E.  Crespo 2021, “The Greek Phonology of a Tax Collector in Egypt in the First Century CE,” in *Bentein and Janse, eds. 2021, 327–52; *Deissmann 1927; E. Dickey 2009, “The Greek and Latin Languages in the Papyri,” in *Bagnall 2009, 149–69; T.  V.  Evans 2015, “Idiolect and Aspectual Choice in Ancient Greek: Evidence from the Zenon Archive and the Greek Pentateuch,” in Biblical Greek in Context: Essays in Honour of John A. L. Lee, ed. J. K. Aitken and T. V. Evans, BTS 22 (Leuven: Peeters), 59–90; C. H. George 2010, “Jewish and Christian Greek,” in *Bakker, ed. 2010, 267–80; F. T. Gignac 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 (Milano: Cisalpino – La Goliardica); F. T. Gignac 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 (Milano: Cisalpino – La Goliardica); F.  T.  Gignac 1985, “The Papyri and the Greek Language,” in Papyrology, ed. N. Lewis, YCS 28 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 155–65; F.  T.  Gignac 1986, “Morphological Phenomena in the Greek Papyri Significant for the Text and Language of the New Testament,” CBQ 48:499–511; F.  T.  Gignac 1989, “Phonological Phenomena in the Greek Papyri Significant for the Text and Language of the New Testament,” in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph  A.  Fitzmyer, S.J., ed. M.  P.  Horgan and P.  J.  Kobelski (New York: Crossroad), 33–46; F.  Gignac 2013, “Grammatical

Languages

123

Developments of Greek in Roman Egypt Significant for the New Testament,” in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. S. E. Porter and A. W. Pitts, Early Christianity in its Hellenistic Context 3; Linguistic Biblical Studies 6 (Leiden: Brill), 401–19;G.  Horrocks 2010, Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers, 2nd ed. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell), 79–188; G.  H.  R.  Horsley 1989, “The Fiction of ‘Jewish Greek,’” in New Docs. 5, 5–40; J. Kaimio 1979, The Romans and the Greek Language, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum  64 (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica); *Kreinecker 2010b; M.  Leiwo 2020, “L2 Greek in Roman Egypt: Intense Language Contact in Roman Military Forts,” Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics  6/2:1–31; M.  Leiwo 2021, “Tracking down lects in Roman Egypt,” in *Bentein and Janse, eds. 2021, 17–37; *Luiselli 2008, 714–19; M. C. A. Macdonald 2017, “How Much Can We Know about Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea?,” JRA 30:832–42; B.  G.  Mandilaras 1973, The Verb in the Greek Non-literary Papyri (Athen: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences); *Milligan 1922, 55–81; H.  T.  Ong 2017, “The Use of Greek in First-Century Palestine: An Issue of Method in Dialogue with Scott D. Charlesworth,” in The Language and Literature of the New Testament: Essays in Honor of Stanley  E.  Porter’s 60th Birthday, ed. L.  K.  Fuller  Dow, C.  A.  Evans, and A. W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill), 218–36; S. E. Porter 2010, “The Babatha Archive, the Egyptian Papyri and Their Implications for Study of the Greek New Testament,” in Early Christian Manuscripts: Examples of Applied Method and Approach, ed. T. J. Kraus and T. Nicklas, TENTS 5 (Leiden: Brill), 213–37; S. E. Porter 2016, “The Use of Greek in First-Century Palestine: A Diachronic and Synchronic Examination,” JGRChJ 12:203–28; D. Rafiyenko and I. A. Seržant, eds. 2020, Postclassical Greek: Contemporary Approaches to Philology and Linguistics (Berlin: De Gruyter); M. Reiser 2001, Sprache und literarische Form des Neuen Testaments: Eine Einführung, Uni-Taschenbücher 2197 (Paderborn: Schöningh); M. Richey 2012, “The Use of Greek at Qumran: Manuscript and Epigraphic Evidence for a Marginalized Language,” DSD 19:177–97; P. M. Robertson 2016, Paul’s Letters and Contemporary Greco-Roman Literature: Theorizing a New Taxonomy, NovTSup  167 (Leiden: Brill), 27–40; R.  Runesson 2023, “Centurions in the Jesus Movement? Rethinking Luke  7:1–10 in Light of the Gaianus Inscription at Kefar ‘Othnay,” NTS 142:129–149; J.  V.  Stolk 2020, “Post-Classical Greek from a Scribal Perspective: Variation and Change in Contemporary Orthographic Norms in Documentary Papyri,” Mnemosyne 73:750–74; S. Torallas Tovar 2010, “Greek in Egypt,” in *Bakker, ed. 2010, 253–66; A.  Verhoogt 2010, “Papyri,” in *Bakker, ed. 2010, 62–68; J.  Voelz 1984, “The Language of the New Testament,” ANRW 25.2:893–977; M. Wilcox 1984, “Semitisms in the New Testament,” ANRW 25.2:978–1029; G. Woolf 1994, “Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East,” The Cambridge Classical Journal 40:116–43. – See also p. 119.

As a result of the conquests by Alexander the Great, Greek became the lingua franca of the entire eastern Mediterranean. During the expansion of the Roman Empire to the south and east, the Romans encountered an existing Hellenistic Greek linguistic infrastructure known as Koine. The term koine (literally “the common one”), which is used to identify the Greek of Hellenistic and Roman times, is an abbreviation of he koine dialektos glossa (“the common language suitable for dialogue or conversation,” “the common language to communicate”).

124

Chapter 4

Compared to the traditional Greek dialects, Koine was a blend of several Greek dialects (mainly Attic and Ionic) characterized by both simplification of forms and grammar, and clarification of linguistic expression. More complex linguistic forms were replaced by alterations or neologisms. For example, for many forms of the second (or strong) aorist, the endings of the simpler first (or weak) aorist were now adopted. Some words of the more difficult third declension were replaced by synonyms of the first or second declension, if available (e.g., as a term for “fish,” ὀψάριον gradually replaced ἰχθύς, or for “to see,” the verb βλέπω replaced the verbum contractum ὁράω). For clarity of expression, verbal compounds with more than two members (e.g., συν-αντι-λαμβάνομαι, “to lend a hand, assist”) and new words were introduced (e.g., εὐκαιρέω, “to have time”; εὐχαριστέω, “to give thanks, be grateful”). The many orthographic errors in the papyri reveal some phonological details. Not only iota, but also upsilon, ei, oi, and eta were pronounced [i]; the diphthong ai was pronounced [e] (on these and other phenomena see Gignac 1976). A selected example from the early first century CE from Egypt is SB 5.7600 [1.38] (12 Apr 16 CE). The last line of this papyrus letter preserves the dating to the second year of Tiberius Caesar. The Greek form Καῖσαρ, which so far occurs in nearly 10,000 Greek documentary papyri, is a transcription of Latin Caesar, thus confirming that the Latin c was pronounced as [k] even before the diphthong ae (and before i), which means that the Greek Καῖσαρ and the Latin Caesar were both pronounced as [’kæsɑ:]. In writing, capital letters (majuscules) and scriptio continua (without spaces between words)9 were predominate until the ninth century CE. It was not only in the East that Greek served as a recognized language of the Roman Empire. That former Greek colonies in Sicily, southern Italy, southern France, and the east coast of the Iberian Peninsula continued to use Greek is almost natural, but even in Rome itself Greek was also considered the language of an exemplary culture and thus also the language of education and style. Cicero often incorporates Greek words and expressions into his works, particularly in his letters, and offers many interesting translations of Greek terms and philosophical concepts into Latin. The emperor Claudius reportedly wrote historical works in Greek and Latin (Suetonius, Claud. 41), and Marcus Aurelius composed his Meditations in Greek. An illustrative documentary text is P.Lond. 3.1178 (pp.  214–19), a papyrus inscribed in Nea Polis (Naples) in Italy. It is written in Greek and served as diploma of membership to the guild of athletes given to the boxer Herminos 9 Spaces were introduced rather for aesthetic than other reasons, for example in letter openings (see PNT 2, pp. 68–70).

Languages

125

(aka Moros). At the time the papyrus was written the headquarters of the guild was in Rome, but the diploma was issued by the synod of athletes, which met during the celebration of the Agon of the Great Sebasta Italica Romaia at Nea Polis, 22 September 194 CE. The document, preserved in the original, contains not only the circular letter of the synod to its members with the attesting subscriptions of the officials, but also a copy of a letter from the Emperor Claudius to the synod of athletes from 46  CE expressing gratefulness for the golden crown he received for his victories, a copy of another letter from Claudius to the same synod from 47 CE thanking them for performing games in his honor, and a copy of a letter from the Emperor Vespasian confirming the privileges granted to the guild by Claudius. In the second century CE, the Greek-Egyptian recruit Apollinaris, after arriving in Italy to join the imperial navy at Misenum, was able to hire local scribes, one in Portus and the other in Rome, and dictate to them two letters in Greek (P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139] and 491 [2.140]), both of which were sent home to his mother in Egypt. Examples from early Christ groups that attest to Greek being written and read in Rome include the Letter to the Romans by Paul of Tarsus and the First Letter of Clement, which was sent from Rome to the assembly in Corinth. In the eastern Roman provinces, Greek was the language of all levels of culture and education and the main means of administrational communication. It became the lingua franca par excellence by supplanting the indigenous languages. This is particularly apparent in Egypt, which came under Roman rule in 30 BCE. Thousands of private letters as well as business and administrative documents written on papyri and ostraca illustrate the prevalence of the Greek language and testify that the original language of the foreign Macedonian rulers had been adopted into the native Egyptian culture. Of course, the Greek of the Roman period existed in different variants related to the particular social and linguistic context. The scribes came from different educational backgrounds, and the documents served different functions, which affected the linguistic output. These differences resulted in variations even within the same genre and register (Leiwo 2021). Regarding Greek phonology, various sociolects and idiolects can be identified. For example, the Greek idiolect of Nemesion son of Zoilos, a tax collector for the Egyptian village of Philadelphia in the first century CE, most likely reflects the sociolect of many adults of that time who were bilingual in Greek and Demotic (Crespo 2021; the documents written by Nemesion are listed at TM Arch 149). By far the most famous document copied by Nemesion is the letter of the emperor Claudius to the polis of the Alexandrians, P.Lond. 6.1912 [1.39] (10 Nov 41 CE), written in Greek. The numerous deviations from standard spelling and several corrections in the preserved copy suggest that Nemesion did not copy from the original, but that the text

126

Chapter 4

was dictated to him, probably from a copy that may already have been at the end of a series of other copies.10 That Egypt was no exception in this regard is attested by papyrus finds from Syria, Israel, Jordan, and elsewhere, as well as by the epigraphical record of the eastern provinces. The situation in Roman Judea was different only insofar as Aramaic remained the language of communication among the local population and was used even in legal documents; Greek, however, was undoubtedly the language of the administration and played a decisive role as the lingua franca alongside Aramaic. The scribes of the Greek documents preserved in the archives of Babatha (P.Yadin) and Salome Komaïse (P.Hever 60–65) were in fact of Jewish origin. This is also true of the Greek fragments found at Masada, including SB 24.15988 [1.40], a papyrus letter written before spring 73 or 74 CE somewhere in Judea and sent to Masada. It is one of the seven Greek letters (out of 42) from the Judean desert listed by N. Cohen in a preliminary survey (*Cohen 2016).11 The fact that seven of the 42 letters were written in Greek (*Cohen 2016, nos. 19–21, 26, 30, 37, 42)12 may not seem much. However, when considered that they were written by Jews in a time of rebellion against the Roman occupants, it becomes remarkable. Even more than to SB 24.15988 [1.40] this applies to P.Yadin 2.52 [1.41], a papyrus letter written toward the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt and addressed to two of Bar Kokhba’s military leaders. However, it may also be significant that only one Greek documentary text has survived from Qumran (4Q350 seems to be a fragmentary list of cereal quantities; Richey 2012, 179–86). As far as the writings of the New Testament are concerned, which were all originally composed in Greek, it is wrong or at least misleading to speak of a “New Testament Greek” or “Biblical Greek,” since the Greek used by New Testament authors is by no means a separate linguistic entity. While the language skills and educational level of the authors certainly varies, what they all have in common is that they use the Greek language of their time, that is, Koine Greek, thus reflecting the linguistic situation of the Roman Empire as outlined above. Even the presence of Latinisms and Semitisms, which varies greatly from author to author, cannot be seen as a constituent element of a distinct language, but at best characterizes the individual linguistic competence of New Testament authors. The many cultures present in the Hellenistic society 10 11 12

An example from the late third century CE, P.Oxy. 67.4627.3–11, has been studied linguistically at length by Dickey 2009, 158–62. Of the 42 letters, 17 were written in Hebrew, 14 in Aramaic, 7 in Greek, and 4 in Latin. Regarding SB 24.15988 [1.40], *Cohen (2016, 139 no. 19) only mentions the first edition P.Masada 741. The other Greek letters are: P.Masada 745 (no. 20), 746 (no. 21), TM 133412 (no. 26), P.Yadin 2.52 [1.41] (no. 30), 59 (no. 37), and 64 (no. 42).

Languages

127

resulted in a natural receptiveness of the Koine to foreign words. This background must be considered for the evaluation of the Latinisms and Semitisms found in the New Testament. The former indicate that in the Roman world Latin expressions from the military (e.g., κεντυρίων for centurio, cf. Mark 15:39, 44, 45),13 administration (e.g., κῆνσος for census, cf. Mark 12:14),14 or economic life (e.g., δηνάριον for denarius)15 were increasingly used even among Greek speakers. Like Latin proper names, some of which are occasionally translated (e.g., ἀπογραφή for census, Luke 2:2; ἑκατοντάρχης for centurio, Matt 8:5 etc.), belong to the everyday Greek of the first century. The identification and interpretation of Semitisms is more difficult. Also the subdivision into Hebraisms, Aramaisms, and Septuagintisms is of limited use. Transliterations of Hebrew words and phrases are, for example, ἀμήν (“Amen,” i.e., “truly”) or ἀλληλουϊά (“Hallelujah”), those of Aramaic origin are, for instance, αββα (“Abba,” i.e., “father”), μαράνα θά (“Maranatha,” i.e., “our Lord, come”, 1 Cor 16:22), or ταλιθα κουμ (“litte girl, get up,” Mark 5:41). It is important to notice that due to new papyrus finds more and more elements, once interpreted as Semitisms, can now be identified as Greek or can at least be explained as expressions of a bilingual population. A typical example is the use of the auxiliary verb and a participle instead of the imperfect (e.g., ἦν διδάσκων, literally “he was teaching,” instead of ἐδίδασκεν, literally “he taught,” in Mark  1:22), a construction that, based on the documentary evidence, can be considered both Semitic and Greek. Determining which influence is more predominant in a specific New Testament passage, is hardly possible. Greek documentary papyri and ostraca not only serve a better understanding of the language of the New Testament, its genres, epistolary formulas, etc., 13

The earliest reference from documentary papyri or ostraca is P.Oslo  2.26.23–24 (Oxyrhynchos, 29/28 BCE). Not surprisingly, other early references come primarily from a military context, i.e., are preserved in Greek letters from Roman soldiers; some examples are SB 5.7600.17 [1.38] (unknown origin, 12 Apr 16 CE); O.Did. 353.9 (Didymoi, before ca. 77–92 CE); O.Claud. 2.368.1; 369.1; 370.1 (all three sent from Raima to Mons Claudianus by the same curator, 98–117 CE). In P.Pintaudi 52.7–9 (unknown origin, 27 Jul 29 CE), a centurio “of substantial local influence who employed a number of professional scribes” (K. A. Worp in P.Pintaudi, p. 231) is mentioned. 14 The earliest mention of κῆνσος in Greek documentary papyri is preserved in CPR 5.4.14 (ca. 237/238 CE), thus comparatively late. 15 Cf. Mark 6:37; 12:15 || Matt 22:19 || Luke 20:24; Mark 14:5; Matt 18:28; 20:2, 9, 10, 13; Luke 7:41; 10:35; John  6:7; 12:5; Rev  6:6. The earliest example preserved in a Greek documentary papyrus is Ch.L.A. 43.1241.L1.d.7 (late I BCE); the chronologically closest examples are the following ostracon receipts for payment of the Jewish tax from Apollonopolis (modern Edfu): Chrest.Wilck. 295.2 (71/72 CE); O.Edfou 1.14.2; 41.2; 124.2 (all 29 Jan 72 CE); 40.2; 120.2; SB 1.5814.2 (all 2  Jun  72  CE); O.Edfou  2.261.2 (28  Mar  73); 3.373.2 (24  Apr  73  CE); 1.53.2 (23 Apr 75 CE).

128

Chapter 4

they also provide a vast amount of data on everyday private and business relations, legal transactions, and contacts with the Roman administration, which in an analogous way also affected the people encountered in the texts of the New Testament. It makes sense to assume that Judean tax collectors like Levi/ Matthew or Zacchaeus were able to speak Greek as well as Aramaic to conduct their business. According to Acts 21:37–40, Paul identifies himself to the Roman tribune in Jerusalem as a Greek and Aramaic speaking Jew from Tarsus. His letters to early Christian groups, all written in Greek, are ample evidence of his proficiency in the language, and his many travels through various regions of the empire would not have been possible without it. The letter of Claudius Lysias to the Roman prefect Felix (Acts 23:26–30) is fictitious but imitates both the form and the language of an official letter in an authentic way. The same is true for Acts 15:23–29, the similarly fictitious letter of the apostles and the elders “to the brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia who are of the Gentiles”; a letter to such a group of addressees certainly had to be written in Greek. However, in the case of Jesus, whose mother tongue was Jewish Aramaic, it is by no means certain that he could speak Greek. It seems plausible that, as a skilled construction worker from Nazareth, he earned the family’s living probably at Sepphoris, first together with Joseph and independently after Joseph’s death. Sepphoris was a Hellenistic town near Nazareth and thus provided a setting in which Jesus might have acquired some basic knowledge of the Greek language, for example, to take orders, file invoices, and pay his taxes; yet as plausible as this idea may seem, it cannot be proven.16 The narrative of Mark  7:25–30 suggests that he was able to communicate with the Syro-Phoenician woman, which would have been in Greek, but the way the trial before Pilate is recounted (see A Closer Look #3) is already inconsistent between John’s version (John  18:33–38) and the versions of the Synoptics (Mark 15:2 || Matt 27:11 || Luke 23:3). The passages referring to an encounter of Jesus with a “centurion” of Capernaum have to be discarded all together, since the different versions reveal a rather unstable tradition: Only in the version of Matt 8:5–13, a “centurion” is meeting Jesus in person, but the title “centurion” could have been used here as a title of honor, not referring to a Roman military centurion as such (although Matt 8:9 and Luke 7:8 mention “soldiers” under his command), who had no purpose to be in Capernaum at the time of Jesus. In the version of Luke 7:1–10, the “centurion” sends first Jewish elders and later 16

More on the evidence for Greek writing skills of craftspeople will be included in vol. 4 of this series.

Languages

129

his friends, who probably would have spoken Aramaic. In John 4:46–54, the person in question, here meeting Jesus face to face, is described as a “royal official,” whose language skills, however, are uncertain (see *Kreinecker 2010b, 176–77).17 The historicity of the narrated personal language skills in the gospels and in Acts, written decades after the events themselves, can neither be verified nor falsified. However, depictions like in the US-American drama film “The Passion of the Christ” (2004) that all Romans communicated with local Jews in Aramaic, as if none of them knew a single word in any language other than Aramaic, are absurd. Even more bizarre is the idea that Jesus alone, as the only exception to this, was even capable of talking to Pilate in Latin. It is clear from papyrological evidence that the whole portrayal could not be further from the historical facts, since the lingua franca in the East was Koine Greek.

Latin in Particular

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); J.  N.  Adams 2003, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); A.  Bernini 2020, “Notes on Papyri: P.Masada  724 Revised,” BASP 57:394–96; V.  Binder 2000, Sprachkontakt und Diglossie: Lateinische Wörter im Griechischen als Quellen für die lateinische Sprachgeschichte und das Vulgärlatein, Romanistik in Geschichte und Gegenwart Beiheft  3 (Hamburg: Buske); *Cohen 2016, 138–39 no. 15–18; H.  M.  Cotton 1981, Documentary Letters of Recommendation in Latin from the Roman Empire, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 132 (Königstein: Hain); *Deissmann 1927; E. Dickey 2009, “The Greek and Latin Languages in the Papyri,” in *Bagnall 2009, 149–69, here 162– 69; W. Eck 2004, “Lateinisch, Griechisch, Germanisch…? Wie sprach Rom mit seinen Untertanen?” in Roman Rule and Civic Life: Local and Regional Perspectives: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C.–A.D. 476), Leiden, June  25–28, 2003, ed. L.  De  Ligt, E.  A.  Hemelrijk, and H. W. Singor (Amsterdam: Gieben), 3–19; *Evans and Obbink 2010; P. Fewster 2002, “Bilingualism in Roman Egypt,” in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text, ed. J. N. Adams, M. Janse, and S. Swain (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 220–45; J. Fitzmyer 1970, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.,” CBQ 32/4:501–31; H.  Halla-aho 2011, “Epistolary Latin,” in A Companion to the Latin 17

From a literary perspective, that is, with regard to Luke as an author, it can be seen from inscriptions and papyri that Luke portrays his centurion in a way that “is consistent with what we know about Roman military relations with civilians” (Runesson 2o23, quotation p. 131).

130

Chapter 4

Language, ed. J.  Clackson (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell), 426–44; J.  Kramer 2007, Vulgärlateinische Alltagsdokumente auf Papyri, Ostraka, Täfelchen und Inschriften, APF Beiheft 23 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter); *Kreinecker 2010a, 19–31; *Kreinecker 2010b; B.  Rochette 1996, “Sur le bilinguisme dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine,” CdE 71:153–168; B. Rochette 1997, Le latin dans le monde grec: Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain, Collection Latomus  233 (Bruxelles: Latomus); B.  Palme 2006b, “Zivile Aufgaben der Armee im kaiserzeitlichen Ägypten,” in Herrschaftsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis: Konzepte, Prinzipien und Strategien der Administration im römischen Kaiserreich. Akten der Tagung an der Universität Zürich, 18.–20.10.2004, ed. A. Kolb (Berlin: Akademie Verlag), 299–328; S. Strassi 2008, L’archivio di Claudius Tiberianus da Karanis, APF Beiheft 26 (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter); E.  G.  Turner 1961, “Latin versus Greek as a Universal Language: The Attitude of Diocletian,” in Language and Society: Essays Presented to Arthur M. Jensen on his Seventieth Birthday (Kopenhagen: Det Berlingske Bogtrykkeri), 165–68; K.  Wengst 1986, Pax Romana: Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Erfahrungen und Wahrnehmungen des Friedens bei Jesus und im Urchristentum (München: Kaiser).

Latin, the language of the Romans, is preserved in a great variety of texts. Although the oldest extant artefacts may date back to the fourth century BCE (e.g., lapis Satricanus), the earliest literary writings are from centuries later (III and II BCE; e.g., Livius Andronicus and Plautus) and are only preserved on even later artefacts. Next to a variety of inscriptions, the oldest preserved documentary papyri in Latin date back to the Roman Empire, with SB 20.15139 from Roman Egypt (5–2 BCE?), a personal letter of a certain Diaconus to Macedo, as one of the oldest known today. At the end of the letter, the date of the day, 19 July, is given in two ways, according to the Roman calendar and according to the Egyptian one. The first is written in Latin like the letter itself, the second however is in Greek. This form of bilingualism in a Roman province is not surprising. The Eastern part of the Mediterranean area had been under Greek speaking influence long before the Romans came to power, not least because of Alexander the Great and the continued “Hellenization” after his death in 323 BCE. While it is true that the Romans in the city of Rome and in the Western part of the empire tended to use Latin as their main language, Hellenistic (Koine) Greek remained predominant in the East and became the administrative language in the Eastern Roman territories and provinces for centuries. P. Fewster (2002, 220) summarizes: The Roman Empire was very efficient at simplifying problems. […] All across the empire most people spoke only a language other than that of their rulers. Somehow the Romans succeeded in simplifying this diverse linguistic map so that in most provinces all the information from and about their subjects – tax and census returns, petitions, contracts, and so on – came to them in either Greek or Latin. Bilingualism must often have been a key to the success of the Roman Empire.

Languages

131

This and the fact that most documentary evidence has survived from climatically dry areas such as the deserts in the East means that the number of preserved papyri in Greek is many times higher than that in Latin. In contexts where documents had to be produced in certain languages, both Latinisms in the Greek and Graecisms in the Latin can be observed. One of the many curiosities preserved in documentary texts are those where Latin was written with Greek characters, most likely because the scribe at hand was not capable of writing Latin characters. This is attested, for example, in a slave sale contract from Ravenna, SB 3.6304 (ca. 151 CE), the fragmentary letter Ch.L.A. 11.480 (III CE), the cheirographum TPN 107 (before 62 CE), and a variety of glossaries.18 Such evidence also exists in the military context, for example, in lists of sick people like O.Claud. 2.191 and 192 (138–ca. 154 CE). The opposite case, when Greek is written in Latin characters, is far less common. Examples include P.Oxy. 36.2772 (28 Apr 11 CE?) and P.Oxy. 2.244 (2 Feb 23 CE). The use of Latin was more popular in the West. Well-known is the existence of documentary texts from Puteoli, Herculaneum, and Pompei (e.g., the wax tablets published in TPN and T.Herc.), dating before the earthquake on 5 February 62 CE, an earthquake predating the destructive volcano eruption on 24 August 79 CE. However, this does not mean that Latin was entirely absent in the Roman East. There are two contexts in which Latin was prominent regardless of the geographical location: the Roman Law and the Roman Military. Among the Latin documents from Roman Civic Law it is predominantly wills, petitions for acknowledgment of inheritance (the so-called agnitio bonorum possessionis), and petitions for guardians that have survived. However, the number of Roman citizens outside the Italic territories before 212 CE, when Caracalla issued the Constitutio Antoniniana and declared all free inhabitants of the Empire Roman citizens, was rather limited. Documentary papyri contain a couple of examples where the text of these legal documents is preserved in a Greek translation, and in some cases the Latin original is still preserved as well. An example for this is an agnitio written on 14 September 249 CE and registered on the following day. The Latin text can be found on SB 1.1010, followed by a Greek translation in a different hand, which is not complete extant because the lower part of the papyrus has broken off. A Greek translation of the text is also preserved on SB 6.9298. A similar document is P.Oxy. 9.1201 (24 Sep 258 CE). Examples for Greek translations of Roman wills are P.Diog. 9 (186–210 CE), BGU 7.1662 (29 Sep 182 CE), BGU 1.326 (21 Feb 194 CE), and 18 Cf. C.Gloss.Biling. 1.1 (I  CE); 6 (I–II  CE); 8 (I–II  CE); 5 (second half II  CE); 9 (II  CE); 2.7 (II CE); 1.7 (II–III CE); 12 (II–II CE); 2.3 (III–IV CE); 6 (III–IV CE); 1.11 (IV CE); 13 (IV CE).

132

Chapter 4

P.Lips. 1.9 (13 May 233 CE). Greek translations of Latin petitions for a guardian are, for example, P.Oxy. 34.2710 (17 May 261 CE; Greek only) and P.Oxy. 12.1466 with Ch.L.A. 46.1361 (21 May 245 CE; both Latin and Greek). The preservation of such Greek translations is fascinating to observe as it carries implications for the actual use and understanding of Latin. It raises the question of whether a translation was necessary because Latin was not fully understood, either by the owner of the document or by local officials for which the document became relevant. The second genuine context for the use of Latin also in the East is the Roman army. It is well known that the success of Rome as a great power, both as a republic and as an empire, is closely connected to its well-organized and welltrained army. The military structure of the Roman army covered the entire Roman territory with a particular emphasis on the borders. Documentary papyri contain plenty of evidence for the various legions and auxiliary cohorts stationed in the West and East, including wooden tablets from Vindolanda in Roman Britain and wax tablets from Vindonissa (modern Switzerland). For example, during the camp’s time in Vindonissa (ca. 30–101 CE) wax tablets in Latin (T.Vindon.) attest to the presence of three different legions, the legio XIII Gemina (until approx. 45 CE), legio XXI Rapax (until 69/70 CE), and legio XI Claudia pia fidelis (until 101 CE). A list of Roman soldiers from the Roman province Macedonia in Latin, Ch.L.A. 3.219 (16 Sep 105 CE), attests to the presence of the cohors I Hispanorum Veterana quingenaria of Stoboi. Some Latin texts are also preserved from the time of the siege of Masada in the first century. In his preliminary survey of letters from the Judean Desert, N. *Cohen (2016) lists four letters written in Latin (nos. 15–18). They are all from Masada and were written by Romans during 73 or 74 CE.19 On the back of the fragmentarily preserved letter of recommendation P.Masada 724 (spring 73 or 74 CE; revised edition by Bernini 2020) the name of another recipient is mentioned in Greek, to whom the letter should probably be delivered and who was supposed to pass it on to the addressee mentioned in the opening greeting, a certain Lupus. Taking advantage of the patriotism of Roman soldiers to introduce Roman ideas and habits, Roman troops were part of the imperial political propaganda known as “Roman Peace” (pax Romana), which had been a major part of the political program of the Roman emperors ever since Augustus (cf. Wengst 1986, 19–71). This included having veterans settled in provincial areas at the end of their active time in the military. Having been discharged from services was confirmed by the receipt of a military diploma of which many have survived 19 P.Masada 724 (*Cohen 2016, 138 no. 15; revised edition by Bernini 2020), 726 (138 no. 16), 728 (138–139 no. 17), and 728a (139 no. 18).

Languages

133

on bronze throughout the Roman Empire as, for instance, from the Roman province of Dacia Superior (in the region of modern Romania and Hungary), published in T.Dacia (pp.  64–164). An example from Egypt is P.Mich. 7.441 (Karanis, 10 Dec 157–7 Mar 161 CE). These diplomas and the preceding requests for dismissal were written in Latin. One example for such a letter to request dismissal from military service by a Roman soldier is the petition PSI 9.1026 (22 Jan 150 CE) from Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the Roman province Syria Palaestina (former Iudaea). Extant documentary texts in Latin and in Greek provide insight not only into the professional but also into the personal life of soldiers. However, it would be a mistake to think that the Roman army only operated in Latin. Official correspondence within the Roman army was conducted in Latin, for example, when communicating with the emperor. Yet this did not stretch to the everyday operation of a military camp. Illustrative examples are documents acknowledging the receipt of goods in a camp. These were either in Greek or Latin according to the camp’s agreed practice (Adams 2003, 601–6). This has caused traceable difficulties in the texts preserved in both languages. For receipts written in Greek, J. N. Adams (2003, 602) points out: Clearly some writers were familiar with Latin morphology, and they could not prevent themselves from lapsing occasionally into Latin inflections even when writing Greek. They could no doubt have used Latin instead; and on that assumption it becomes clear that in this unit there was a policy, […] that Greek should be used for all such receipts.

However, soldiers having trouble to express themselves in Latin are also well attested, including problems with Latin characters, orthography, morphology, and syntax, for instance, in Ch.L.A. 18.660 (list of soldiers; 326 or 329 CE) and Ch.L.A. 43.1242 (98–127 CE). This may indicate, as Adams has suggested, that Latin was taught in the Roman Military (for more examples from the Roman army see Adams 2003, 599–623). A fascinating combination of Latin and Greek can be found in lists of vigils from Mons Claudianus in Egypt (cf. O.Claud. 2.309–336; mid II CE). These texts preserved on ostraca contain the arrangements of guards and the passwords. While the texts themselves are in Greek, the passwords are in Latin yet written with Greek letters. The numbers to indicate the times of the various vigils, however, are written in Roman numerals. A.  Bülow-Jacobsen (in O.Claud. 2, p. 168) observed that the passwords are all words of military politics and Roman propaganda, including gods like Mars, Minerva, and Vesta, yet also words like concordia (“concord”), pietas (“piety”), victoria (“victory”) and fortuna (“fortune”). The use of Latin in a non-Latin speaking environment like

134

Chapter 4

Mons Claudianus would have had many advantages without doubt. Yet the use of well-established political key terms seems rather stereotypical and not necessarily evidence for a wider use of Latin in the camp. Personal letters of soldiers naturally reflect the preferred language by the sender: a significant number of letters found on various forms of wooden tablets in the Roman fort Vindolanda at Hadrian’s Wall are written in Latin (T.Vindol.), while personal letters in other areas of the Roman Empire are often written in Greek. Fascinating in this context is the archive of Tiberianus (TM Arch 54, early II CE) whose son Terentianus used both Greek and Latin equally well to communicate with family members. Six of his letters are preserved in Latin (P.Mich. 8.467–471 and Ch.L.A. 5.299) and another six in Greek (P.Mich. 8.476–481), all but one addressed to his father. There is no obvious explanation for the presence of two languages in letters to the same addressee. Yet it has been observed that the Latin letters date slightly earlier than the Greek ones and coincide with Terentianus’s time in the military (see H. C. Youtie and J. G. Winter in P.Mich. 8, p. 16). For New Testament contexts, documentary evidence preserved in Latin is relevant in several ways. Historically, it provides comparable material for life in Roman Judea and the Eastern provinces not only at the time of Jesus, his disciples, and Paul, but also at the times of the authors of the Gospels and later writings. This includes information about the language and administrative situation in those areas covered by the New Testament texts. Sociologically, everyday documents in Latin demonstrate that the Mediterranean area reflects a similar way of thinking and mindset, regardless of the language involved. This can be seen in epistolary conventions, the use of kinship terms and many other examples (cf. *Kreinecker 2010a, 19–31; A Closer Look #5). A famous example in the context of Mark 10:28–31 (with parallel passages in Matt 19:27–30 and Luke 18:28–30) has been discussed already by *Deissmann (1927, 197–200). In the Latin letter Ch.L.A. 4.267 [1.42] (II CE) the beneficiarius Aurelius Archelaos writes to the tribune Iulius Domitius and recommends to him his friend Theon, stating among others that “he left his people and his property and work and followed me” (lines 10–12). The parallel wording in comparison to Peter’s assertion that the disciples had left everything to follow Jesus is striking. The presence of this motif in Greek (New Testament) and Latin (documentary, non-Christian context) suggests its wide-spread use (Cotton 1981, 17–18). Consequently, leaving everything to follow someone else appears to have been a general positive quality, worthy of praise and recommendation and by no means exclusive to Jesus or a religious form of discipleship.

Languages



135

A Closer Look #4: Jesus, Herod, and Pontius Pilate

Literature J.  N.  Adams 2003, Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); A. Bülow-Jacobsen 1986, “Orders to Arrest: P.Haun. inv. 33 and 54 and a Consolidated List,” ZPE 66:93–98; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 106; *Blumell 2012; R. A. Coles 1966, Reports of Proceedings in Papyri, Papyrologica Bruxellensia 4 (Brüssel: Wetteren); G. O. Kirner 2004, Strafgewalt und Provinzialherrschaft: Eine Untersuchung zur Strafpraxis der römischen Statthalter in Judäa (6–66  n.Chr.), Schriften zur Rechtsgeschichte 109 (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot); H. M. Cotton 2003, “The Roman Census in the Papyri from the Judaean Desert and the Egyptian κατ’ οἰκίαν ἀπογραφή,” in L.  H.  Schiffman, Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity. Papers from a New York University conference marking the retirement of Baruch  A.  Levine, CHANE 14 (Leiden: Brill), 105–22; H.-J. Drexhage 1989, “Zu den Überstellungsbefehlen aus dem römischen Ägypten (1.–3. Jahrhundert n. Chr.),” in Migratio et Commvtatio: Studien zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben: Thomas Pekáry zum 60. Geburtstag am 13. September  1989 dargebracht von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, ed. H.-J.  Drexhage and J.  Sünskes (St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae Verlag), 102–18; U. Hagedorn 1979, “Das Formular der Überstellungsbefehle im römischen Ägypten,” BASP 16:61–74; *Huebner 2019; *Kreinecker 2010b; C. M. Kreinecker 2012, “‘We Ask You to Send …’ – A Remark on Summonses and Petitions for Summonses,” in PapCongr. 26, 407–15; C.  M.  Kreinecker 2022, “Mehrsprachigkeit am Kreuz: Papyrologische Anmerkungen zu Joh  19,20,” in The Gospels and Their Receptions: Festschrift Joseph Verheyden, ed. H. J. De Jonge, M. Grundeken, J. Kloppenborg, and C. Tuckett BETL 330 (Leuven: Peeters), 337–60; N.  Lewis 1983, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press; repr., Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1999), 185–95; R.  Mairs 2012, “Interpreters and Translators in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,” in PapCongr. 26, 457–62; R. Mairs 2020, “Hermēneis in the Documentary Record from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: interpreters, translators and mediators in a bilingual society,” Journal of Ancient History 8/1:50–102; P. Schubert 2018, “Warrants: Some Further Considerations on Their Typology,” BASP 55:253–74; P.  J.  Sijpesteijn and T.  Gagos 1996, “Towards an Explanation of the Typology of the So-Called ‘Orders to Arrest’,” BASP 33:77–97; C.  Wiotte-Franz 2001, Hermeneus und Interpres: Zum Dolmetscherwesen in der Antike, Saarbrücker Studien zur Archäologie und Alten Geschichte 16 (Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag).

The Passion Narratives of the gospels contain various views on the Roman provincial administration which are worth discussing from a papyrological perspective. Documentary papyri preserve plenty of information about trials in Eastern Roman provinces, predominantly in Egypt. Among these documents are petitions in which complaints are made to officials, correspondence between officials, proceedings of trials and mentions thereof in other writings, including personal letters. However, the Passion Narratives of the gospels are of a different nature than these documents: they are pieces of literature and theologically motivated. Consequently, a comparison between papyrological

136

Chapter 4

evidence and biblical narratives cannot lead to the establishment of any historical fact about the trial of Jesus, of which no official documents are preserved, if ever a transcript of documents even existed. Nevertheless, documentary papyri can provide a possible spectrum of ways in which the ancient audience of the gospels may have pictured and understood the Passion Narratives based on their everyday experience. One interesting feature of trials in the Roman provinces is the language which was used between the judge and the accused person. The administrative language of the Romans in the East was Greek, yet not all locals necessarily had a level of proficiency in Greek high enough to act in court. In such cases, the presence of an interpreter was necessary to allow for communication as attested in a variety of papyri, including P.Oxy. 2.237 (after 27 Jun 186 CE); SB 18.13156 (early II CE); PSI 13.1326 [1.43] (181–183 CE); SB 14.11391 (II–III CE); P.Stras. 1.41 (ca. 250  CE); P.Sakaon 32 (254–268  CE); BGU 7.1567 (III  CE); P.Ant. 2.87 (late III CE); P.Vind.Tand. 8 (III/IV CE); SB 5.8246 (17 May 339 CE). Based on the payment of a “translator of the strategos,” preserved in SB 6.9406 (Feb 247 CE), H. Harrauer (in CPR 13, p. 81) concluded that interpreters and translators were likely to have been employed in administrative offices.20 It would therefore be wrong to assume that no interpreter was present during a hearing just because there is no mention of one in the minutes (for a general overview of hearings see Lewis 1983, 185–95). For such texts sometimes mention a translator at the very beginning but do not repeat this information at every instance. One example is the fragmentary text PSI 13.1326 [1.43] (181– 83  CE) in which a certain Psais is interrogated concerning his tax status by the epistrategos Macrinus, the head of various districts in Egypt. After the first question the minutes explicitly state that Psais answered “through an interpreter” (line 4). After the second question, however, the interpreter is not mentioned anymore. Instead, the minutes simply record Psais’s reply in Greek (line 7). If the presence of an interpreter had not been mentioned earlier in the text or if, in fact, that part of the papyrus had been lost, there would be no proof of the presence of an interpreter. However, the presence of an interpreter would be likely given the provincial context and the potentially local background of a man with an Egyptian name.21 Assuming that the presence of an interpreter during hearings was possible, even if not specifically mentioned in a text, is therefore different from making 20 21

Also, translators of villages are specified in documentary papyri, e.g., P.Berl.Leihg. 1.16 A (27 May 161 CE), suggesting that this was also an occupation needed on a regular basis. A name itself, however, is not proof of language skills one way or the other, cf. Mairs 2019, 34, 39–44; *Blumell 2012, 237–79.

Languages

137

an argument from silence. This is not only because the information on the presence of an interpreter might be missing from fragmentary documentary evidence. It is even more because of the characteristic of documentary evidence as such: What was obvious to everyone at the time did not need to be pointed out. This is a particularly well-observed phenomenon in letters, in which information known to both the sender and addressee is not mentioned or spelled out in detail, often preventing a modern reader from fully understanding the content. Likewise, if the presence of an interpreter during hearings was indeed common in non-Greek speaking Eastern provinces and a well-known fact, there would have been no need to state the obvious in the official record. At this point, documentary evidence provides a stalemate situation: The fact that an interpreter is not mentioned can neither prove the absence nor presence of one; both remain a possibility. In the gospels’ Passion Narratives, no interpreter is mentioned. However, this does not allow for any conclusions on the language skills of Jesus, a builder from non-Roman Galilee. Presumably, Pontius Pilate had a translator at hand in all kinds of communications with the locals. Whether Jesus understood and spoke Greek on whatever level remains a question that documentary papyri cannot answer as such. If, however, a local was not capable of speaking the administrative language of the provincial ruler without an interpreter present, he or she would have had no other option but to remain mainly silent during the trial. Leaving aside theological interpretations, this is a scenario that fits the Passion Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels, where Jesus, apart from a very basic communication with Pilate, remains silent (Mark 15:2–5; Matt 27:11–14; Luke 23:322, see *Kreinecker 2010b, 181–83). The Johannine version, on the other hand, narrates an extensive, theological debate (John 18:33–38). Following the argument based on documentary papyri, the options for such a conversation are that either both parties would have spoken the same language or that there was a translator present, even if not mentioned in the text. Documentary papyri also contain evidence that the use of a certain language during a trial could be used to exclude the accused from understanding the process. This is, for example attested in the minutes of trials in Roman Egypt in the fourth century CE, P.Oxy. 51.3619 (about 314–325 CE) and P.Lips. 1.40 (before 381 CE). The interrogation in both minutes is recorded in Greek, yet there is a switch to Latin by the interrogator. In the first example the judge 22

The narrative in Luke differs slightly from Mark and Matthew. While the latter two have Jesus remain silent in front of Pilate, the Lukan account mentions Jesus’s silence only in front of Herod Antipas (Luke 23:9), a scene that is only present in the special material of Luke.

138

Chapter 4

asks his staff in Latin to beat the accused as a method of interrogation (cf. Coles 1966, 48). In the second example the request to beat is given in Greek, yet the command to stop the beating follows in Latin (col. 3.20–22). Although experiencing physically what the command entailed, it is highly unlikely that the Latin as such was understood by the accused who was therefore deliberately excluded from the conversation among those in charge. Adams (2003, 386) has pointed out that such a switch into Latin, “the language of the imperial power,” during Roman hearings “would have effectively symbolised the Romanness of that power.” Such a deliberate demonstration of power amounts to the abuse of the accused. The abuse of the accused or the arrested by those in charge, be it verbally or physically, is, of course, also attested in the Passion Narratives and the mockery of Jesus (e.g., Mark 15:16–20; Matt 27:27–31; John 19:2–5)23; it is also by no means a phenomenon exclusive of the past. Another interesting feature concerning Roman provincial administration can be discussed in Luke 23:1–16, a pericope from the Lukan special material. There the author narrates that Jesus was sent from Pontius Pilate, the Roman provincial authority, to Herod Antipas, a client ruler, namely the tetrarch of Galilee, who in the narrative is present in Jerusalem (Luke 23:7). Herod, not finding Jesus guilty, sends him back to Pilate who in the end exercises his right as the Roman governor to have Jesus crucified. The story is striking, both on a narrative level and from a papyrological perspective. In the narrative Pilate respects the authority of a non-Roman ruler and applies a legal principle respecting the region of origin of the accused. In other words, Pilate consider the tetrarch Herod Antipas responsible for dealing with the accusations against Jesus, the Galilean. The question whether such a rule of origin existed in Judea at the time of Pilate or in fact decades later at the time of the author, cannot be answered by documentary papyri. Yet—for the argument’s sake—even if such a rule existed, there would have been no requirement for a Roman governor to respect it, given that the tetrarchy (including Galilee) was not a Roman territory as such. It is here idle to speculate whether the author of the gospel was fully aware of Galilee being a client territory and not a district of Roman Judea at the time of Jesus. Documentary papyri, however, provide information that reveals a familiarity of the author with Greco-Roman administration. For papyri show that the Greek word used for sending Jesus between the two authorities (ἀναπέμπω) is a word that was used in administration for summonses (Drexhage 1989; Hagedorn 1979). Summonses to appear 23

In line with the pro-Roman bias of the Gospel according to Luke the mockery there does not take place in the Roman context but before Jesus is interrogated by the Jewish authorities (Luke 22:63–65) and in front of Herod Antipas (Luke 23:11).

Languages

139

before a specific official were usually issued after complaints and petitions to have a certain matter investigated. The verb ἀναπέμπω can hence not only be found in summonses as such but also in petitions and other correspondence concerning summonses (Kreinecker 2012). Examples for summonses with the word ἀναπέμπω are preserved only from a certain region in Egypt, the Arsinoite nome. An early example is P.Aberd. 60 (I–II  CE), addressed to the comarch of the village Soknopaiou Nesos, which says: “Summon immediately the slave Gemellus or the archephodos.”24 The fact that the police officer (archephodos) can appear in place of the summoned person indicates the purpose of these summonses, which is to make further investigations; they are not orders of arrest.25 The official-administrative character of the verb ἀναπέμπω is also attested in petitions for summonses, both from the Arsinoite nome and outside. In the Arsinoites the use is already attested in Ptolemaic times: in P.Petr. 3.32.r.g.b (5  Dec  217  BCE), a certain Ptolemaios requests to have Kalliphon summoned because of fly grazing of cattle on his property in order to have the matter investigated, as stated in line 11. From the Antinoite nome and the second century CE stems P.Fam.Tebt. 37 (4 or 16  Mar  167  CE) in which two brothers report their shared slave Martilla to have been kidnapped. They identify the brothers Sarapammon and Dios from one part of the Arsinoite nome as kidnappers and petition to have them summoned across the border for the purpose of further investigation, as they explicitly mention in line 20. The wider use of ἀναπέμπω as a specific administrative word can also be taken from summonses that are mentioned in documents other than summonses and petitions, for example, the official correspondences P.Oxy. 60.4060 (27 Jun 161 CE). In one of the correspondences, the strategos of the nome Peri 24

25

See also, e.g.: BGU 11.2015 (ΙΙ CE); BGU 11.2081 (ΙΙ CE); BGU 11.2082 (ΙΙ CE); P.Brookl. 6 (ΙΙ CE); P.Lund. 6.2 (ΙΙ CE); P.Prag. 1.12 (ΙΙ CE); SB 16.12707 (end II CE); SB 18.14014 (II CE); SB 18.14015 (II  CE); BGU 2.375 (II–III  CE); BGU 2.376 (II–III  CE); BGU 11.2083 (II– III CE); P.Cair.Preis. (2nd ed.) 5 (II–III CE); BGU 11.2080 (III CE); P.Grenf. 2.66 (III CE); P.Mich. 10.589 (late II–early III CE); P.Prag. 1.13 (II–III CE); SB 12.11034 (II–III CE); SPP 22.1 (II–III  CE); SB 26.16465 (II–III  CE); 18.13896 (245–264  CE); P.Prag. 2.126.v (after 245 CE); BGU 2.374 (III CE[?]); BGU 2.634 (end III CE); BGU 7.1569 (III CE); P.Fay. 37 (III CE); P.Giss.Univ. 1.15 (III CE); P.Oslo 2.20 (2nd half III CE); P.Oxy. 12.1507 (III CE); P.Stras. 4.188 (beginning III CE); P.Tebt. 2.594 (III CE); PSI 15.1552 (2nd half III CE?). This is, however, the term under which these texts have been known for a long time, see Schubert 2018; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 106 (notes 228–30); Sijpesteijn and Gagos 1996; Drexhage 1989; Bülow-Jacobsen 1986; Hagedorn 1979. Summonses are issued for individuals (both men and women) and for groups of people, sociologically ranging from slaves to officials. Summonses usually give the name of the person(s) on whose request the summons is issued; yet they do not mention the reason why a person is summoned – in this regard petitions are far more informative. Only in a few cases is an escort mentioned, for example a guard in SB 12.11107 (II CE).

140

Chapter 4

Thebas writes to his colleague, the strategos of the Oxyrhynchite nome, asking him to search for two men in his territory and to have them summoned across the border of the administrative district. This is an interesting parallel to consider for the pericope in Luke where the transferal of Jesus also takes place between two officials, even if they are not on the same administrative level, since Pilate was the head of a Roman territory and Herod that of a client territory. Another papyrological example worth considering in the context of Luke 23 is SB 20.14662 (29 Aug 154 CE), an edict of the prefect of Egypt Marcus Sempronius Liberalis. It deals with previous violent riots and issues an amnesty for everyone who would return home within three months to live there peacefully. For those who would not follow these instructions, the consequences are made clear: they would not be considered innocent anymore but should be arrested and “transferred” (ἀναπέμπω) to the prefect. This exceptional specification of what behavior would identify people as guilty even before they are summoned conversely demonstrates that summonses did not imply convictions under normal circumstances. They rather were one step in a longer series of investigations to establish the facts of a case; the accused and summoned person would normally have stayed innocent until proven guilty. This can also be seen in Luke 23 where it is said that both Pilate and Herod do not find Jesus guilty (Luke 23:4, 14–15). The broad understanding of ἀναπέμπω as an administrative term to refer to transferals can also be seen in petitions asking to transfer complaints between official channels both from higher to lower and from lower to higher authorities. These petitions originate from various administrative districts and include disputes about property, inheritance, tax issues, liturgies, tenancy, registration, theft, and requests of summonses (yet expressed with other verbs than ἀναπέμπω).26 Altogether, the papyrological evidence demonstrates that the use of ἀναπέμπω in Luke 23 is unlikely a random choice. On the contrary, it suggests that the author was aware of its use in Roman administration. Such a familiarity of the author with Roman affairs and his emphasis of them can also be seen at other occasions in the gospel. One example is the infancy story and the birth of Jesus which is dated at the time of a Roman census. The author thus provides an administrative explanation for Joseph and Mary to move

26

In place of many, one example for a transferal of a dispute from a higher to a lower authority is mentioned in the petition P.Oxy. 3.486 (after 10 Oct 131 CE) by a certain Dionysia about property issues (lines 12–13); an example for a transferal from a lower to a higher authority is mentioned in the petition BGU 1.168 (ca. 171 CE), lines 25–26, in context of inheritance disputes.

Languages

141

to Bethlehem (Luke  2:1–4).27 Another example is the Roman date given in Luke 3:1 (15th year of the emperor Tiberius) to mark the encounter of Jesus and John the Baptist. It is therefore plausible that the author expected his audience to recognize the Greco-Roman administrative context also in Luke  23. Such recognition would include further common knowledge about summonses and their purpose, as attested in documentary papyri: Summonses were neither a verdict nor an anticipation of one; on the contrary, summonses were procedural steps to investigate complaints properly and to establish facts relevant to the case. At the time of a summons the outcome was open, which is also the case in Luke 23, where the decision to have Jesus crucified was taken only after a renewed effort by his opponents (Luke 23:18–25). Taking a fresh look at the pericope in Luke 23 based on the papyrological observations above, more conclusions can be drawn about the author and his story. By including a summons in his narrative, he adds another element to demonstrate that the claim against Jesus was handled “correctly” and according to regular procedure by the Romans, since such summonses had the purpose of further investigation. This account presents the Romans and their representative Pilate in a rather positive light and at the same time emphasizes the wickedness of Jesus’s opponents who had to reinforce their endeavor to have Jesus crucified. Luke’s special material in Luke 23:1–16 can thus be seen as a historically-informed narrative of Jesus’s trial, that does not necessarily reflect realities in the Roman government of Judea at the time but rather a possibility within the Greco-Roman administration in general and probably more likely at the time of the author. It is worth emphasizing again that documentary papyri cannot prove or disprove one gospel narrative over the other, let alone account for their historicity or factuality. What they can provide, however, is comparable material for the actual frame of the narrative to identify technical uses of words and phrases and narratological emphases. They also provide more information about the potential socio-historical background of the author.

27

Again, the question could be raised, whether the author was fully aware of the differing Roman map at his own time in comparison to the narrated time of the infancy story. For it remains debatable whether travelling from a non-Roman area (Nazareth in Galilee) to a Roman territory (Bethlehem in Roman Judea) would have been historically covered by a Roman command for census registration. For more historical considerations of this census, see *Huebner 2019, 31–50, and Cotton 2003.

142

Chapter 4

Texts [1.38]–[1.43] [1.38] SB 5.7600 (TM 17990) Letter from Akamas

Greek papyrus, Egypt, 12 Apr 16 CE Ed. W.  Aly 1933, “Privatbrief aus der Freiburger Papyrussammlung: P.  Frib.  39,” Aeg 13:487–92 (= SB 5.7600). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 3:190. – Cf. U. Wilcken 1935, “Urkunden-Referat,” APF 11:284–317, here 299. – Online images: https://www.ub.unifreiburg.de/index.php?id=3724&papid=000013&rectoverso=r (recto), https://www. ub.uni-freiburg.de/index.php?id=3724&papid=000013&rectoverso=v (verso). The images reveal that, since Aly’s publication, the papyrus has suffered significant damage; on the right side of the sheet, a few letters are missing now from each of lines 1–10, and the left part of lines 15–24 as well as lines 25–27 seem to be completely lost.

Akamas [to …], very many greetings and good health. Above the whole everything,1 greeting you greatly of the Akamaeans is, what you know (?) of them,2 and Helene. Furthermore, I ask you greatly and beg you |5 to look carefully after my horse, as you always do, and I thank you very greatly1 and I will thank you again, knowing that you too do not mistreat (him)1 cruelly. But I can repay you the kindnesses again because I know what you are granting me. And if you find someone who |10 comes by a safe way (?), send my horse on foot to Akamas, and if he3 has need (of anything), give (it to) him.3 However, write all the expenses; I do not want you to lose anything, because what is with me is enough. Take from Atlios, your son, what I have sent you […] … […] of the loaves and ten of the pickled, and I have paid |15 … […] … […] … give it [to someone] of the Akamaeans […]. You wrote to me to send you a letter of recommendation to […] Secundus, the centurio […] … […] … very greatly |20 … […] greatly. Finally, … […] … […] … For very […] I sent. Receive … from Atlios or from … […] … […] |25 I greet the neighbors, the children, and Teillia, the mother. I want you to know that I have become curator of the turma4 of Akamas. Farewell. (Year) 2 of Tiberius Caesar, Pharmouthi 17. Notes 1 Literally, the scribe wrote “above everything all,” which is a combination of the two variants of a formula, “above everything else” and “above all”; in my translation “above the whole everything,” I tried to find an equivalent for the pleonastic Greek

Languages

143

phrase. Another pleonasm is “very greatly” in line 6 (instead of either “very much” or “greatly”). 2 The syntax is strange; if Aly’s interpretation (1933, 489–90) that the gen. pl. must be translated as “of the Akamaeans” and refers to the comrades of the letter sender, one would expect “every one of the Akamaens, whom you know” and not “what you know.” 3 Since the sender of the letter cares deeply about his horse, it is suitable to refer to it with the masculine pronoun. 4 The curator turmae supervised the supply of fodder and horses to his turma, the subunit of an ala, an auxiliary cavalry unit.

According to Aly (1933, 489–90), the fluent style of expression indicates that the letter was dictated. Its charm lies in the fact that it is an authentic reflection of spoken Greek of a Roman soldier of the early first century CE. The sender knows what he wants to say and expresses it simply and straightforwardly. The sender’s name is Akamas, who—at the end of the letter—identifies himself as curator turmae of an ala stationed in Egypt (see note 4). His decurio’s name is also Akamas (cf. line 26), which is why he calls his comrades Akamaeans (cf. Aly 1933, 490). Helene, who is also forwarding her greetings, may be the letter sender’s partner. The name of the recipient is not preserved; his son, probably the bearer of the letter and of the other goods mentioned, is called Atlios (cf. line 13), and his children and his mother Teillia are greeted by Akamas (line 25). The recipient may have been a Roman citizen or freedman, perhaps a quartermaster of the now marching ala. The horse of the letter sender was probably not fit enough for marching and should be delivered later by foot, not by ship, when the recipient would find someone to deliver it with confidence. As requested by his addressee, Akamas also attaches to the present letter another letter of recommendation that should be addressed to a centurio named Secundus, but due to the fragmentary state of lines 15–24, further details about this letter, as well as about the content of lines 18–24 as a whole, are no longer available. The editor of the papyrus, W. Aly (1933, 491–92), already listed several orthographic errors that provide information about spoken Koine Greek. Due to the itacistic pronunciation, the scribe has widely confused oi with y, both pronounced as [i], and ai with e. The repeated confusion of omega with omicron indicates that the distinction between long and short o was no longer so clear in spoken Greek. The incorrect use of iota adscriptum (e.g., in the nominative of Helene in line 3), but once correct in the dative of the third person singular personal pronoun (αὐτῶι in line 11), is characteristic of this period before iota adscriptum later disappears altogether. In line 5, the use of mb instead of just b is to be interpreted as the formation of a transitional sound before beta, which has not become spirant.

144

Chapter 4

Several combinations of words are also attested in New Testament passages (see again Aly 1933, 491–92). The combination “I ask and beg” (line 4, in Greek ἐρωτῶ καὶ παρακαλῶ) is also used by Paul of Tarsus in 1 Thess 4:1 (for further references see PNT 2, pp. 144–46). [1.39] P.Lond. 6.1912 (TM 16850) Letter from the Emperor Claudius to the City of the Alexandrians

Greek papyrus, written in Alexandria (TM Geo 100), found in Philadelphia/Egypt (TM Geo 1760), 10 Nov 41 CE Ed. H.  I.  Bell and W.  E.  Crum 1924 (P.Lond. 6.1912). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 2.2:85–87; 3:99; 4:46; 7:93; 8:195; 9:148; 11:122; 12:109–10. – Cf. W. Schubart 1925, review of H. Idris Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt. The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy, illustrated by Texts from Greek Papyri in the British Museum. London 1924, British Museum, Gn  1:23–37, here 23–34; A.  S.  Hunt and C. C. Edgar 1934 (Sel.Pap. 2.212); M. P. Charlesworth 1939, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius & Nero (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; repr., 1951), 3–5 nos. 1 and 2; V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks 1960 (C.Pap.Jud. 2.153); A. C. Johnson, P. R. Coleman-Norton, and F. C. Bourne 1961, Ancient Roman Statutes: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary and Index, The Corpus of Roman Law 2 (Austin: University of Texas Press), 138–39 no. 167; M.  David and B.  A.  van  Groningen 1965, Papyrological Primer, 4th ed. (Leyden: Brill), 1–4 no. 1; E. M. Smallwood 1970, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium: Edited with an introduction, translation and commentary, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill), 6–12, 27–31, 213 (see also Index p. 332 s.v. “Claudius, Emperor, Letter to Alexandria”); A. Moscadi 1975, “Note a PLond. 1912,” Studi italiani di filologia classica 47:236–50; A. Kasher 1976a, “Les circonstances de la promulgation de l’édit de l’empereur Claude et de sa lettre aux Alexandrin,” Sem 26:99–108; A. Kasher 1976b, “The Jewish Attitude to the Alexandrian Gymnasium in the First Century A.D,” American Journal of Ancient History  1:148–61, here 151–56; A.  Barzanò 1985, “Cheremone di Alessandria,” ANRW 2.32.3:1981–2001, here 1981–87; D.  C.  Braund 1985, Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History, 31 BC–AD 68 (London: Croom Helm; repr., Abingdon: Routledge, 2014), 202–4 no. 571; B. Levick 1985, The Government of the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook (London: Croom Helm), 125–28 no. 120; *White 1986, 131–37 no. 88; E. Crespo 1988, “La ‘carta de Claudio a los Alejandrinos’ (P. Lond. 1912): Un tipo de koiné en el Egipto de época de Claudio,” Minerva 2:213–31; R. K. Sherk 1988, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian, Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 6 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 83–86 no. 44; A. E. Hanson 1989, “Village Officials at Philadelphia: A Model of Romanization in the Julio-Claudian Period,” in Egitto e storia antica dall’Ellenismo all’età araba: Bilancio di un confronto: Atti del Colloquio internazionale, Bologna, 31 agosto – 2 settembre 1987, ed. L.  Criscuolo and G.  Geraci (Bologna: CLUEB), 429–40, here 431; 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), 77–88 no. 19; *Pestman 1994, 105–9 no. 16; P. Schubert 2000, Vivre en Égypte gréco-romaine: Une sélection de papyrus (Vevey: Édicion de l’Aire), 176–79 no. 60; *Burnet 2003, 71–75 no. 20; F. Kayser 2003, “Les ambassades alexandrines à Rome (Ier–IIe siècle): Avec résumés en français et en anglais,” REA 105:435–68, here 465–67 Document 2; A. Jördens 2006, “Griechische

Languages

145

Briefe aus Ägypten,” in A. Berlejung et al, Briefe, TUAT Neue Folge 3 (Gütersloh: Mohn), 399–427, here 401–5 no. V.2.1; *Klauck 2006, 83–101; S. Gambetti 2009, The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction, Supplements to JSJ  135 (Leiden: Brill), 218–28; P.  Arzt-Grabner 2012, “Die Stellung des Judentums in neutestamentlicher Zeit anhand der Politeuma-Papyri und anderer Texte,” in Papyrologie und Exegese: Die Auslegung des Neuen Testaments im Licht der Papyri, ed. J. Herzer, WUNT 2/341 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 127–58, here 142–46; G. Flamerie de Lachapelle, J. France, and J. Nelis-Clément 2012, Rome et le monde provincial: Documents d’une histoire partagée (IIe s. a.C.–V e s. p.C.), Collection U (Paris: A.  Colin), no. 217; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 97–99 no. 85; E. Crespo 2021, “The Greek Phonology of a Tax Collector in Egypt in the First Century CE,” in Varieties of Post-classical and Byzantine Greek, ed. K. Bentein and M. Janse, Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 331 (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton), 327–52, here 332–33, 335–47. For additional bibliography see BL 2.2:85; C.Pap.Jud. 2, p.  37; Arzt-Grabner 2012, 142 n. 29; https://papyri. info/ddbdp/p.lond;6;1912. – Online information and images: https://www.bl.uk/ manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Papyrus_2248 (images of recto and verso). (Col. 1)

Lucius Aemilius Rectus proclaims: Since at the reading of the most sacred and most benevolent letter to the city, the whole city |5 could not be present due to its size, I thought it necessary to publish the letter so that everyone can read it for himself and you can admire the greatness of our god Ceasar, |10 as well as be grateful to him for his goodwill towards the city. (Year) 2 of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator, in the month Neos Sebastos, on the 14th.

(Col. 2)

Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator, Pontifex |15 Maximus, holder of the Tribunician Power, consul designate, to the city of the Alexandrians, greeting. Tiberius Claudius Barbillus, Apollonios son of Artemidoros, Chairemon son of Leonides, Marcus Iulius Asklepiades, Gaius Iulius Dionysios, Tiberius Claudius Phanias, Pasion son of Potamon, Dionysios son of Sambion, Tiberius Claudius Apollonios son of Ariston, Gaius Iulius Apollonios, Hermaiskos |20 son of Apollonios, your emissaries, when they handed over the resolution to me, reported many things concerning the city and certainly directed my attention to the goodwill towards us, which for a long time—you know it well—has been stored in my memory, since you are loyal to the emperors by nature, as has become evident to me from many indications, but in an extraordinary way |25 you have cared about my own family and you have been cared about

146

Chapter 4

(by me), of which—to mention only the last and to pass over everything else—the greatest witness is my brother Germanicus Caesar, who addressed you with quite sincere words. Therefore, I have gladly accepted the honors given to me by you, although I am not adaptable to such things. And first of all, |30 I grant you permission to celebrate my birthday as dies Augusta in the way that you yourselves have suggested, and I allow you to perform erections of statues of me as well as of my family in any place; for I see ⟨that⟩ you have endeavored everywhere to erect memorials of your loyalty to my family. Of the two golden statues, however, |35 the one representing the Pax Claudiana Augusta, as my most honored Barbillus has proposed and incessantly urged—which I must, however, refuse, since it might be seen as a provocation—is to be consecrated to (the cult of) Roma; (Col. 3)

and the other shall take part in the processions on the name days in your city in the manner you request; and with it shall also be carried a throne, |40 furnished with whatever decoration you wish. It is perhaps foolish that the one who allows such great honors should refuse that a Phyle Claudiana be established and that there be sacred sites in every nome of Egyp⟨t⟩. Therefore, I also grant you permission to do so, but if you wish, also erect equestrian statues of my procurator Vitrasius Pollio. |45 I allow the erection of the quadrigas ⟨if⟩ you wish to erect ⟨any⟩ for me ⟨at the entry⟩ gates to the country, one at the so-called Taposiris in Libya, the other at the Pharos of Alexandria, the third at Pelousion in Egyp⟨t⟩, but I forbid a high-priest for me and the erection of temples, since I do not want to be a provocation for the people of my time, |50 but sanctuaries and the like have for ages, in my opinion, only been given to the gods as a preferential gift. Concerning the requests, however, which you have endeavored to receive from me, I declare as follows: to all those who have passed through the epheb service up to my reign, I continue to preserve firmly the Alexandrian |55 citizenship, with all the honors and privileges of the city, except if some should have crept in with you who as descendants of slaves passed the epheb service, and also the other things I wish to be no less firm, all that was given to you both by the rulers before me and the kings and the prefects, as also [the] god Augustus confirmed.

Languages (Col. 4)

|60 And the imperial priests of the temple in Alexandria, which belongs to the god Augustus, I wish to be chosen by lot, as also those in Kanopos of the same god Augustus are chosen by lot. The decision, however, that the municipal offices should (only?) be of three years’ duration, seems to me to have been made also ver⟨y⟩ well, for out of the fear of being obliged to give an account of the things they have badly |65 administered in office, the ⟨off⟩icials will show a more moderate behavior towards you during their time in office. Concerning the Council, however, what was once customary among you under the old kings, I am not able to say, but that you had none among the Augusti before me, you know quite well. So now that for the first time a new matter has been presented, of which it is still unclear whether it will be |70 profitable for the city and my own affairs, I have written to Aemilius Rectus to examine it and clarify to me both whether it is necessary to establish it at all and also the manner in which—if it had to convene—this should happen. For the disturbance and the riot—or rather, if one should tell the truth: the war—against the Jews, which party is responsible for it, although |75 out of an opposition your emissaries and especially Dionysius son of Theon ambitiously tried to find out, I nevertheless have not wished to find out in detail, because I harbor within me an unmerciful anger against those who have started it again. In short, I tell you that if you do not put an end to this |80 destructive, self-willed anger1 against one another, I will be forced to show what it means when a philanthropic ruler is driven to righteous anger. Therefore, still even now I admonish that the Alexandrians behave gently and philanthropically toward the Jews, who have inhabited the same city for a long time,

(Col. 5)

|85 and do not dishonor anything that is lawful with them in regard to the worship of their god but let them practice their customs as also under the god Augustus, which I have also affirmed after hearing both sides. And, in the opposite way, I also command the Jews not to strive for more than what they already had before, and no more, as if inhabiting two cities, to send two delegations in the future, |92 which has never been done before, and not to pant for the games of the gymnasiarchs or the kosmetai, since they reap their own fruits, but also enjoy |95 the abundance of

147

148

Chapter 4

plentiful goods in a foreign city, and not to bring in or invite Jews sailing down from Syria or Egyp⟨t⟩, by which I would be forced to conceive greater suspicion. But if (they do) not (obey), I will proceed against them in every way, as if they were |100 stirring up a common disease in the world. If you both refrain from this and want to live together with gentleness and philanthropy, then I too will exercise the highest care for the city as for a family member who has belonged to us since our ancestors. |105 To my companion Barbillus I testify that he has always cared for you with me—even now he has devoted all his ambition to the fight for you—as well as to my companion Tiberius Claudius Archibius. Farewell. Note 1 Oliver (1989, 88) assumes that the adjective (in Greek αὐθάδιον) was formed by garbling the adverb “immediately” (in Greek αὐθημερόν via αὐθημον) and suggests “if you do not immediately put an end to this destructive anger.”

The letter of Emperor Claudius to the polis of the Alexandrians is preceded by an edict of the Prefect of Egypt, L.  Aemilius  Rectus, ordering the letter to be published and sent throughout the Chora because of its importance. As a result, the present copy was found in Philadelphia, and the letter was preserved—a truly fortunate discovery for papyrology. During the decades following its publication in 1924, the letter of Claudius became one of the most commented papyrus texts at all. The entire text was copied on the verso of the papyrus; the recto, which contains a tax register from the year 37/38 CE, has not yet been published. The copy was produced by Nemesion son of Zoilos, a tax collector and businessman in Philadelphia (see TM Arch 149), probably soon after its promulgation on 10 November 41 CE (cf. Hanson 1989, 431 n. 8; Crespo 2021, 332). The letter is a reply of Claudius thanking the citizens of Alexandria for their congratulations on the occasion of his accession to the throne, which had been brought to him by an Alexandrian delegation. Along with the congratulations, the delegation had also presented several requests that Claudius addresses in his letter. Despite certain reservations, Claudius grants most of the requests. Only when it comes to the application for the installation of a council does he ultimately remain unyielding. Although he promises to have this request examined, he will ultimately reject it. Lines  73–104 have received special attention in several fields of research, since Claudius here addresses the conflict between Jews and Greeks in

Languages

149

Alexandria, which had even reached the dimension of a war. It cannot be overlooked that in the entire passage the Jews are not addressed directly, but instead are referred to in the third person. The background is briefly summarized as follows: Jews had already enjoyed certain rights under the Ptolemies and had supported Gabinius in the invasion of Egypt in 57 BCE. Even Caesar received active help from them during the Civil War and the Alexandrian War. The Greeks considered them traitors ever since. Especially the influential Jewish circles of Alexandria openly demonstrated their friendliness to the Romans, which did not go unrewarded by Augustus, who confirmed them in their privileges, while the Greeks—especially in Alexandria—now had their rights decisively curtailed. This situation led to an increasingly evident hostility and hatred between the two parties. In fact, as far as political influence and autonomy were concerned, the Jews were now better off than the Greeks, whose attempts to re-establish institutions that had been abolished or severely curtailed in their importance were rejected by the Caesars, as were the expansion of their privileges or opportunities for political influence. Henceforth, the prosperity of the Jewish community depended on the goodwill of the Roman emperors, whereas the Greek side tried to challenge the reputation of the Jewish population among high-ranking personalities and in this way to persuade Rome to change the privileged status of the Jews. Under Gaius Caligula, the opportunity seemed to have come. Aulus Avillius Flaccus, who was appointed praefectus Aegypti in 32 CE and was initially rather pro-Jewish, could be lobbied by prominent Alexandrian gentiles for their interests. As a result, open violence broke out in 38  CE and the first and largest pogrom against the Jews in antiquity occurred. From both the Greek and Jewish sides, legations were sent to Rome to intervene with the emperor. Claudius mentions this in his letter in lines 90–91, where he sharply criticizes that the two groups, which nevertheless inhabit one and the same city, were not able to entrust a joint legation with their representation. The matter was decided only under Claudius, whose reaction is described to us on the one hand by Josephus, who reports in Ant. 19.280–285 about an edict of Claudius, and on the other hand by the present letter of Claudius himself. From its fundamental significance for Alexandrian Judaism, lines 73–104 in the letter are understood to mean that the emperor reaffirms to the Jews those rights and privileges that had been granted to them by the Ptolemies and confirmed by Augustus. The Greeks were ordered to tolerate without restriction all expressions of Jewish religious tradition (e.g., the Torah as the basis for Jewish law, own places of worship, Sabbath rest, exemption from the imperial cult, pilgrimages to the Jewish motherland and monetary donations to the communities there). However, Claudius does not generally

150

Chapter 4

confirm the rights and privileges already granted by the Ptolemies for all Jews residing in Alexandria, but only for those who had been living in the “Delta” district for a long time (cf. lines 84–85). To all others, these privileges were to be denied, both to those who had recently immigrated and to all those who planned to do so; for the latter, immigration was even to be excluded by forbidding the Jews living in “Delta” to invite and receive other Jews from the Chora or Syria (cf. lines 96–97; see Gambetti 2009, especially 225–28). The question of a possible citizenship for the Jews of Alexandria, which has been frequently discussed in connection with the edict of Claudius as reported by Josephus, or the Jewish efforts to gain general access to Roman citizenship, is answered negatively in the letter: Claudius explicitly commands the Jews not to strive for more than what they already had before. Lines 105–108 may be considered as the emperor’s personal addendum to the letter composed by the chancellery in his sense (Schubart 1925, 34). On the question of whether this letter was originally written in Greek in the imperial chancery in Rome or translated from Latin into Greek, W. Schubart (1925, 34) already rejected the idea that it was—despite some very un-Greek formulations—a translation from Latin. According to him, the imperial chancery in Rome had in any case written such letters in Greek, while thinking in Latin, and therefore writing a poor translation-Greek; what we would read was the work of the chancery, which had to be sufficiently informed about the wishes and attitudes of the emperor to express itself entirely in his sense. Recently, the spelling of the text was studied by E.  Crespo (2021, 332–33) in detail. According to him, the preserved copy provides information about the author’s pronunciation and phonemic system, although the copy was produced by the tax collector Nemesion. This is mainly because Nemesion copied a highly official document. The large number of orthographic deviations indicates that Nemesion either had the entire text dictated to him or that he had already copied it from a copy, which in turn may have followed a series of copies. It is quite impossible to determine who bears the main responsibility for the spelling attested in Nemesion’s copy: the original author, an earlier copyist, the reader who dictated the text to Nemesion, or Nemesion himself. After completing the copy, Nemesion subsequently corrected the text in twenty instances (cf. https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.lond;6;1912 apparatus), which may indicate that he himself was at least partially responsible for the final spelling. While the original, composed in the emperor’s chancery, had certainly been written down in the standard spelling, Nemesion’s copy contains “roughly one hundred and fifty words that display corrections or deviations from the standard spelling” (Crespo 2021, 333; cf. pp. 335–47). Among them are errors due to bilingual interference from Egyptian (interchange of delta and tau) and

151

Languages

numerous misspellings (double sigma instead of single sigma; omission of tau in the combination of pt in the case of “Egypt”; erroneous addition of final nu; assimilation or loss of g in the combination of gn; erroneous addition of iota to final omega, which can be considered as erroneous addition of iota adscript; interchanges of omicron and omega; epsilon instead of the combination of ai; interchange of ei and i; upsilon instead of iota; upsilon instead of oi; eta instead of upsilon; omicron instead of oi; alpha instead of alpha-upsilon; omicron instead of upsilon; eta-omega instead of epsilon-iota-omega; unstressed alpha instead of omega; unstressed omicron instead of e; kappa instead of chi before theta; nu instead of gamma before kappa). [1.40] SB 24.15988 (TM 21002) Letter from Abaskantos to Judah

Greek papyrus, Masada/Israel (TM Geo 3148), before spring 73 or 74 CE Ed. P. Arzt 1998, “Abaskantos an Iudas: Neuedition von P.Masada 741,” APF 44:228–239 (= SB 24.15988). – Cf. H. M. Cotton 1989 (P.Masada 741, image: plate 8); *Crisci 1996, 59, image: Tav. XXXVII c; A. Donati, ed. 1996, Dalla terra alle genti: La diffusione del cristianesimo nei primi secoli (Milan: Electa), 315 no. 239 (with color image); *Cohen 2016, 139 no. 19; *Reinard 2016, 956–57 (cf. 465–68); A.  Ricker 2020, Ancient Letters and the Purpose of Romans: The Law of the Membrane, LNTS  630 (London: T&T Clark), 62–63; G. Geiger 2019, Die Handschriften aus der Judäischen Wüste: Die Texte außerhalb Qumrans – Einführung und deutsche Übersetzung, FSBP  9 (Berlin: De Gruyter), 524 #754. – Online information: https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/ manuscript/Mas741-1.

Abaskantos to Judah his brother, geetings. I am sending1 you Mnem[on … on accou]nt of a half litri[on2 of …] |5 […] and Maron […] … […] Notes 1 The aorist form used here (literally “I sent”) is certainly an epistolary aorist (see p. 32). 2 The measure hemilitrion (half litrion, half pound) was used for groceries, but also for textiles (cf. D. Hagedorn in P.Köln 2, pp. 208–9).

Since this papyrus letter was excavated in Masada, it was probably written by Abaskantos nearby and sent to his business partner Judah, who operated some business at Masada. The two messengers, Mnemon and Maron, were to collect certain goods from Judah, probably textiles or groceries (see note 1). The letter, written in Greek, implies that the use of this language in Jewish

152

Chapter 4

correspondence was not unusual and that there was certainly an exchange of goods between the Jewish population at Masada and the surrounding area. Josephus (J.W. 7.288) testifies that the soil on the hilltop of Masada was very fertile and therefore could be used for growing food. [1.41] P.Yadin 2.52 (TM 29268) Letter from Soulaios to Yonathes and Masabala

Greek papyrus, written in Judea, found at Naḥal Ḥever/Israel (TM Geo 2775), Sep–Oct 135 CE Ed. Hannah M. Cotton 2002 (P.Yadin 2.52). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 10:202 (on SB 8.9843, cf. BL 13:204, 264); H. Cotton in P.Yadin 2, p. 360. – Cf. S. D. Charlesworth 2014, “Recognizing Greek Literacy in Early Roman Documents from the Judaean Desert,” BASP 51:161–89, here 183–86. – Digital image: https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ explore-the-archive/image/B-508224. The layout of the following translation matches that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Sou[lai]os to Yonathes son of Beianos, and Ma sabala, greetings. Because1 I am sending |5 to you Agrippa,2 hurry up to send me wands and citrons,3 as much as you will be able to, for the camp of the |10 Jews, and do not do oth erwise. It (i.e., the letter) was written in Greek because we are not able to write in Hebrew4 |15 [Make haste?] to re lease him more quickly5 because of the festival, and do not do other wise.

Languages

153

(h2) |20 Soulaios. Farewell.

(Back)

…6

Notes 1 The Greek term translated here as “because” has often the meaning “after, since” (cf. Cotton in P.Yadin 2, p. 354) which would mean that Agrippa had been sent earlier. In this context, it bears the causal meaning. 2 Agrippa is most probably the letter carrier (cf. also note 4) which suggests that the aorist form of “to send” must be interpreted as epistolary aorist (i.e., in present tense; see p. 32). 3 On the dating of this letter cf. Cotton in P.Yadin 2, p. 351: “The pressing need for wands and citrons and the mention of the approaching festival imply that the letter was written shortly before the festival of Tabernacles. Thus, this letter is to be dated in September or even early October 135 – depending of course on when Sukkot was celebrated that year.” 4 The Greek term Ἑβραεστί (literally “in Hebrew”) is also used for and thus often refers to the Aramaic script. 5 The comparative degree may well be taken literally, and the whole context reveals the letter sender’s stress due to the imminent festival. At first, he asks his addressees to hurry up with the shipment of fruits. Now he asks them to send Agrippa back to him even more quickly. 6 On the back of the papyrus, several faint letters are illegible but have probably contained the addressees’ names.

The letter was written during the fourth phase of the Jewish revolt under Bar Kokhba but, similar to SB 24.15988 [1.40] which was written toward the end of the First Jewish Revolt, it does not reveal any details about the rebellion itself but deals with the delivery of various goods. Soulaios, the sender of the letter, has been identified as Nabataean which is not only suggested by his name but also by the observation that “Nabataeans in the archives from the Roman province of Arabia, unless they sign their names in the Nabataean cursive script, do so in Greek letters, whereas Jews sign their names mostly in the Jewish script” (H.M. Cotton in P.Yadin 2, p. 361). Nabataeans were well able to speak Aramaic but that does not necessarily mean that they were also capable of writing in the Hebrew/Aramaic script as attested also by this letter (cf. lines 11–15). Both addressees, Yonathes and Masabala, were Bar Kokhba’s two military leaders in Ein Gedi. Masabala, also attested as Mesabalah son of Shim’on, is known from Aramaic and Hebrew letters of the Bar Kokhba archive and as

154

Chapter 4

witness of three Hebrew legal papyri (cf. P.Yadin 2.44.28; 45.32; P.Hever 13.14). Therefore, the letter of Soulaios is another clear evidence that Jews were used to receiving and reading Greek letters even during such a critical time as the Bar Kokhba rebellion. At least, they were obviously not offended by it. [1.42] Ch.L.A. 4.267 (TM 69880) Letter of Recommendation from Aurelius Archelaos to Iulius Domitius

Latin papyrus, found in Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II CE Ed. A. Bruckner and R. Marichal 1967 (Ch.L.A. 4.267, image: 87). – Cf. H. M. Cotton 1981, Documentary Letters of Recommendation in Latin from the Roman Empire, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie  132 (Königstein: Hain); R.  K.  Sherk 1988, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 247 nr. 192; P. Cugusi 2001a, “Note esegetiche, linguistiche e testuali su papiri latini,” Aeg 81:307–21, here 317–8; M.  Trapp 2003, Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology, with Translation, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 86–9, 236–8 no. 26; H.  Halla-aho 2010, “Linguistic Varieties and Language Level in Latin Non-Literary Letters,” in *Evans and Obbink 2010, 171–83, here 173–78.

To Iulius Domitius, milit(ary) tribune (of the) leg(ion), from his Aurel(ius) Archelaos, benef(iciarius), greetings. I had already previously recommended |5 my friend Theon to you, and now I also ask, lord, that you have him befo(re) your eyes as if he were me. For he is the kind of man to be loved |10 by you. For he left his people and his property and work and followed me. And in everything he took care of me. And therefore I ask from you that he have access |15 to you and that he can tell everything to you. About our work, whatever he told me, [know that this] also happen[ed]. I loved the man […] |20 … […] … but … […] from [you I ask], lord […] … […] here is […] … […] |25 … […] … […] him … […] … […] so that [I] recom[mend h]im. I wish you the best of lu[ck, lord, for ma] ny years with [all your people] |30 to [live] well. May you have this letter befor(e) (your) eyes, lord. May you think that I am talking with you. Farewell. (Back)

To Iulius Domitius, military tribune (of the) leg(ion), from Aurelius Archelaos, b(eneficiarius).

155

Languages

The papyrus is preserved on two fragments of which the first contains the text on the recto and the address in capitals on the verso while the second one only contains a couple of traces of text. The text is a typical example for a letter of recommendation and shows that the writer was familiar with its usual phrases (Cotton 1981, 15–23). The Latin spelling contains traces of Greek influence (see also Halla-aho 2010, 177; Trapp 2003, 237–8; Cotton 1981, 17–18; *Deissmann 1927, 197–200). At the beginning, the addressee is mentioned before the sender as a sign of respect, most likely given the higher rank of the addressee (tribune) than that of the sender (non-commissioned officer). This practice is also seen in other official documents such as petitions. [1.43] PSI 13.1326 (TM 17248) Minutes of a hearing

Greek papyrus, Egypt, 181–183 CE Ed. M.  Norsa, V.  Bartoletti, and A.  Calabi 1953 (PSI 13.1326). – Cf. N.  C.  Préaux 1954, review of PSI 13.1315–1370, CdE 29/58:331–36, 332–33; J.  D.  Thomas 1982, The Roman epistrategos, vol. 2 of The epistrategos in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, Papyrologica Coloniensia  6 (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag), 111–51, 132 no. 135; Lewis 1983, Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press; repr., Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1999), 185–95. – Online image: http://www.psi-online.it/documents/psi;13;1326.

The following translation commences in line 3 and ends in the middle of line 12. (Two illegible lines) The epistrategos Macrinus said to Psais: Are you unregistered (in the census)? He answered through an interpreter: |5 I am not. Macrinus said: Where, then, is your name recorded? But he admitted: I am unregistered. My parents died when I was little and they did not register me. After other matters Macrinus |10 said: These are serious matters, and after having consulted with those in the council he ordered Psais to be arrested … […] (Line 13 is illegible). The presented text contains part of the minutes of the case of Psais who apparently was not registered as a child and, as a consequence, has not paid taxes. It has been discussed that the official exercising jurisdiction in this hearing, the

156

Chapter 4

epistrategos Macrinus, was the prefect of Egypt (cf. A. Calabi in PSI 13, p. 151). This would indicate that Psais’s case had reached the last resort and would have ended after the prefect’s verdict (cf. Lewis 1983, 190–93). For trials before the epistrategos see Thomas 1982, 129–37.

Chapter 5

The Practices of Ancient Scribes: Paleography in a Broader Perspective (Gregg Schwendner) Literature G. Cavallo 2005, Il calamo e il papiro: La scrittura greca dall’età ellenistica ai primi secoli di Bisanzio, Papyrologica Florentina  36 (Florence: Gonnelli), 175–202; G.  Cavallo and H.  Maehler 1987, Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period  A.D. 300–800, Bulletin Supplement 47 (London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies); W. Clarysse and P. Orsini 2012, “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates A Critique of Theological Palaeography.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88:443– 74; G. Messeri and R. Pintaudi 1998, “Documenti e Scritture,” in *Cavallo 1998, 39–53; B. Nongbri 2018, God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press); B. Nongbri 2020, “Palaeography, Precision and Publicity: Further Thoughts on P.Ryl. III.457 (P52),” NTS 66:471–99; 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; E.  G.  Turner and P.  J.  Parsons 1987, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, 2nd ed., Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 46 (London: Institute of Classical Studies); A. Vatri 2012, “The Physiology of Ancient Greek Reading,” ClQ 62:633–47.

The practices of ancient scribes are a locus of interest for paleographers, papyrologists, and textual critics alike. Some of these we know, some are knowable, others pose more questions than we have answers. Appealing to comparative evidence and cognitive science, we can fill some of the gaps in our knowledge.

Scribal Posture

Literature *Eckardt 2018, 47–49; D.  Nosnitsin 2012, “Ethiopian Manuscripts and Ethiopian Manuscript Studies: A Brief Overview and Evaluation,” Gazette du livre médiéval 58:1– 16; G. M. Parássoglou 1979, “Δεξιὰ χεὶρ καὶ γόνυ: Some Thoughts on the Postures of the Ancient Greeks and Romans when Writing on Papyrus Rolls,” Scrittura e Civiltá 3:5–21; G. M. Parássoglou 1985, “A Roll Upon His Knees,” in Papyrology, ed. N. Lewis, YCS 28 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 273–75; S. H. Selassie 1981, Bookmaking in Ethiopia (Leiden: Karstens Drukkers); A.  Wifstrand 1933, “Ein Metrischer Kolophon mit einem Homerpapyrus, zugleich über eine seltene Art von Koordination,” Hermes 68:468–72.

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790418_006

158

Fig. 1

Chapter 5

Orthodox Jewish scribe, Shlomo Washadi, writing the Torah on parchment, Yemen 1934–1939, Library of Congress LC-M34-10260 [P&P] (Digital ID: matpc 14451, https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/matpc.14451).

It is thought that a scribe typically sat on the ground with his right knee raised, on which he supported the papyrus, holding it steady with his left hand and writing with his right, as traditional scribes still do. Parássoglou’s (1979; *Eckardt 2018, 47) collection of evidence of this takes its title from part of the colophon on P.Lond.Lit. 11, as re-edited by A.  Wifstrand: κάλαμος μ’ ἔγρα|ψε, δεξία χεὶρ καὶ γό|νυ (Wifstrand 1933).1 “A calamus, right hand, and knee wrote me.” This posture can be illustrated by images of traditional Christian scribes in Ethiopia and Torah scribes in pre-World War II Yemen (see fig. 1). “Usually, Ethiopian scribes did not use any special equipment like writing desk, pen-box etc.; nor did they have any special rooms to work in. … The scribe works outdoors sitting on the ground in the shade; he holds the new parchment leaves on his raised knees, and the text to be copied is on his left. The inkhorn and stand for pens (both made of cow horn) are fixed in the ground on his right” (Nosnitsin 2012, 7). 1 The suggestions of Wifstrand (1933, 468) were confirmed by Parássoglou (1979; 1985), and accepted by Turner and Parsons (1987, 5 n. 12).

The Practices of Ancient Scribes



159

Reading and Copying

Literature L.  Battezzato 2009, “Techniques of Reading and Textual Layout in Ancient Greek Texts,” The Cambridge Classical Journal: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 55:1–23; M.  Coltheart 2005, “Modeling Reading: The Dual Approach,” in The Science of Reading: A Handbook, ed. M. J. Snowling and C. Hulme (Oxford: Blackwell), 6–23; K.  Conklin et  al. 2018, Eye-Tracking: A Guide for Applied Linguistics Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press); D.  Drieghe 2011, “Parafoveal on Foveal Effects on Eye Movements during Reading”, in Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements, ed. S. Liveredge, I. Gilchrist, and S. Everling (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 839–41; D. Donoghue 2018, How the Anglo-Saxons Read Their Poems (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press); B. Kasisopa et al. 2013, “Eye Movements While Reading and Unspaced Written System: The Case of Thai,” Vision Research 86:71–80; B.  Kasisopa et  al. 2016, “Child Readers’ Eye Movements in Reading Thai,” Vision Research 123/ June:8–19; P. J. McDaniel 2008, Gathering Leaves and Lifting Words: Histories of Buddhist Monastic Education in Laos and Thailand (Seattle: University of Washington Press); M. McDonnell 1996, “Writing, Copying, and Autograph Manuscripts in Ancient Rome,” CQ 46:469–91; G. McCray and T. Brunfaut 2016, “Investigating the Construct Measured by Banked Gap-Fill Items: Evidence from Eye-Tracking,” Language Testing 2016/ November:1–23, DOI: 10.1177/0265532216677105; P. O’Herron and R. von der Heydt 2001, “Representation of Object Continuity in the Visual Cortex,” Journal of Vision 11/2/12:1–9, DOI: 10.1167/11.2.12; P. J. Parsons 2005, “Copyists of Oxyrhynchus,” in *Bowman 2007, 262–70; P. Saenger 1997, Spaces Between Words: The Origin of Silent Reading (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press); P. H. K. Seymour 2008, “Continuity and Discontinuity in the Development of Single-Word Reading: Theoretical Speculations,” in Single-Word Reading: Behavioral and Biological Perspectives, ed. E. L. Grigorenko and A. J. Naples (New York: Erlbaum), 1–24; H. Winskel et al. 2009, “Eye Movements When Reading Spaced and Unspaced Thai and English: A Comparison of Thai-English Bilinguals and English Monolinguals,” Journal of Memory and Language 61:339–51.

One of the most generally accepted models of reading is called the “dual route” model, whereby familiar words are recognized automatically through the orthographic lexicon and unfamiliar words are analyzed serially by an alternate (non-lexical) route (Coltheart 2005). Known words are then processed lexically and then move into the graphic output buffer for handwriting production. Unknown words go directly there after passing through the rules from graphemic-phonological conversion. Scriptio continua was not the barrier to cognition common sense would lead us to believe. Modern languages that are written without word separation such as Thai have been shown to be read just as fluently as languages that use word separation (Winskel et al. 2009; Kasisopa et al. 2013; Kasisopa et al. 2016). The same results have been reported for some ancient languages, including Greek (Vatri 2012; Donoghue 2018), not without dissent, most notably from P. Saenger (1997, 1–17). The idea that scriptio continua posed a cognitive barrier was

160

Chapter 5

appealing until recently because “prior to the widespread recognition of the saccade-and-fixate oculomotor strategy, it was widely believed that eye movements were continuous, with the eye making uninterrupted sweep across the scene” (Conklin et al. 2018). That is, our vision deceives us: “despite continual fluctuations of the retinal image we perceive a stable world in which objects have continuity” (O’Herron and R. von der Heydt 2001). The fluctuating retinal images, in the case of reading, are the series of fixations in which the eyes focus on a small portion of the text and saccades of ca. 7–9 letters to a new fixation point (see fig. 2). Sometimes words are skipped altogether, are not fixated at all; sometimes there is a regressive saccade, clarifying something unclear or misunderstood on the first pass. The focus of the eye (the fovael view) is fixed at 2º, that is, about 8 letters (Drieghe 2011, 839). In addition, the eye can preview primarily to the right of fixation (called the parafoveal preview), offering the reader an increasingly fuzzy preview of what follows the fixation. To a limited degree,2 this preview helps the reader anticipate what comes next and direct the landing place for the next saccade.

Fig. 2

Saccades and fixations.

An advantage of a narrow column of text is that it required only three or maybe four saccades to read a line. It also would have provided a greater number of secure starting points per page for readers. They would usually know the first word of a new line was the beginning of a new word, or the continuation of the last word of the previous line: και, καν, περι, μου, υπαγω, ουκ, ερχομαι σαρκα; μαρ-τυρια, πο-θεν, υπα-γω.3 The reverse is true for the last word in the line, especially since this scribe has taken pains to make line end and word end coincide. 2 It seems clear some information can be gleaned in this preview, phonological information certainly, morphological less certainly, and semantic information least certain of all. This appears to be variable depending on the language. 3 Word separation seems to have been determined by a combination of how common the word form is, legal/illegal letter combinations found between words, and grammatical context; ἐγὼ is a common word, and implies the morpheme ending μαρτύρ-ω, just as ἡ raises the expectation of μαρτυρί-α (or, upon recognizing μαρτυρί-α the reader could resolve the ambiguity of η successfully), and τὴ(ν) implies σάρκα; illegal or low frequency letter combinations also play a role: μου ὅτι, ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς, ἔρχομαι ἤ, ποῦ ὑπάγω, κρίνετε ἐγώ. See Vatri 2012; Schwendner 2021.

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

161

The recognition of word boundaries within scriptio continua would depend on five factors: “illegal” initial letter combinations (e.g., ντ), repetitive morphemes (e.g., Heb 1:3 τὰ πάντα, τῷ ῥήματι, τῆς δυνάμεως), small common words (e.g., καί), nomina sacra, and line breaks (Schwendner 2020, 326–31). Known words would be processed separately, as a whole unit first in the “orthographic lexicon,” then in a cognitive lexicon. Unknown (non-lexical) words would be processed phonologically, as a letter sequence (Coltheart 2005).

A Cognitive Model of Handwriting

Literature S.  Kadel et  al. 2011, “For a Psycholinguistic Model of Handwriting Production: Testing the Syllable-Bigram Controversy,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 37:1310–22; J. Kormos 2017, The Second Language Learning Processes of Students with Specific Learning Difficulties (New York: Routledge).

Much has been learned about the reading and writing as cognitive processes, but little of this has penetrated the study of ancient handwriting. We are used to thinking about handwriting as a conscious activity rather than an unconscious mental process. Briefly, to write a word like αὐτῷ the scribe of P52 would have retrieved the word Orthographic Long Term Memory into Orthographic Working Memory where the work would be processed into first syllables (αυ. τω) and then letters (α-υ-τ-ω) in what are called Abstract Letter Units (or graphemes). Then the desired letter shape (allograph) is selected from Long Term Memory. This choice activates the relevant motor program to produce the desired shape. This motor program is what the learner memorizes through practice, that allows the letter form to be produced automatically, that is, without conscious guidance. Biomechanical factors, thumb and finger length, wrist position etc., will introduce a certain amount of variation that is not part of the motor program. Once the letter is written, sensory feedback (visual and proprioceptive) plays a role in positioning the next letter relative to the one just written. Thus, comparing relative letter positioning (spacing) in comparanda is not as important as the letter shape itself, since it is produced consciously or habitually, and is not part of the motor program per se (see fig. 3). Letter spacing is an indicator for a writer’s identity, but not necessarily helpful for generic comparison.

162

Fig. 3

Chapter 5

Cognitive process of handwriting production.

The Practices of Ancient Scribes



163

Scriptoria?

Literature R.  S.  Bagnall 1996, Egypt in Late Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press); W. G. Claytor 2018, “The Municipalization of Writing in Roman Egypt,” in *Kolb 2018, 319–34; D.  de  Bruye 1913, “Gaudiosus un vieux libraire romain,” RBén 30:343–45; S. Emmel 2004, Shenoute’s Literary Corpus, vol. 1, Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium Subsidia  111 (Leuven: Peeters); K.  Haines-Eitzen 2000, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press); E. M. Husselman 1970, “Procedures of the Record Office of Tebtunis in the First Century AD,” in PapCongr. 12, 223–38; W. A. Johnson 2009, “The Ancient Book,” in *Bagnall 2009, 256–81; W.  A.  Johnson 2013, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press); J. Koder 2017, Die Byzantiner: Kultur und Alltag im Mittelalter (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht); S.  Lauffer, ed. 1971, Diokletians Preisedikt, TK 5 (Berlin: De Gruyter); P. Lemerle 2017, Byzantine Humanism: The First Phase: Notes and Remarks on Education and Culture in Byzantium from Its Origins to the 10th Century (Leiden: Brill); R.  W.  Mathisen 2020, “Sidonius’ Earliest Reception and Distribution,” in Edinburgh Companion to Sidonius Apollinaris, ed. G.  Kelly and J.  van  Waarden (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), 631–42; K. McNamee 2007, Annotations in Greek and Latin Texts from Egypt, American Studies in Papyrology 45 (Atlanta: CPI Anthony Rowe); B. M. Metzger 1959, “The Furniture in the Scriptorium at Qumran,” RevQ 1:509–15; A. F. Norman 1960, “The Book Trade in Fourth Century Antioch,” JHS 80:122–26; D.  C.  Parker 2010, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible (London: British Library; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson); P. J. Parsons 2011, “A People of the Book?,” in I papiri letterari cristiani, ed. G. Bastianini and A. Casanova, Studi e Testi di Papirologia N.S. 13 (Firenze: Instituto Papirologico “G. Vitelli”), 1–11; F. Schironi 2010, Τὸ μέγα βιβλίον: Book-Ends, End-Titles, and Coronides in Papyri with Hexametric Poetry, ASP  48 (Durham, NC: American Society of Papyrologists); A.  Suciu 2015, “Note on the Word ‘Scriptorium’ in Coptic Sources,” accessed from https://alinsuciu.com/tag/coptic-scriptorium/; R.  Thomson 2018, “Scribes and Scriptoria,” in The European Book in the Twelfth Century, ed. E. Kwakkel and R. Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 68–84.

Where did scribes write? There are two identifiable scriptoria in the region, controversially at Qumran (locus 30, Metzger 1959) and, uncontroversially at Bu Njem (in the Principia of a Roman fort) are isolated (Rebuffat 1975). Without the need for a fixed surface, and if scribes worked outside, as in comparative evidence from Ethiopia, there would be little left to go by. The Egyptian temple scriptoria in the House of Life (section of an Egyptian temple where scribal activity was performed) are the best example we have of such a structure devoted to the study and transmission of texts in the Greco-Roman period. The closest we have to a writing center in rural Roman Egypt is the grapheion. Notaries (nomographoi) in places like Tebtynis held their office as a monopoly from the Roman government and seem to have administered the grapheion from their own homes (Husselman 1970, 266; A. E. R. Boak in P.Tebt.

164

Chapter 5

1, p. 6). The concessionaires are known to have been among the village elite, but they also employed occasional writers to help (Claytor 2018, 326). When these village level institutions were centralized into the nome capital in the late second or early third century (Claytor 2018), there is a marked decline in material evidence for literary culture at the village level (Bagnall 1996, 316), implying that grapheion employees had something to do with copying literary texts locally. Centralization might help account for the rapid rate of change for new writing styles, as one sees in the third century switch from rounded to angular scripts. There is some reason to think public scribes were unofficially involved in the production of literary texts when documentary rolls were re-used for copies of literature, and some Christian texts were no different. Copies of the Shepherd of Hermas (P.Mich. 2.2.130), Revelation (P.IFAO 2.31), and Psalms (PSI 8.921.v) have all been found written on the exterior of documentary rolls. Such recycled rolls could be and were purchased and reused, the preferred interpretation being that this is only evidence of a private copy. There were metropolitan (nome capital) churches by the mid-third century and village level believers.4 Regional and city elite groups (e.g., the bouleutic or gymnasial classes) are likely to be the best candidates for literate private individuals who might have the leisure and wherewithal to copy books within an interpersonal network of loan and copy. Contemporary skepticism of our ability to source second-third century CE Christian texts in a scriptorium seems to be fully justified (Parsons 2011, 266; Johnson 2013, 158). The alternative is the transmission of the text via individual booksellers or personal copies distributed by private networks of readers (Haines-Eitzen 2000, 78). This practice has been documented both by Libanius in fourth century Antioch (Norman 1960, 123) and Sidonius in fifth century Gaul (Mathisen 2020, 631)5. There is some internal evidence for a diorthotes (corrector) in some papyri, notably P46. Forms of διορθόω—abbreviated with a ligature δι—are used rarely

4 We know from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 7.24.6–8) that there was a church in Arsinoe (TM Geo 327) and believers in surrounding villages in the mid-third century. 5 Speaking of letter collection in Late Antique Gaul, R. W. Mathisen (2020, 631) says they “would be passed from one reader to another, and, by a process of ‘chain publication,’ recipients were expected to make their own copies, if they chose.” In Epistula 9.7.1, Sidonius recounts receiving copies of the declamations of the bishop of Rheims, and anxiously memorizing as much as he could, and copying the whole thing: plurima tenere, cuncta transcribere.

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

165

in literary papyri to mark a text as corrected, δι(ωρθῶται),6 or as in need of correction, δι(ωρθωτέον).7 References to booksellers in Egypt are rare, but we do hear of a bybliopola in a private letter from Oxyrhynchos (P.Oxy. 18.2192.37; Turner and Parsons 1987, no. 68). Such a business would have required the services of a local book scribe (kalligraphos). The transportation of books would have been hazardous (Norman 1960, 125), and it is more likely that sometimes the buyer might have supplied the exemplar to be copied by the bookseller. This may seem an odd combination of public and private to our way of thinking, but one in line with the chain of publication theory already mentioned. It is at least questionable whether booksellers would be willing to trade in Christian books so long as the faith was under official sanction. The Greek term corresponding to scriptorium is καλλιγραφεῖον. The term καλλιγράφος is used in the fourth century and later as a synonym for βιβλιογράφος.8 One is mentioned by Palladius in a Pachomian monastery in Tabennesi (Lausiac History 32.12). The Coptic equivalent of καλλιγραφεῖον seems to have been “house of calligrapher” (ⲉⲡⲏⲓ ⲛ̅ⲛ̅ⲕⲁⲗⲗⲓⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲥ; Suciu 2015). If this means a private house, again, we find the line between our conception of public and private quite blurred. The word πρωτοκαλλιγράφος, “head scribe” (sometimes written ὁ πρῶτος καλλιγράφος) who could check and correct the work in the Byzantine καλλιγραφεῖον occurs first at Stoudios under Theodore Studites, abbott 797– 809 (Lemerle 2017, 133–142; Koder 2017, 187). One undated Coptic manuscript 6 Twice in the colophon: 1. the Hawara Homer, McNamee 2007, 271, no. 616 (II CE); 2. p. 275 no. 941 (Homer, P.Ross.Georg.1.4; III CE). Out of the 55 preserved end titles of Hexameter poems studied by Schironi (2010), only two instances indicate this is exceptional rather than the norm. 7 Six times in marginalia: 1. McNamee 2007, 282 no. 1127 (Homer, TM 60235; I CE); 2. p. 300 no. 1309.1 (Menander, PSI 15.1480; I BCE–I CE); 3. p. 348 no. 1369 (Pindar, P.Oxy. 26.2450; I/II CE); 4. p. 350 no. 1393 (Plato, BKT 2 p. 3–51; III CE); 5. p. 362 no. 1563 add. (Sophocles, P.Oxy.52.3686; II CE); 6. p. 371 no. 1485.1 (Sophocles, P.Oxy. 32.2617; I BCE–I CE). In documentary papyri this abbreviation mostly means “it should be paid.” 8 Cf. Ephraem Syr., Sermon 48.31 (Παραίνεσις μηʹ), addressed to the tired monk (Πρὸς ἀκηδιαστὴν μοναχόν); Epiphanius, Panarion 3.136, 18; Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations 40 (PG 36.421.14); IG 5.1.1406.13–14, a Greek translation of Diocletian’s Price Edict (Laconia, ca. 301 CE): καλλιγράφῳ ἰς (read εἰϲ) γραφὴν κα̣[λλίστην] | στίχων ρʹ [(δεναρίων) κεʹ] (this corresponds to the Latin is of Edictum de maximis pretiis 7.39, Lauffer 1971: scriptori in scptura optima versus n(umero) centum). Other documentary occurrences are later: SEG 7.196 (V–VI CE); BGU 19.2788.5 (607/608): Leontios is described as μονάζων καὶ καλλιγράφος; P.Cair.Masp. 3.67288.r, col. 5.5 (590–565): Θαυμασία γαμ(ετὴ ?) Ἰωάννο(υ) καλ̣ιγρά(φου) (read καλλι-) νο(μίσματος) γ´; O.Frangé 774.30–1 (Coptic ostracon; 601–700): ⲡⲕⲁⲗⲗⲓⲅⲣⲁ(ⲫⲟⲥ).

166

Chapter 5

mentions in the colophon an overseer of the “calligrapher-house”: ⲣⲙⲛ̅ⲏⲓ ⲉⲡⲏⲓ ⲛ̅ⲛ̅ⲕⲁⲗⲗⲓⲅⲣⲁⲫⲟⲥ, Petros (ⲁⲡⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ) by name (Emmel 2004, 246). So, this component of a scriptorium, in a strict sense, should be considered later than the fourth century (Thomson 2018).9 As  W.  Johnson (2009, 263) has suggested, it is helpful to think about the three classes of writing outlined in Diocletian’s Edict on Prices as referring to handwriting production rather than an esthetic judgment of the product (cf. Haines-Eitzen 2000, 67). In this light, Constantine’s phrase “to be written by skilled book copyists” (ὑπὸ τεχνιτῶν καλλιγράφων … γραφῆναι, Eusebius, Vit. Const. 4.36.2), no doubt refers to slower, formal writing (first class: scriptura optima/γραφὴ καλλίστη), not calligraphy in the modern sense, as D. C. Parker (2010, 21) has pointed out. According to this hypothesis, first class writing would refer to handwriting in which most strokes within a character are made individually ending in a pen lift, rather than combining strokes wherever possible. It is not that the individual strokes take longer than connected strokes—ballistic strokes are remarkably uniform in duration (100–200 ms). But connecting individual strokes requires conscious attention from the writer,10 whereas writing that combines two or more strokes is directed by motor programs that are pre-planned and unconsciously executed. At the very least, single stroke writing would tire the writer more quickly, and therefore required greater time and effort to produce, perhaps 25% more (an inference from it being 25% more expensive). Second class writing (sequens scriptura/δευτέρα), by this logic, would be plain writing, with few, if any, stylized features (e.g., rho not descending below the baseline), but including many more combined stroke sequences (e.g., the looped alpha and mu). This type of writing was used in copying books11 as well as official and private documents that required greater care.12 9

10

11 12

“The mere fact a number of scribes working together in the same place simultaneously might not in itself constitute a scriptorium” (Thomson 2018, 78). A “house-style, that is, a style of writing which is homogeneous, and was differentiated from that of other scriptoria” was the result of “imposed scriptorial discipline,” meaning, in part, the scribes were trained in house by the master scribe (Thomson 2018, 80). Graphomotor movements needed to connect individual strokes and position letters relative to each other are called “topokinetic” and require visual motor integration. The opposite term is “morphokinetic,” movements producing the shapes of strokes and letters, which are produced proactively, using motor programs stored in memory (except in the case of inexperienced writers). E.g., Oxyrhynchos scribe A3 (Aeschylus; P.Oxy. 18.2161; Johnson 2009, 18–20; Turner and Parsons 1987, no. 24), P52, P.Schøyen 1.23 (Joshua). For official documents see, e.g., PSI 5.446 [1.25] (copy of a decree of a prefect; 133–137 CE); BGU 5.1210 (Gnomon of the Idios Logos; after 140 CE); 2.486 (II CE). For private documents see, e.g., P.Oxy. 46.3313 (II CE); P.Fay. 110 [2.91] (11 Sep 94 CE); SB 3.7268 (98–117 CE).

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

167

To extend this line of reasoning, the third class mentioned in the Edict (tabellanioni in scriptura libelli vel tabullarum/ἀγοραίοις γράφουσι λιβέλλα ἢ τάβλας), written by a notary for hire (tabellanionus/ἀγοραῖος),13 would include more cursive letter sequences, usually bigrams and trigrams. This joined-up style of writing would have been quicker, but less legible for the inexperienced reader. Combinations of letters, such as bigrams, are decided on as part of the motor program, usually respecting syllabic boundaries, but not always. Cursive writing is defined as letter combinations with strokes in common (ligatures), not including letters that simply touch but that have no strokes in common (pseudo-ligatures). In Greek writing, this usually means combinations of two and three letters (bigrams and trigrams), usually without whole words being “joined-up” (except in Verschleifung, “unarticulated, blurred, legato” writing).

Turner’s Apostrophe

Literature G.  Cavallo 2009, “Greek and Latin Writing in Papyri,” in *Bagnall 2009, 101–48; W. G. Claytor 2014, “Heron, Son of Satyrus: A Scribe in the Grapheion of Karanis,” ZPE 190:199–202; W. G. Claytor 2015, “Donkey Sales from the grapheion of Kerkesoucha,” ZPE 194:201–8; W.  Crönert 1903, Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (Leipzig: Teubner); E. B. Ebojo 2014, “A Scribe and his Manuscript: An Investigation into the Scribal Habits of Papyrus  46 (P.  Chester  Beatty II – P.  Mich. Inv. 6238)” (PhD Diss., University of Birmingham); S. Gathercole 2012, “The Earliest Manuscript Title of Matthew’s Gospel (BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3 / 4),” NT 54:227–34; B.  W.  Griffin 1996, “The Paleographical Dating of P-46” (Society of Biblical Literature: New Testament Textual Criticism Section, New Orleans), http://www.biblical-data.org/P-46%20Oct%201997.pdf; F.  G.  Kenyon 1899, The Palaeography of Greek Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon Press); P. Malik and L. Zelyck 2017, “Reconsidering the Date(s) of the Egerton Papyrus,” ZPE 204:55–71; B. Nongbri 2005, “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” HTR 98:23–48; B.  Nongbri 2014, “The Acquisition of the University of Michigan’s Portion of the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri and a New Suggested Provenance,” APF 60:103–12; S. Porter 2013, “Recent Efforts to Reconstruct Early Christianity on the Basis of its Papyrological Evidence,” in Christian Origins and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. idem and A. Pitts (Leiden: Brill) 71–84; R. Raganath et al. 2012, “Human Learning and Memory,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Cogntive Science, ed. K.  Frankish and W.  Ramsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 112–30; J. R. Royse 2008, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papryi, New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents (Leiden: Brill); *Turner 1977; G. Zuntz 1953, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

13

We know that sometimes grapheion documents were drawn up in the agora (Claytor 2015, 205).

168

Chapter 5

Paleography often seems, and sometimes is, a domain where the names of experts count more than the arguments and evidence itself, at least for the consumers of their expertise. There are several ways of approaching paleographical dating currently in use. The Oxyrhynchos Papyrus series now limits itself to stylistically comparable texts with a dated or datable document on the reverse when possible. The Comparative Method of Clarysse and Orsini (2012, 447–49), to name only two of the many prominent paleographers, follows the same system, but also attempts to distinguish stage of development of individual scripts, and hence their relative age, through seriation. The simpler version of both is to find a dated or datable example of a script that is closely comparable to the text in question (Nongbri 2005). The general approach common to all three is to compare the overall appearance of the scripts (the aspectus), and not to depend on individual graphic features too much, a reaction to the test letter method, and the alphabetic lists one sees in pre-war textbooks like F. Kenyon’s (Kenyon 1899). In terms of dating, it is conventional to add ± 25 years to any date to account for the working life of a scribe. This perhaps should be extended to 35 years to accommodate the longevity of some known scribes (Claytor 2014). This does not apply to certain dates, such as the termini post or ante quem provided by a dated side of a re-used papyrus, or historical dates like the introduction of the interconsonantal (C.’C) apostrophe after 180  CE, or information about the author’s work or lifetime (in the case of Julius Africanus’s Cestoi, see Nongbri 2018, 71). Nevertheless, paleographical analysis ultimately depends on graphic features. The problem lies in distinguishing which features are chronologically significant and which are not. Many graphic features are generic, and therefore of little significance when comparing two texts. Finally, what is implicit in any edition is the experience of the editor, both personal and collective (for behind any opinion are the conclusions of other experts who have been consulted). Since this sort of intuition cannot be made explicit, it remains elusive to the reader, who is left to proceed on trust. In the examples below, I want to show some instances where dating depends on graphic features in a way that can be explained historically, not assumed because of visual similarity only. Second, I include paratextual information, its materiality. Style is an important part of materiality (since it is a part of the text not easy to include in the transcript per se); paratextual information would include letter spacing and positioning, reading marks, etc. Until the publication of P.Köln  6.255, the Egerton Gospel (TM 63527, P.Egerton inv. 2) seemed safely assigned to the first half of the second century by a scholarly consensus (Malik and Zelyck 2017, 55–57). But an interconsonantal

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

Fig. 4

169

P.Köln 6.255.r.3 ανενεγ’κον : (P.Köln inv. 608), courtesy of Institut für Altertumskunde an der Universität zu Köln.

apostrophe (cod.verso14 → 21 ανενεγ’κον, see fig. 4) that turned up when a second fragment was found in Cologne required second thoughts. E. G. Turner’s rule of thumb that an apostrophe in an otherwise undated text (Turner and Parsons 1987, 108) which might be second or third century should prima facie be assigned to the third. For most, this has been sufficient to redate the papyrus to 200 CE or after, but not for all (Malik and Zelyck 2017, 57–58; Porter 2013, 71–84; Gathercole 2012, 229–30). A close examination of the evidence will show that this rule of thumb, although dated somewhat too late, generally has valid implications for dating papyri. The writing of the Egerton Gospel belongs to a late second-third century looped sub-set of Alexandrian style writing {α, μ, υ, ω} (Cavallo 2009, 129–31; Clarysse and Orsini 2012, 452, 458). This refers to a group of plainly written (εὔδηλα)15 scripts that share a basic morphology but differ in some details. One hints at a late second or third century date: alpha tilted upward. This accords Malik and Zelyck’s (2017, 63–64) recent extension of the date range into the third century. The hand is bilinear+16 ↓{Α, Κ, ρ}17 ↕{φ}. Beyond style, it is another part of the character set of P.Egerton inv. 2, specifically Turner’s apostrophe, that plays a decisive role in its dating. In addition to all the allographs and variants of the letter forms {α…ω}, this includes two lectional signs: tremata (cod.verso → 47 ϋπερ), and apostrophe between two consonants at a syllabic boundary (C’.C: cod.verso→ 21: ανενεγ’κον). In addition, there is the mark of abbreviation over the usual nomina sacra: θ̅ϲ ̅ θ(εό)ϲ, θ̅υ̅ θ(εο)ῦ, ι̅η̅ ᾿Ιη(ϲοῦϲ), κ̅ϲ ̅ κ(υριό)ϲ, μ̅ ω̅ μω(υϲήϲ), π̅ ρα̅ ̅ π(ατέ)ρα, as well as some idiosyncratic abbreviations.18 Finally, space is deliberately left blank between words {v}: cod.verso→ 1 αυτονv Ε[, and a mark of punctuation, {·} cod.recto↓ 8 14

The terms “recto” and “verso” have been used traditionally, and archivally still, as the equivalent of → (script running with the fibers) and ↑ (script running against the fibers). This poses a problem for the terminology of the papyrus codex, as here, when the trad. recto (→) page is in fact codicologically verso and vice versa. 15 For the use of this term to mean “legible” see P.Oxy. 8.1100 [1.24] (28 Oct–26 Nov 206 CE). 16 “Bilinear +” indicates any bilinear hand with more non-bilinear elements than ↕{φ, ψ}. 17 “A, K” display (enlarged) letters. 18 β̅αλ̅ ̅ ε̅υ̅ϲι̅ ν̅ ̅ βα(ϲιλ)εῦϲιν, η̅ ϲα̅ ϲ̅ ̅ Ἠϲα(ΐ)ϲ, ε̅π̅ρο̅ φ ̅ ̅ ϲε̅ ν̅ ̅ ἐπροφ(ήτευ)ϲεν, π̅ ρο̅ φ ̅ ̅ αϲ̅ ̅ προφ(ήτ)αϲ.

170

Chapter 5

γραφας· vεν. Of these, the most significant is the use of the interconsonantal (C’.C) apostrophe, which places P.Köln 6.225 within an absolute chronological sequence. Before the third century, or better, before 180 CE, apostrophes were primarily found in literary texts, poetry for the most part, but some stylized prose as well (e.g., Demosthenes). In papyri of the Roman period (I–III CE), apostrophe has four uses: to mark elision (μεθ’ ολιγον) or, rarely, apheresis (οτου’γκλειν), to mark a syllabic boundary between two consonants (Οξυρυγ’χων, φιλ’τατω) or a word boundary (Φαμενωθ’).19

Fig. 5

Use of interconsonantal apostrophe by imperial reign.

Suffice it to say here: The number of pre-201 CE interconsonantal (C’.C) apostrophes has been under-counted. Gathercole (2012, 229) lists five, of which two are wrong, but a search in papyri.info yielded 20 distinct examples (see n. 92). These results point to very desultory use before the death of Marcus Aurelius 19 CPR 15.3.5 (11  CE): αλ’λωι; P.Turner 17.2 (69  CE): Οξυρυγ’χω̣ν̣; SB 18.13782.16–17 (98– 138  CE): [ἰσιον|’[τος?] (read εἰσ-); P.Lond. 3.1170.r.614 (p.  92) (ca. 144  CE): Παθαγ’γέλου; P.Köln 5.229.36 (178 CE): Μετ’τίου; P.Wisc. 1.13.1 (before 180 CE): Ὀξυρύγ’χων; CPR 17B.7.11 ̣ (184/185  CE): [     ̣   ]̣ αγ̣’γ̣[---]; P.Petaus 86.11 (final version, P.Mich. inv. 6873; 184/185  CE): ἀγ’γήων; P.Mich. 11.623.4 (188–190 CE): φιλ’τάτῳ; SB 16.12239.10 (192 CE): παργ’γείλας; BGU 2.627.1.15 (192–200 CE): Ἀπύγ’χεως; SB 14.11342.11 (193 CE): ἐπενέγ’κωσι; P.Ryl. 2.116.1 (194 CE): ἐγ’κλήματος; P.Turner 26.12 (195–198 CE): ἐγ’γόνων; P.Rain.Cent. 63.14 (198 CE): εγ’γ[υ]ητοῦ; PSI 13.1357.v.13 (197–200 CE): πα̣ραγ’γελλειν̣; P.Wash.Univ. 1.4.12 (198–200 CE): εἰσήνεγ’κεν; P.Marm. r, col. 11, lines 17, 19, 33; col. 12, line 8 (ca. 206–215  CE): Μιτ’τάχις, Μιτ’τιχί[ωνος].

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

171

in 180 CE, increasing usage under Commodus and then rapid growth under Septimius Severus (193–211 CE) and after (see fig. 5). So far, these results would partially justify claims that TM 63527 (P.Egerton inv. 2), and P4, P46, P66 etc. might date from the second century, if we mean the first eight years of the reign of Septimius Severus, maybe beginning as early as 180 CE. As a terminus post quem, Turner’s “200 CE” is a stylistic not a historical date, and was never intended to be; it is conventional to represent the phases of a stylistic sequence (“early-middle-late”) chronologically with round numbers. But in principle, Turner, and Crönert (1903) before him, were right to point to a phenomenon of such fundamental importance. Accepting the later date leaves us with questions to answer about the cogency of paleographical reasoning. The similarities between PSI 5.446 [1.25] (133– 137  CE) and TM 63527 (P.Egerton inv. 2) that impressed Cavallo cannot be understood to tether the two chronologically (Cavallo 2005, 183–85),20 if the interconsonantal (C.’C) apostrophe in the Cologne fragment is taken into account. In fact, Cavallo’s only mistake was in failing to cast his net more broadly for comparative forms, in light of the recently proposed third century comparanda (Malik and Zelyck 2017, 62–63). It would seem official scripts were more static than has been thought. Malik and Zelyck (2017, 63) re-assess the date range rather broadly to 150–250 CE because they discount the evidence of the interconsonantal (C.’C) apostrophe (TM now dates it to 250–299 CE). The provenance of P46 is unknown, since it was purchased from a dealer, not excavated (Nongbri 2014, 103–112). As an excerpt, I present here the upper half of P.Mich. inv. 6238 preserving Heb 1:1–2 (see fig. 6).

Fig. 6

20

P.Mich. inv. 6238, part of P46, Heb 1:1–2; courtesy of courtesy of The University of Michigan Special Collections Library. “The first signs of this script [Alexandrian majuscule] appear in the second century gospel-codex of P.Egerton 2” (Cavallo, 2009, 11129; Cavallo 2005).

172

Chapter 5 ϲτιχ Α προϲ vεβραιουϲ πολυvμερωϲvκαι πολυτροπωϲ παλαι vοθ̅ϲv̅ λαληϲαϲ τοιϲ πατραϲιν \ημων/ εν τοιϲ προφηταιϲv επ εϲχατου των ημερων τουτωνv ελαληϲεν ημεινv εν υιωv ον εθηκενv κληρονομον παντω(ν)

Two things are noteworthy about this portion of text paratextually. First, the way the text skews downward left to right as the scribe used prominent horizontal fibers as a guideline. Notice for example the way the lines straighten out after the kollesis (join of two papyrus sheets) along the right margin. Second, the number of times the scribe leaves spaces between letters between words (προφηταιϲv επ, τουτωνv ελαληϲεν, ημεινv εν, υιωv ον εθηκενv), before and after an abbreviation (vοθ̅ϲv̅ ), and within unfamiliar words (πολυvμερωϲ). Once, this occurs where modern editors punctuate before a relative clause (ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν) and between verses (ἐν τοῖϲ προφηταῖϲ | ἐπ’ ἐϲχάτου). Also notice how the title and the first letter of each line is written in larger letters (display text) than the rest of the text. Two additions are made in two distinct hands: ϲτίχ(οι) Α “1000 stichoi (lines)”, and the mistaken correction: τοῖϲ πατράσιν \ἡμῶν/ above the line, which is discussed below. This Alexandrian21 script is an unlooped variety, with some bookish additions: Y-form upsilon, rho seldom descends below the baseline Schwendner 2020, 114). The first letter of the line is often a little offset from the rest of the line, and sometimes written a bit larger. The line spacing is remarkably loose. The space between lines (leading) is 2.91 of bilinear height. This amount of “white space” is more typical of particular kinds of documents than books, with the exception of some copies of the LXX. The scribe either seems to have been aiming to increase readability or was simply more used to formatting documents than books. Or perhaps they were following the pattern of their exemplar. Concerning the text of Heb 1:1, the mistaken addition of ἡμῶν (in the phrase τοῖς πατράσιν \ἡμῶν/) by the corrector (hand 2, h2) no doubt occurred under the influence of the common phrase in LXX, either because the corrector was familiar with it or because it was in his exemplar. In terms of interference theory of memory this is called proactive interference: the older memory of the phrase τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν altered the working memory of the transfer unit, τοῖς πατράσιν per se (Raganath et al. 2012, 212).

21

For a selection of 54 digital images of P46, visit https://viewer.cbl.ie/ and enter “BP II” as search term.

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

173

The fact of a corrector does not necessarily imply that P46 is the product of a kalligrapheion (pace Zuntz 1953, 253). More likely it was produced by a private network. Sidonius, for example, worked together with a bookseller (bybliopola) to write and correct a copy of the Heptateuch in Latin (Sidonius, Epistula 5.15). Maybe P46 was produced or corrected in the same way by a member of a local elite, someone with the means and leisure to do it. The lower limit of the date of P46 is partly established by the use of an interconsonantal apostrophe (C.’C), the Turner apostrophe, which is uncommon before 180 CE, and this should be taken as the terminus post quem. Earlier datings are improbable. The reason for its relative rarity in this papyrus is open to speculation, though its affect on the date is not. Was the exemplar of Hebrews a more recent copy than the rest of the manuscript? Or was this sort of apostrophe new to our scribe, and so, used only tentatively? There is a surprising unanimity that the main text of P46 was written around 200 CE but beyond the intuitive judgments of eminent scholars past and present there is little dated evidence to base this on. The closest we have is Griffin’s (1996) comparison to P.Oxy. 42.3030, an official letter from a royal scribe dated 6 June 207 CE, which seems to be more of a foundation script22 than a practiced style. In terms of the graphic stream of Alexandrian styles, P46 is thought to lie stylistically between P.Schøyen 1.23 (Joshua), 2.26 (Leviticus; both 180– 225 CE),23 and P66 (200–250 CE). The problem with this sort of relative chronology is that the dates that we attach to it are only notional. Fortunately, we have the corroborating evidence of h2, the first corrector, who also wrote the pagination (Royse 2008, 217). F. Kenyon (in (P.Beatty 3 suppl., p. xv) thought that the corrections in P46 were too small to help in dating. G. Cavallo (2005, 184) disagreed, concluding (without specific argument or illustration) that they could be dated no later than the middle of the third century, providing a terminus ante quem for production of the codex. With the help of documentary papyri, the writing of h2 is easier to date than the hand of the main text because it is less self-consciously bookish, and therefore less conservative; it belongs to the late second-third century looped sub-set of rounded Alexandrian style writing {α,24 μ, υ, ω}. Of special interest here is the way mu and omega float above the baseline in, for example, ἡμῶν (Heb 1:1b, μα⸍). This subset of “floating” letters {μ, ο, ω} in 22 23 24

Foundation script is a term used for the style of lettering learners are taught first. The date given in LDAB for both these texts, written by the same scribe, is 175–225 CE, but since both use the interconsonantal (C.’C) apostrophe, a date after 180 CE is much more probable. See especially page numbers οα (see fig. 6), πα, ϙα, ρα, ρια, ρλα, ρξα, and the insertion φοραϲ.

174

Chapter 5

a round hand begins to appear already in 150 CE (P.Oxy. 50.3559) but is more common after 184  CE (P.Amh. 2.78), persisting into the third century (BGU 1.244, 260–268 CE). How does this affect the communis opinio that P46 dates to around 200 CE? It corroborates the terminus post quem of 180 CE established by the use of the interconsonantal (C.’C) apostrophe, since the earliest graphic parallels for h2 also begin in the reign of Commodus (180–192 CE). The example most similar to h2 seems to come from the reign of Septimius Severus, for example, P.Oxy. 51.3614 (200 CE),25 although a date as late as Gallienus is not improbable (e.g., BGU 1.244, 260–268 CE). Since h2 must either be coincident with or postdate the production of the codex, both were probably written between 180 and 211  CE (+  25 or 35 years),26 with a lesser probability that both were written between 180 and 268 CE (+25 or 35 years).

Plain Writing

Literature Z. Aly and L. Koenen 1980, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy: A Photographic Edition prepared in collaboration with the International Photographic Archive of the Association Internationale de Papyrologues, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen  27 (Bonn: Habelt); M.  Butterick 2013, Practical Typography sv. “Line spacing,” accessed from https://practicaltypography.com; G.  Cavallo 2008, La scrittura Graeca e Latina dei papiri (Pisa: Fabrizio Serra); W.  A.  Johnson 2004, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Studies in Book and Print Culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).

Plain writing in documents is often used in private letters, petitions, or extracts from trial records. By the term “plain” (εὔδηλα γράμματα) I mean plainly legible, not styleless foundation lettering:27 a script more at home in a document than a book, writtten with minimal connections between letters. Although true cursive (typically bigrams and trigrams, not completely joined up) may have been faster, writing in cursive required more practice, and was less legible to the untrained. Apart from documents, this type of writing is also 25 26

27

Compare the ημων in line 4 with the ημων of Heb 1:1 in P46 (see fig. 6). A digital image of P.Oxy. 51.3614 is accessible at https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21174289.v1. A scribe who learned to write by 211 could be expected to maintain the same writing style throughout his working life. Scribes of course could have quite long working lives, sometimes, 35 years or more: see the case of the hypographeus Heron son of Satyros at Karanis or Sagathes son of Areios at Tebtynis in Claytor 2014. See also p. 168. Cf. p. 173 n. 22.

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

175

sometimes used for high literature (Aeschylus, e.g., P.Oxy. 18.2161), and pseudodocumentary writing, such as epistolary novels (PSI 12.1285.v), mimetic trial proceedings (Acta Alexandrinorum, e.g., P.Oxy. 25.2435), and published letters generally, such as the Corpus Paulinum (P46). By extension, this convention (representing a book as a collection of actual letters) might have been extended to other Christian literary forms, such as the gospels. Theoretically, the use of this style in Christian books can be divided into three groups: 1. First century copies, none of which are extant, 2. a few second century copies, which can be directly related to second century documentary practice, 3. third century copies, which imitate second/first century practices, but which are known to be dated after 180 CE from internal dating indications, such as the interconsonantal apostrophe (C.’C). If we think about paleographic styles as sets of characters with similar graphic features, the Alexandrian stylistic classification would be an uncertain, or fuzzy set. Membership in a classic set is a binary condition: either 0 (out) or 1 (in). Fuzzy sets (~), on the other hand, are non-binary; members of the set may qualify for the conditions of membership anywhere on a scale between low (.1) or high (.9) as well as totally out (0) or in (1). a) The set of looped letters typical of Alexandrian Stylistic Class, {α, η.5, μ, υ, ω} are not distributed evenly among all relevant texts. In the Egerton Gospel, for example, upsilon does not have a looped form (always in two distinct strokes divided by a pen lift: υ = s1, s2),28 and mu is only partially looped (μ=s1,s2+s3).29 So, we could define the degree to which TM 63527 (P.Egerton inv. 2) uses looped letters in the style of Alexandrian Stylistic Class by the formula ℓEG = {α, η, μ.5, ω}, 3.5/5 = 0.7.30 PSI 5.446 [1.25], by contrast, would be scored 5/5 {α, η, μ, υ, ω}, or 1.0, since it typifies this aspect of the class. b) Looped letters ( forme occhiellate), that is, forms that replace one or all of the internal pen lifts with loops: ℓ = {α, η, μ, υ, ω} are a functional subset of Alexandrian writing, rather than a purely stylistic one. I call this subset “functional” because it makes handwriting simpler once the skill has been mastered. That is, writing with a calamus required the use of downstrokes as much as possible, different from a stylus on a wax tablet, which can be moved up or 28 29

s1…2 indicates stroke one…two; comma indicates pen lift. s1…2 indicates stroke one…two; comma indicates pen lift, + indicates connecting loop in place of a pen lift. 30 ℓ indicates looped characters, EG is TM 63527 (P.Egerton inv. 2), μ.5 indicates s[troke]1, s2+s3 where: , indicates pen lift and + indicates loop.

176

Chapter 5

down equally easily. Making a loop required an upward movement of the pen tip that is easier to accomplish with a sharper point and would require practice. This type of character could be written more quickly because if the letter form is made by a continuous sequence of strokes, a graphic motor program in memory can do the work, allowing the writer to pre-plan the next strokesequence. If the letter form is made in separate strokes, after each pen lift the attention of the writer is needed to reposition the pen for the next stroke. An important point of comparison for writing in this sub-class (ℓAlex.) are texts writtetn by Oxyrhynchos scribe A3, assigned by Lobel to the second century. The looped style of P52 comes into fashion in the time of Hadrian, between 120 and 130 CE although certain features of its script should be dated somewhat later (Cavallo 2005; Cavallo 2008). Only a few valid generalizations are possible given the small size of P52. The lettering is more round than angular, relatively tall and bilinear. Lectional signs: space between letters acts as punctuation (2 cod.recto→ ουδεναv ϊνα, 3 cod.recto→ ει]πενvϲημαινω[, 8 cod.verso ↓ εμονv ϊνα), tremata over intial iota (1 cod.recto→ ϊουδαιοι, 2 cod.recto→ ϊνα, 8 cod.verso ↓ ϊνα).31

Fig. 7

TM 61495 (London, British Library Add MS 34186) [1.26], tablet with school exercise (detail), arrows indicating bilinear height (left) and line spacing (right); courtesy of The British Library.

Space between lines (leading) is measured between consecutive baselines (Butterick 2013, s.v. “line spacing”) expressed as a percent of the bilinear height (usually the height of a tau or an alpha; cf. fig. 7). This differs sightly from contemporary typography, where the height of all letters is measured, not just the x-height. The line spacing in P52 is 220% of bilinear height. By contrast, the line spacing of Oxyrhynchos scribe A3 is about 200% of bilinear height (P.Oxy. 31

It is notable that two of the three spaces precede tremata, and so may reflect the scribe leaving space for it rather than a pause before a subordinate clause.

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

177

18.2161), like P66. This puts it closer to certain documentary styles, such as official documents (e.g., BGU 20.2863; P.Oxy. 17.2111) and private correspondence (e.g., P.Oxy. 49.3504) in which space between lines (leading) sometimes can be 280% of bilinear height or greater, like the Esther papyrus (P.Oxy. 65.4443). Two other Jewish texts have similar formatting: the Minor Prophets scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (Hev XII gr) and P.Fouad inv. 266 (TM 62289, 62290, and 62292).32 Were these scribes trying to maximize readability, or were they just more accustomed to formatting documents than books? Or does the formatting simply indicate the format of an exemplar reflecting a Jewish tradition? In P46, there is a wide range of line spacings and line heights, so different from the sort of regularity Johnson (2004, 56–58, 83–84) describes for professional book rolls. In general, the Oxyrhynchos A3 scribe writing is more practiced, meaning the letter size is more uniform than in P52.

Book Hands (Type I)

Literature G. Cavallo 1967, Ricerche sulla maiuscola biblica, Studi e testi di papirologia 2 (Florence: Le Monnier); W. Harmless 2004, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press); E. Kwakkel 2018, “Book Script,” in The European Book in the Twelfth Century, ed. idem and R. Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 25–42; P.  Orsini 2019, Studies on Greek and Coptic Majuscule Scripts and Books, Studies in Manuscript Cultures 15 (Berlin: De Gruyter); G. Schwendner 2009, “A Fragmentary Psalter from Karanis and Its Context,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, ed. C.  A.  Evans and H.  D.  Zacharias, SSEJC 13; LSTS 70 (London: T&T Clark), 117–136, 311–12; G. Schwendner 2021, “Scribal Process and Cognitive Philology,” in Observing the Scribe at Work: Scribal Practice in the Ancient World, ed. R. Ast et al., OLA 301 (Leuven: Peeters), 325–46.

Biblical Majuscule, formerly known as Biblical Uncial, is a relatively rare style of writing. It is difficult to date, as most formal bookhands (Type I) are. It is written in a self-consciously conservative way, excluding most idosyncracy or personal innovation. The considerable attention paid to this kind of writing by Cavallo and Orsini has given us this fundamental stylistic chronology (Cavallo 1967; Orsini 2019). 1. Formation of the “canon” i.e. the structure, proportions, and stroke contrast. 2. The canon is consolidated and reaches maturity (or its peak). 3. A decline.

32

Aly and Koenen 1980: first century BCE formal round capitals; strictly bilinear.

178

Fig. 8

Chapter 5

Stylistic life cycle of Biblical Majuscule.

The graph in fig. 8 shows what the stylistic quality of biblical majuscule might look like expressed as a fashion curve. Although this graph represents the process as a chronology, as if the x-axis (Time) were a constant, it is in general an open question whether seriation of this sort can be applied to handwriting. Nevertheless Cavallo’s descriptive technique is the best tool we have for categorizing hands of this sort. This “life cycle” metaphor (fashion cycle might be a better one) begs a prior question: whether handwriting style is typified by continuity or change over time. This is in essence Nongbri’s criticism of the assumption that, if a set of graphic features (gf{α…ω}) are similar between two papyri (a and b), then the time (t) each was written would be similar also: (gfa ~ gfb →ta ~ tb ) (Nongbri 2018, 85). This critique is apropos of conservative bookhands in particular, where linking stylistic to chronological changes is especially problematic. The assumption finds its best support in documentary papyri because they are often dated or datable, or quasi-documentary writing (such as the Acta Alexandrinorum, or Romance, or even early Christian texts). Abrupt stylistic shifts resulting from administrative changes can be identified (Hadrian, Septimius Severus). There is also a general shift from round to angular features at the end of the second century, both for informal and formal handwriting. This change in Egypt seems to coincide with the end of the Antonine plague in 180 CE. But at the core of Nongbri’s objection is the well-known tendancy of human thinking to see random, unrelated events and combine them into a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. This is how we make sense of the world, of course, but also the way we see patterns where there are none.

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

179

The stucture of biblical majuscule is a contrast between a few round forms (ε, θ, ο, ϲ, ω, ρ) and angular ones, especially α, μ, υ that in earlier styles were rounded. Epsilon tends to be less rounded, as in Severan Chancery. The thick/ thin shading of letters depends on the nib being cut in such a way that produced wide vertical downstrokes and narrow horizontals. This is a particularly important point to distinguish between the initial style (no consistent thick/ thin contrast), the mature style (an amount of thick/thin contrast judged to be ideal), and the decadent style (where the amount of thick/thick contrast is considered excessive). This aesthetic component approach goes beyond an objective assessment of similarity/difference, but gives these qualities a temporal, developmental significance. Evagrius of Pontus, a leading figure among Origenists at Scetis in the late fourth century, is said to have earned his living there as a copyist because he could write “the Oxyrhynchos style” elegantly (Palladius, Lausiac History 38.10). We know of no such style attaching to the place Oxyrhynchos, but it is possible that the fish of the same name (Egyptian medjed, genus mormyridae) is meant instead, because of its resemblance in profile to the letter alpha in fourth century book hands (see fig. 9). The remark is in line with the observation that biblical majuscule is a relatively rare bookhand (2% of the survey of P.Oxy. book hands published since 1940). Fig. 9 Left: Oxyrhynchos fish (medjed); middle: alpha in fourth century book hand; right: overlap.

Codex Sinaiticus (see fig. 10) is dated by Cavallo to 360  CE, year 37/38 of Constantius II reign, based on the degree of graphic refinement in writing technique. It should be obvious that this is a theoretical date, not a historical one. The date generally is associated with Constantine’s order for Eusebius to produce 50 bibles of 331, year 25/26 of Constantine I, year 7/8 of Constantius II (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 4.36). In any event, it is probably safe to call 331 the terminus post quem for the production of bibles like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Orsini (2019, 75) dates both to the second half of the fourth century, roughly, sometime after the death of Constantine in 338 but before the accession of Theodosius II in 402.

180

Fig. 10

Chapter 5

Codex Sinaiticus (London, British Library Add MS 43725), 01, quire 80, folio 6 recto, John 8:15–17,33 courtesy of The British Library.

The writing style here is more pointed than examples on papyri generally, the distinction between thick and thin strokes more noticeable. Some of this may be down to material factors: the smoother writing surface of vellum, and its greater reflective properties, rendering images of it clear and sharp in detail that is seldom true for papyrus images. The lineation is straighter than on many papyri because guidelines were sometimes scored into the vellum, and because of the absence of misleading horizontal fibers. The narrow column width would improve readability at the word level, as above. The text of Sinaiticus, and even more so Vaticanus, is better punctuated than most literary papyri besides Homer, although the writer of this section does not distinguish between a middle and a high point. Other lectional signs signaled word separation, notably here the use of tremata (diaereses: πουϋπαγω, followed by ϋ|μιϲ and ϋ|μειϲ). Supralinear strokes are the usual abbreviation for a nu at line-end (τη̅ ), as well as indicating nomina sacra. A mistake in 15.b (την αρ-κα for την ϲαρ-κα) is corrected with a tiny sigma. 33 καν εγω μαρτυρω | περι εμαυτου· αλη|θηϲ εϲτιν η μαρ|τυρια μου· οτι οι|δα ποθεν ηλθον·| και που ϋπαγω ϋ|μιϲ ουκ οιδαται | ποθεν ερχομαι | και που ὑπαγω ϋ|μειϲ κατά την ϲαρ|κα κρινετε εγω.

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

181

Fig. 11 TM 128586 (P.Mich. inv. 5475 c; ed. Schwendner 2009), Karanis, courtesy of The University of Michigan Special Collections Library.

Almost uniquely among Christian book remains from the third century, TM 128586 (P.Mich. inv. 5475 c; see fig. 11) comes from a known archaeological context, excavated along with other papyri and ostraca in building C-87 at Karanis in Egypt (Schwendner 2009). The Psalter fragments are one of several second century book fragments, which are consistent with education: oratory (Demosthenes), history (Herodotus), poetry (Callimachus). It was a standard feature of monastic worship, and written in biblical majuscule, a large script that would have made public reading easier. The writing itself may be attributed to the first phase of Biblical majuscular style. There is little variation in line width: the pen left thicker strokes when drawn vertically than horizontally. Omicron shows no thick/thin contrast so apparent in the mature form of the style. The written objects found in C-87 and its immediate environs belong to two groups: papyrus fragments from the first half of the third century, and ostraca mostly from the time of Constantine. If we group the Psalter fragment with the papyri fragments, it fits Cavallo’s hypothesis (Orsini 2019, 57–59); if we group it with the ostraca and the Aurelius Isidorus papyrus archive (TM Arch 34) of the same date (see below), it suits the hypothesis less well. The papyrus fragments from C-87 are the following (in chronological order): – August/September 207 CE, slave registration (P.Mich. 9.546); – before 212 CE, declaration of a Roman soldier’s property (P.Mich. 9.542); – 2  July  237  CE, petition complaining of the assignment of liturgies (SB 12.10797); rescript SB 14.11875;

182

Chapter 5

– 253–256 CE, list of pack animals (SB 24.15884); – 265–266 CE, receipt for delivery in kind (SB 24.15878); – 271/272 CE, official correspondence (SB 22.15777). We know little of Christianity in Karanis before Constantine, when we hear an anecdote of a monk intervening in an affray involving Aurelius Isidorus in 324 CE (P.Col. 7.171). Christian or possibly Christian names are found in documents at that time such as Paulos, Ioannes, and Elias (Elijah). But the possibility remains that this fragment is much older, since it may have lost one of its leaves in the first half of the third century. This may also have been discarded much later of course, during the generation of Aurelius Isidorus, for example. Most of the ostraca from this part of the site are related prosopographically to that archive. Either way, we cannot be sure when the codex was written, since we cannot know how long the codex, or this part of it, was in use, or when it was discarded. This leaves us with two possible end-dates: more probably the first half of the third century, or the first two decades of the fourth century.

“Transitional” from Severe Style to Upright Ogival

Written with a pointed pen/nib, therefore there is no thick/thin contrast, this transitional style (Clarysse and Orsini 2012, 457) seems better suited to small text like this (leptogrammos; see fig. 12). No guidelines are visible; the ink is not absorbed well on the hair side (due to poor preparation?). Blank space is left for punctuation (b) and sometimes for nomina sacra (a). The script is angular but not slanted, formal, with only a few rounded features: {ε, θ, ο, ϲ, ω}, ↓{ρ, τ, υ}, and ↕{φ}.

Severe Style

As illustrated here by BKT 6.2.1 (see fig. 13), the Severe Style (Σ) is typified by narrow {ε, θ, ο, ϲ}, omicron being small and floating above the baseline, contrasted with wide letters: {α, δ, λ, μ, ν, τ}. Vertical strokes are slanted between 24–28º forward (18º for nu), ↓{β, κ, ρ}, ↕{φ}. The Severe Style is used in the second and third centuries and into the fourth—hence this papyrus is dated very generally third-fourth century (201–400 CE). The broad date range is typical of what one might find among undated papyri in any large collection. The Severe Style for example was in use over

The Practices of Ancient Scribes

183

Fig. 12

TM 61697 (P.Berol. inv. 11765), 0189, page 2, excavated in Hermopolis 1929–1939; (a) blank space left for nomen sacrum and (b) for punctuation; courtesy of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz.

Fig. 13

BKT 6.2.1 (P.Berol. inv. 5513), Hermae Pastor (The Shepherd of Hermas), courtesy of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz.

a long period, and is highly stylized, although it is relatable to documentary writing of the third century because of its angularity, and a few examples of documents written in the same way, for example, P.Oxy. 22.2341 (202 CE; Del Corso 2006, 98–99; Roberts 1956, 18–19).34 34

For a digital image, see https://doi.org/10.25446/oxford.21163927.v1.

184

Chapter 5

The paleography of early Christian texts has been criticized in recent years for its subjective nature, or more precisely, for its intuitive process. Narrowly conceived, it could hardly be otherwise. By including a broader perspective, by including, that is, documentary and classical texts, and comparative fields such as typography, cognitive science, and medieval paleography we can help make the conclusions of experts more understandable through explicit argumentation.

Chapter 6

The “Egyptian Question” or: Is Egypt Relevant for the New Testament? Literature C. Ando 2006, “The Administration of the Provinces,” in A Companion to the Roman Empire, ed. D.  S.  Potter, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World (Carlton: Blackwell), 177–92; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 50–56; *Bagnall 2011; *Cavallo 1998; *Cohen 2016; H. M. Cotton, W. E. H. Cockle, and F. G. B. Millar 1995, “The Papyrology of the Roman Near East: A Survey,” JRS 85:214–35; *Crisci 1996; *Gagos and Potter 2006, 60–63; *Fournet 2021a; D.  P.  Kehoe 1992, Management and Investment on Estates in Roman Egypt during the Early Empire, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen  40 (Bonn: Habelt); N. Lewis 1970, “‘Greco-Roman Egypt’: Fact or Fiction?,” in PapCongr. 12:3–14; N.  Lewis 1984, “The Romanity of Roman Egypt: A Growing Consensus,” in PapCongr. 17:1077–84; D. W. Rathbone 1989, “The Ancient Economy and Graeco-Roman Egypt,” in Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’etá araba: Bilancio di un confronto: Atti del Colloquio Internazionale, Bologna, 31 agosto–2 settembre 1987, ed. L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci (Bologna: CLUEB), 159–76.

A question frequently asked by students and scholars is: If the papyri are mostly from Egypt, are these sources relevant for other provinces of the Roman Empire? This has been called “The Egyptian Question” (*Gagos and Potter 2006, 60). With regard to New Testament studies and the focus of this series, one might also ask: Are these sources relevant for comparison with texts from the New Testament that were most likely not written in Egypt? In recent decades, new discoveries and the contributions of scholars in papyrology and other disciplines of ancient studies have been essential in demonstrating that the “time when scholars dogmatically insisted that Roman Egypt was unique and therefore excluded its evidence from attempts to reconstruct practice elsewhere” (Ando 2006, 178–79) are over. To a large extent, the differences between Egypt and other provinces are a matter of “chance or randomness” to be put “in a position secondary to and dependent on the processes that created the fundamental conditions of survival or disappearance of texts on papyrus and other organic materials” (*Bagnall 2011, 28; cf. Rathbone 1989). The Egyptian evidence is outstanding simply because the perishable writing materials were able to survive for millennia in the arid conditions, and in exceptionally large numbers. However, the papyri from Egypt are not the only source to offer the possibility of tracing the everyday practices of Roman administration, economy, trade, and private life, as findings from almost all other regions of the empire demonstrate.

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790418_007

186

Chapter 6

In the following, we present a selection of documents preserved on papyrus, leather, parchment, potsherds, and tablets found outside Egypt, as well as those written outside Egypt but found in Egypt. Due to the focus of this series, we primarily mention documents written before the fourth century CE.

The Roman East and Beyond the Frontier

Literature A. Bernini 2018, “Un riconoscimento di debito redatto a Colonia Aelia Capitolina,” ZPE 206:183–93; A.  Dreliosi-Herakleidou and N.  Litinas 2009–2011, “Ροδιακό όστρακο με ερωτικό επίγραμμα,” Eulimene 10–12:135–155; I. F. Fikhman 1994, “La papyrologie et les collections de papyrus en Israel,” in PapCongr. 20, 540–49; J.-L. Fournet 2021b, “Le papyrus trouvé le plus à l’est: Le papyrus d’Aï Khanoum en Afghanistan,” in *Fournet 2021a, 55, fig. 43; J.  Gascou 2009, “The Papyrology of the Near East,” in *Bagnall 2009, 473–94; G. Geiger 2019, Die Handschriften aus der Judäischen Wüste: Die Texte außerhalb Qumrans – Einführung und deutsche Übersetzung, FSBP 9 (Berlin: De Gruyter); G.  Iovine 2019, “Unpublished Latin Papyri from Dura-Europos at the Beinecke Library,” BASP 56:95–116; L. Koenen 1996, “The Carbonized Archive from Petra,” JRA 9:177–88; J. D. Lerner 2003, “The Aï Khanoum Philosophical Papyrus,” ZPE 142:45–51; E. H. Minns 1915, “Parchments of the Parthian Period from Avroman in Kurdistan,” JHS 35:22–65, Tafel I–III; C. Rapin, P. Hadot, and G. Cavallo 1987, “Les textes littéraires grecs de la Trésorerie d’Aï Khanoum,” BCH 111:225–66; E. Tov 1999, “The Papyrus Fragments Found in the Judean Desert,” in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, ed. J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin, BETL 144 (Leuven: Leuven University Press), 247–55; E.  Tov 2002, The Texts from the Judaean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series, DJD 39 (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Significant quantities of papyri and ostraca have been found in Israel and other areas of the Levant. Qumran is best known for the many leather scrolls found in the caves, among them the earliest testimonies to the Hebrew Bible. Less than a hundred papyri account for only 13 percent of the texts found, and of the 21 Greek papyri, only a few small fragments are presumably documentary, with just one unambiguously classified, as an account (4Q350; cf. Tov 1999; Tov 2002, 215). Other excavations in the Judean Desert, however, have unearthed numerous documentary papyri which shed light on Jewish daily life during the Roman occupation. Among the papyri and ostraca from Masada (P.Masada) is the oldest private Greek letter written by a Jew, SB 24.15988 [1.40] (before spring 73 or 74 CE). In the “Cave of Letters” in Naḥal Ḥever, the archives of two Jewish women, Babatha and Salome Komaïse (TM Arch  41 and 207), have been excavated. The documents, published as P.Yadin 1 and 2 as well as P.Hever 60–65, include the Greek registration of Babatha’s four palm groves (P.Yadin 1.16, after 4 Dec 127 CE), her Greek/Aramaic marriage contract

The “Egyptian Question”

187

(P.Yadin 1.18, 5 Apr 128 CE), and Salome’s Greek marriage contract (P.Hever 65, 7  Aug  131  CE). Most of the more than 140 papyri, parchments, and ostraca found at Murabba’ât (TM Geo 2802; P.Murabba‘ât) are dated to the mid-second century CE; about half of them are written in Greek, including accounts and also the fragment of a trial record (P.Murabba‘ât 113). Smaller finds come from Jericho, Naḥal Mishmar, and Naḥal Ṣe’elim (all published in P.Jud.Des.Misc.). A Latin papyrus preserving a Roman soldier’s acknowledgment of a debt, TM 69890 (ed. Bernini 2018), was written on 11 May 141 CE in Jerusalem (Colonia Aelia Capitolina) but found in Egypt.1 Dating from the second or third centuries CE are the numerous papyri and parchments found at Dura-Europos in Syria (TM Geo  604; see P.Dura and Iovine 2019), almost all written in Greek or Latin, including letters, military reports, guard rosters, deeds of sale, loans, judicial proceedings, a marriage contract (P.Dura 30), and two divorce contracts (P.Dura 31 and 32). A mutual distribution, P.Dura 19, is even dating back to 88/89 CE. Amazingly well preserved Greek, Greek/Latin, and Greek/Syriac documents preserved on papyrus, leather, or parchment come from Appadana (TM Geo 4091), including petitions (P.Euphrates 1–5; 20), slave sale contracts (P.Euphrates 6–9), the cancellation of a loan (P.Euphrates 14), and two letters (P.Euphrates 16–17), all written in the period 232–256 CE.2 Some 60 papyrus fragments in Greek and Palmyrene, probably dating from the late second or early third century, had been found in the Tower of Kitot in Palmyra and stored in the local Museum (Cotton, Cockle, and Millar 1995, 219), but the museum was looted by ISIS terrorists in 2015 before the papyri could be published. The slave sale contract Ch.L.A. 3.200 (24 May 166 CE) was written at Seleukeia Pieria (TM Geo 2110) but found in the Fayum in Egypt. Two Greek papyrus letters, P.Mich. 8.466 (26 Mar 107 CE) and 465 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?), were written in Bostra (TM Geo 2987) but found in Karanis/Egypt. The documents on papyrus or leather found furthest east to date are from Iran and Afghanistan (ancient Bactria). Two Greek contracts for sale of a vineyard on leather, have been found in a stone jar in Avroman/Iran (ancient Kopanis; TM Geo 3142): Jur.Pap. 36 (20  Oct–18  Nov  88  BCE) and TM 97890 (ed. Minns 1915, no. 2; 22/21 BCE). A second century BCE Greek tax receipt on leather, SB 22.15765, originates from ancient Bactria. Remains of the easternmost papyrus to date, TM 65772 (ed. Lerner 2003) from the first half of 1 Carbonized papyri from a much later period (VI CE) were found in the compound of a Byzantine basilica at Petra in Jordan (P.Petra). 2 See also the documentation site http://www.papyrologie.paris-sorbonne.fr/menu1/collections/ pgrec/peuphrategeneral.htm.

188

Chapter 6

the third century BCE, were found in 1977 in Ai Khanum/Afghanistan (TM Geo 2835). The papyrus itself is lost, but before it disintegrated it had deposited the ink of its text in negative on a lump of earth which may be a copy from a lost work of Aristotle. This, together with some fragmentary lines of a lost work of Sophocles on two small leather fragments, TM 62770 (ed. C. Rapin in Rapin, Hadot, and Cavallo 1987, 249–59 no. 2a–b) attests to the presence of Hellenism in the far east (Fournet 2021b). No papyri have yet been excavated in Asia Minor, but three Greek slave sale contracts were brought to Egypt by Alexandrian slave dealers and found there in modern times: P.Turner 22 [4.xxx] (142  CE) and BGU 3.887 [1.51] (8 Jul 151 CE), both written in Side/Pamphylia, and BGU 3.913 (12 Jun 206 CE), written in Myra/Lycia. The beginning of a further slave sale contract from Asia Minor is preserved in P.Mich. 9.546 (30 Aug–28 Sep 207 CE), an application for examination of a slave written in Karanis in Egypt. The attached copy of the contract of sale, however, was written “in Pompeiopolis, the metropolis of Paphlagonia” (lines 7–8). P.Münch. 3.63 (8 May 248 CE) was written in Bithynia and Ch.L.A. 11.477 (I–III CE), the Latin letter from a veteran, was written probably in Cappadocia but found in the Fayum. The Greek letter SB 3.6260 (before 13 Jun 230 CE) was written in Kyzikos (TM Geo 1208; cf. lines 5–7 with BL 8:324). A similar situation applies to the islands of Rhodes and Kos: P.Oxy. 50.3593 (238–244  CE) with instructions to a Rhodian bank about the sale of a slave and 3594 (238–244 CE?) were written on the island of Rhodes but found at Oxyrhynchos. P.Oxy. 36.2771 (24 Jun 323 CE) is the copy (?) of a document by which Aurelia Artemonis, a woman of Kos, gave a mandate to her husband to sell or to bestow her slave Theodora. If the papyrus is indeed a copy written in Egypt, where it was found, the original from the island of Kos came to Egypt either with Artemonis, her husband, or the potential buyer of the slave. In 1995, 92 ostraca were excavated at Chersonesos/Crete (TM Geo 11753), representing the first example of an archive written in ink from today’s Greek territory (published in O.Cret.Chers.). The short notes date from between the mid-second and mid-third centuries CE and are related either to an agricultural estate or to the commercial activities of a wholesale merchant. Further documentary ostraca written in ink have been found in the central cemetery of Rhodes (cf. Dreliosi-Herakleidou and Litinas 2009–2011); their edition is in preparation.

The “Egyptian Question”



189

Africa Proconsularis and Mauretania

Literature R. Ast et al. 2011–2012, “Two Latin Accounts on Amphora Walls from Gigthi,” Analecta Papyrologica 23–24:205–36.

In Libya, more than 150 Latin ostraca from the third century CE were found in ancient Golas (or Gholaia, today’s Bu Njem, TM Geo 3135; see O.BuNjem); attesting to the life of Roman soldiers and the organization of the Limes Tripolitanus. In March  2002, a batch of ostraca was discovered in Gigthi/ Tunisia (TM Geo 17077). TM 244038 and 244039 (ed. Ast et al. 2011–2012; both II CE?) preserve two Latin accounts written on amphora walls. Ch.L.A. 5.295 (2nd half II CE) contains a Latin dowry agreement on papyrus, with the signatures of seven witnesses in Greek. It was written at Colonia Claudia Caesarea in Mauretania (TM Geo 3116) but excavated at Karanis in Egypt, where the family settled after the husband retired from active service in the Roman fleet (cf. H. A. Sanders in P.Mich. 7, pp. 56–59).

Italia and the Provinces North of Rome

Literature G.  Adamson 2012, “Letter from a Soldier in Pannonia,” BASP 49:79–94; A. K. Bowman 2021, “Le papyrus trouvé le plus l’ouest: Le papyrus de Mané Véchen en Bretagne,” in *Fournet 2021a, 54; *Hartmann 2015; R. Marichal 1988, Les graffites de La Graufesenque, Supplément à “Gallia” 47 (Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); R. S. O. Tomlin 1992, “The Twentieth Legion at Wroxeter and Carlisle in the First Century: The Epigraphic Evidence,” Britannia 23:141–58.

From Italy and Rome no papyri or ostraca have survived, but the following papyrus letters from Greco-Egyptian recruits who joined the imperial navy at Portus or Misenum were sent to Egypt and found there: P.Mich. 8.487 [2.107] (ca. 100–147 CE); 490 [2.139]; 491 [2.140] (both II CE); BGU 2.423 [1.44] (II CE, after 105 CE); 632 [1.45] (II CE). Two other letters, P.Mich. 8.501 (100–147 CE) and BGU 1.27 [1.46] (II–III CE), were sent from Rome to Egypt by businessmen.3 Also  P.Oxy. 18.2191 (II CE) from the Greco-Egyptian businessman Antonius son of Ptolemaios was—as explicitly noted—“written at Puteoli” (TM Geo 3189) and sent to Oxyrhynchos. Most of these letters were written by experienced scribes from Rome, Misenum, Portus, or Puteoli. Another 3 SB 6.9557 (264–282 CE) is the business letter of a Christian currently in Rome writing to his Christian community in the Arsinoite nome.

190

Chapter 6

example for a Greco-Egyptian soldier stationed outside Egypt is P.Tebt. 2.583 [2.165] (ed. Adamson 2012; II–III CE), written in Pannonia (TM Geo 3174) and sent to Tebtynis in Egypt. It is important to note that there are no significant differences between these letters and those written in Egypt (for more see pp. 191–97). Further examples are SB 3.6304 (ca. 151 CE), a wax tablet incised in Ravenna and found in the Fayum (see pp. 131, 205), and P.Lond. 3.1178 (pp.  214–19), a papyrus inscribed in Nea Polis (Naples) and found in Hermopolis in Egypt (see p. 124). Numerous and important are the wax tablets excavated in Herculaneum and Pompeii, which give testimony to a busy first century CE business life in Italy’s Regio I (Latium et Campania; see T.Jucundus; T.Sulpicii; T.Herc.; TPN). In several regions of the empire, some of them far from Rome, both individual specimens and very extensive archives of wax tablets have been preserved (see the catalogue by *Hartmann 2015). Latin wax tablets dating to the second century CE come from the center of the Roman gold mines in Dacia, Alburnus Maior (modern Romania) and preserve valuable documents of Roman civil law (see T.Dacia). Other major finds of wax or wooden tablets are related to Roman military camps and their organization. Among these are the wax tablets from Windisch/Switzerland (Roman Vindonissa), which were last inscribed in the second half of the first century CE (T.Vindon.), and the nearly 900 wooden tablets published to date from Vindolanda/Britannia, a Roman fort south of Hadrian’s Wall (T.Vindol.). Most of the tablets preserve Latin military and private correspondence. Their epistolary formulas and conventions can also be compared with their Greek equivalents in the papyrus and ostracon letters from Egypt. Between 2010 and 2014, a total of 405 incised wax tablets and two inkwritten wooden tablets were excavated at Bloomberg London, recovered from waterlogged deposits. About  80 of the tablets are published in T.Bloomberg and provide important evidence of commercial life in Roman Londinium from the second half of the first century CE. During the first and early second centuries, the Gallo-Roman vicus of Condatomagus (today’s La Graufesenque in France, TM Geo 21466) was the leading production center for terra sigillata in the northwestern provinces. Excavations between 1973 and 1981 also uncovered several hundred defectively fired pieces with incised inscriptions; 213 of which were published by R. Marichal (1988) and provide valuable information about the working routines of a large-scale Roman factory. The westernmost papyrus found to date comes from the Roman villa of Mané Véchen in Plouhinec, France (Morbihan, TM Geo 24104), where a pot of early Roman denarii was found wrapped in a papyrus in 1970. The three tattered

The “Egyptian Question”

191

fragments suggest that it was a private letter or an account (Bowman 2021); an edition is currently being prepared. As these and many other finds confirm, Egypt is no longer the only place where papyri and other perishable documents from the Greco-Roman period have been found. It has become standard practice in ancient studies to consider both the material from Egypt and the documents originating from other regions, and to compare them critically with each other. From this we learn that the information gleaned from the Egyptian material also serves to understand Roman administration and society in other parts of the empire. While local or regional differences can be found everywhere, be it between Egyptian nomes or between Roman provinces, our sources demonstrate that the general structures of Roman administration in the provinces, towns, and villages were fundamentally similar. The same holds true for the way in which legal, business, and private affairs were handled. Egypt was, as R. S. Bagnall emphasizes, “more ‘normal’ than was once believed, perhaps no more different from other Roman provinces than the others were diverse among themselves” (*Bagnall 2011, 39). To illustrate this, we discuss three test cases in the form of “Closer Looks,” that is, three genres well attested in the documentary material both from Egypt and from other regions. At the end of each subchapter, we briefly highlight the basic implications for the New Testament texts that result from our observations.

A Closer Look #5: Greek and Latin Letters from Different Regions

Literature G.  Adamson 2012, “Letter from a Soldier in Pannonia,” BASP 49:79–94; *Arzt-Grabner 2020a, 59–63; 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; A. Bernini 2020, “P.Masada 724 Revised,” BASP 57:394–96; *Cohen 2016; P. Cugusi 2001b, “Un testo epistolare latino di zona bavarese,” Aeg 81:299–305; H.  Halla-aho 2009, The Non-literary Latin Letters: A Study of Their Syntax and Pragmatics, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum  124 (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica); B.  Hartmann 2011, “Die römischen Schreibtafeln (tabulae ceratae) aus Tasgetium/Eschenz,” in Tasgetium I: Das römische Eschenz, Archäologie im Thurgau 17 (Thurgau: Departement für Erziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau), 123–56 (bibliography 237–46); *Hartmann 2015; G. Iovine 2018, “P.Dura 62 (P.CtYBR inv. DP 33),” ZPE 207:207–18; *Reinard 2016, 947– 93, 1001–2; G. E. Thüry 1996, “Ein eingeritzter römischer Brief auf einem Soldatenteller

192

Chapter 6

aus Pförring, Ldkr. Eichstätt,” Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 61:175–84, Tafel  1–4; R. S. O. Tomlin and M. Doncheva 2015, “An Epistolary Brick from Lower Moesia,” ZPE 194:292–93. – See also p. 185.

The earliest Greek private or business letters edited so far were not found in Egypt but at the Black Sea, in Greece, Spain, and France. As they are incised in lead tablets or potsherds, they have been edited and primarily studied by epigraphists, but because of the genre, papyrologists are well-advised to also pay attention to this material. This also applies, for example, to the Latin graffito letter AE 2011.855 from Pförring in Bavaria, which was incised into a soldier’s plate and probably dates from the period between 50 and 120 CE (Thüry 1996; Cugusi 2001b). There are several thousand papyrus and ostracon letters from Egypt, which still constitute by far the most extensive body of letters from Greco-Roman antiquity that have survived in their original form. In recent decades, however, many of the papyrus and ostraca finds that have supplemented the Egyptian record of Greek and Latin letters are actually from various sites outside of Egypt. The Greek papyrus letter SB 24.15988 [1.40], for example, was written before spring 73 or 74 CE somewhere in Judea and sent to Masada, where it was excavated. It is probably the earliest Jewish documentary papyrus from Israel and confirms that even Jews wrote Greek during this critical time. In his preliminary survey of letters from the Judean Desert, *Cohen (2016) lists 42 extant letters, of which seven are written in Greek (cf. p. 126) and four in Latin (cf. p. 132). Greek and Latin documents on papyrus, leather, and parchment have been excavated in Dura-Europos in Syria, of which P.Dura 45–46 and 55–81 (II–III CE),4 and perhaps also the Latin papyrus TM 832322 (200–256 CE), are letters. There are also two Greek papyrus letters from Syria, SB 26.16660 with BL 12:246 (ca. 232–256 CE) and 16659 (after 239 CE); both were written in Beth Phouraia and found in Appadana. A bunch of Latin ostracon letters from the third century CE were excavated at the Roman fort of Golas (modern-day Bu Njem) in Libya (O.Bu Njem 74–117). Probably the most important site, where at least 450 Latin letters have been found, is Vindolanda (Chesterholm) just south of Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland (see the list by *Arzt-Grabner 2020a, 61–62 n. 20). The letters and other documents are preserved on wooden tablets (tiliae) and date from the late first or early second century CE (T.Vindol.). Besides Vindolanda, tiliae were found mainly in Luguvalium (Carlisle); those identified as letters were 4 The Latin papyrus letter P.Dura 62 has been completely edited by Iovine 2019.

The “Egyptian Question”

193

republished as C.Epist.Lat. 88bis.1–43 and could be dated to 71–130 CE. Further wooden tablets from Roman Britannia are T.Bloomberg 1.184 (62–70 CE), 185 (80–95 CE), C.Epist.Lat. 1.88 (80–99 CE), and 87 (before ca. 155 CE); they were all found in London (Roman Londinium). A total of 62 Latin letters preserved on wax tablets (tabulae ceratae), though only in fragments, have been found in Vindonissa (Windisch) in Switzerland (T.Vindon. 5–65, AE 1984.702, and probably also T.Vindon. 70, 76, and 85; see *Arzt-Grabner 2020a, 62–63). They date from the first half of the first century CE.5 These are supplemented by seven wax tablets from Eschenz (Roman Tasgetium).6 Other fragmentary Latin letters preserved on the remains of wax tablets are from first century CE Roman Londinium (London): T.Bloomberg 1.1– 25 preserve only (parts of the) addresses, whereas 26–43 also preserve parts of the letter texts; further letter fragments are preserved on AE 2003.1018, 1019, and 1020 (all late I/early II CE). Among other isolated finds are three wax tablets from Germany, of which AE 1998.994 and 2010.1082 were found in Mainz (Roman Mogontiacum)—both could be dated to the first century CE (cf. *Hartmann 2015, 49 no. 33); the third one, AE 2003.1226, was found in Xanten (Roman Colonia Ulpia Traiana) and dated to the second half of the first century CE. Three other fragmentary Latin letters on wax tablets originate from Valkenburg in the Netherlands (Roman Praetorium Agrippinae, TM Geo 10925): C.Epist.Lat. 1.14, 15, and 3.15bis (all 40–42 CE). A Latin letter from Lower Moesia, AE 2017.1216, was incised on a brick during the fourth century CE and edited by R. S. O. Tomlin and M. Doncheva (2015). In addition to letters found outside Egypt, we can also mention Greek and Latin letters that were written outside Egypt but sent to Egypt and found there. The private papyrus letter P.Col. 4.66 (ca. 26  Oct  256–25  Oct  255  BCE) was probably written in Syria but found in Philadelphia/Egypt. Two other Greek private letters on papyrus, P.Mich. 8.466 (26  Mar  107  CE) and 465 [2.106] (20 Feb 108 CE?), were both written in Bostra/Syria, but found in Karanis. From the same author is P.Mich. 8.487 [2.107] (ca. 100–147 CE) which was written in Rome (see below). Of a later date is the Christian Greek papyrus letter P.Bour. 25 (IV–V CE), written in Apameia/Syria. From Caria (Türkiye) we have three Greek papyrus letters belonging to the archive of Zenon (TM Arch  256), who was from Kaunos and had moved to Egypt in the third century BCE to serve as secretary of Apollonios, the finance 5 These, the letters from Bu Njem, many from Vindolanda, and a few other Latin letters have been reprinted in C.Epist.Lat. (see Index fontium in C.Epist.Lat. 3, p. 39–47). 6 These are: TM 216799 (= Hartmann 2011, 131–33 no. 03) and Hartmann 2011, 128–45 no. 01, 07, 10, 12, 13, and 17.

194

Chapter 6

minister to Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III. Moreover, Zenon later became manager of the estate of Apollonios in Philadelphia, where P.Cair.Zen. 1.59037 (after 12 Jun 258 BCE), 59036 (1 Feb 257 BCE), and 59056 with P.Cair.Zen. 3, p. 289 (14 Mar 257 BCE) were found. The Latin papyrus letter Ch.L.A. 11.477 (I–III CE) was written by a Roman veteran, probably in Cappadocia. SB 3.6260 preserves the fragments of a Greek papyrus letter dealing with administrational matters, probably written in Kyzikos/Mysia before 13 June 230 CE. Several letters were written in Rome or nearby by soldiers or businessmen who came from Egypt: P.Mich. 8.487 [2.107] (ca. 100–147 CE) was found in Karanis/Egypt, but written in Rome, as confirmed by the letter writer Apollinarios, who expresses his sorrow at not having met his brother there. He now asks him to write about his welfare and to provide a certain Eros, presumably the letter carrier, with everything necessary for him to travel on and reach his own home safely. P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139] and 491 [2.140] (both II CE) were both sent by the recruit Apollinaris from Rome to his mother back home in Egypt. 490 was written in Portus near Ostia and 491 in Rome, but both were found tied together in Karanis. Another soldier from Egypt, Apion, wrote BGU 2.423 [1.44] (II CE, after 105 CE) to his father after his arrival at Misenum, and a few years later he wrote BGU 2.632 [1.45] to his sister, informing her that he had since settled with his wife and child (or children?). P.Mich. 8.501 (100– 147 CE) was written by a businessman who, after travelling through Syria, Asia, and Achaia, sent this Greek papyrus letter from Rome; evidently, he was dealing in purple dye and other goods and was trying to arrange a meeting with his addressee for when he would return to Alexandria. BGU 1.27 [1.46] (II–III CE) was written in Rome by a (probably non-Christian)7 businessman named Eirenaios; he had been transporting Egyptian grain to Rome and was still in the city, waiting for his dismissal paper. During the second or third century CE, the Egyptian recruit Aurelius Polion wrote the papyrus letter P.Tebt. 2.583 [2.165] (ed. Adamson 2012) while he was stationed in Pannonia Inferior. As the editor remarked, the rather extensive Greek letter “has Latinate features, including the occasional use of interpuncts” (Adamson 2012, 79). Of course, the ever-increasing number of letters originating from outside Egypt does not, by itself, attest to the comparability of letters from Egypt with those from elsewhere, but it does form a solid pool of letters that can now be compared with the enormous material from Egypt. In particular, letter formulas show similarities that extend even beyond language boundaries. Naturally, 7 Cf. BL 13:11.

The “Egyptian Question”

195

this is especially true for the formulaic conventions used in the letter openings and closings (opening and final greetings). Yet even formulas that are used infrequently and in a variety of forms, can be demonstrated to originate from one basic form. A special variant of the health wish used in the opening section of a letter, for example, is designed as a prayer report by which the sender of a letter assures the addressee to pray for his or her well-being. The basic formula during the first three centuries CE reads: “Above everything else I pray that you are healthy, and I am healthy too.” Some examples from various places in Egypt are SB 6.9165.2–4 (El-Heita in the Eastern desert, first half I CE), O.Did. 358.3–4 (Didymoi, before ca. 77–92 CE), P.Mich. 8.475.4–5 (Karanis, early II CE), P.Bingen 74.2–4 [2.132] (probably written in Alexandria after 130  CE), O.Claud. 2.283.2–5 (Mons Claudianus, mid II CE), and SB 5.8027.2–4 (Arsinoites, II–III CE). The Latin version of such a prayer report is attested by the fragments of a letter from Vindonissa, Switzerland, preserved on a wax tablet inscribed between ca. 30 and 50 CE; a certain Primigenius Camerius assures his “brother” Primigenius Oclatius: “If you fare well, brother, it is well indeed; I fare well. I ask and pray to the gods that …” (T.Vindon. 52.2–3). The formula is similar but not identical. In fact, it represents the Latin equivalent of an older Greek version of the formula that was in vogue in Egypt, especially in the third century BCE, and disappeared gradually after the second century BCE. One of the early examples is P.Cair. Zen. 1.59029.1–2 (8 Nov–7 Dec 258 BCE): “If you are faring well, it would be well; and I am healthy too.” On the other hand, the incomplete formula on the Vindonissa tablet, which begins with “I pray to the gods,” may have served as an introduction to an even more elaborate health wish preserved in several letters from Egypt: in a Latin letter from Didymoi in Egypt’s Eastern desert, O.Did. 326 (before ca. 75–85 CE): “Above everything else I pray to the gods that you fare well as is my wish” (lines 3–5; cf. O.Did. 429.3–4 [2.92] [before ca. 96 CE]); in the Latin letter C.Pap.Lat. 304 [2.100] (II–III CE): “I pray to the gods that you fare well as are my wishes” (line 2); in the Greek letter SB 10.10529b: “Above everything else I pray to all the gods that you are healthy” (lines 2–3). That variations of a formula could have been used by the same letter writer is attested in the letters by Claudius Terentianus from the mid-second century CE, sent to his father in Karanis. The basic form of the prayer report is used in P.Mich. 8.480.3 but in 478.3–4, Terentianus writes: “Above everything else I pray that you are healthy, which is my wish, and I am healthy too,” and, in an even more extensive form, he writes in 476.3–4: “Above everything else I pray that you are healthy and successful, which is my wish, and I am healthy too.” The letters of the soldier Apion, who originated from Egypt, are also significant in this context. He served in the Roman navy, namely the classis praetoria

196

Chapter 6

Misenensis, during the second century CE. Two of his letters, both written at Misenum or nearby and sent to Egypt, are preserved. The earlier letter, BGU 2.423 [1.44] (after 105 CE), was addressed to his father and written by Apion immediately after his passage from Egypt to Italy and his subsequent arrival at Misenum, which means that the formulas and epistolary conventions used in this letter are those that Apion had already learned at home in Egypt. In lines 15–18, he specifically mentions his good education, with which his father has provided him and with which he hopes to advance quickly. As a health wish, the letter contains a prayer report in lines 2–6, which starts with the usual formula. Yet it continues beyond the usual by specifying that Apion wishes his father not only health but also well-being and success, and by including other family members in these wishes. Not only the prayer report but also the request to his father to write back (on three listed matters, cf. lines 11–18), the greetings to be passed on to others (lines 18–20), and the closing greeting (line 23) demonstrate Apion’s education to be above average. His letter writing skills are comparable to that of other letter writers at this level. At the end of the letter, Apion informs his father that he has adopted a Roman name, Antonius Maximus (lines 22–23). Several years later, this Antonius Maximus wrote another letter, BGU 2.632 [1.45], addressed to his sister Sabine. He was now living with a woman and had started a family. We may even assume that, after his basic training in the imperial fleet, he had been assigned to the chancery service due to his advanced writing skills. For sure, there would have been enough time to acquire common Roman epistolary formulas and conventions and, if they would differ from those he had learned in Egypt, they should be visible in his letter. BGU 2.632, however, contains no indication of such a difference. The first part of the prayer report in lines 3–4 is identical to that of his first letter, although this time without further expansion as there was obviously no reason for one. All other formulas and conventions also correspond to those of the papyrus letters written in Egypt. Something similar may apply to BGU 1.27 [1.46] (II–III CE), a letter written in Rome by the businessman Eirenaios, who—most probably not for the first time—had been transporting Egyptian grain to Rome and was now still in the city waiting with the other grain transporters for the dismissal papers. The epistolary formulas and conventions he used correspond to those of Apion alias Antonius Maximus and numerous other letter writers from Egypt. From the letters of Apion alias Antonius Maximus and Eirenaios and other skilled letter writers, it becomes evident that they tended to form their letters individually and only rarely expressed epistolary conventions in the usual forms. But even in such cases, at least the underlying intentions are comparable, and the relevant examples (cf., e.g., pp. 200–202) prove that the basic

The “Egyptian Question”

197

human interests were the same throughout the Roman Empire and were expressed in emotionally comparable ways. H. Halla-aho (2009, 62) observed “that despite areal differences in the exact filling … of the different parts in a letter there is a standard in the structure of this text type to be observed, applied all over the Empire.” An important reason for this may lie in the fact “that phrases needed in letter writing were taught in schools as part of the training for achieving literacy.” Apion’s letter, BGU 2.423 [1.44] (after 105 CE), is a vivid example of this.8 As far as the letters of Paul of Tarsus and of other New Testament authors are concerned, they are recognized in papyrology as testimonies from outside Egypt and, as such, are compared with the letters from Egypt and other regions of the Roman Empire. This is a further indication for the accuracy of the observations made above.9

A Closer Look #6: Dinner Invitations

Literature Y.  E.  H.  Abdelwahed 2016, Houses in Graeco-Roman Egypt: Arenas for Ritual Activity (Oxford: Archaeopress), 39–45, 49–50; *Arzt-Grabner 2016; L.  Berkes 2018, “An Unusual Party Invitation from Graeco-Roman Egypt,” in Across the Mediterranean – Along the Nile: Studies in Egyptology, Nubiology and Late Antiquity Dedicated to László Török on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, vol. 1, ed. T. A. Bács, Á. Bollók, and T. Vida (Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences), 277–81; L.  Bricault 2013, “Sarapis au banquet: Lectisternes d’Alexandrie et d’Égypte,” Revue numismatique 170:101–134; A. de Frutos García 2022, “Banquets, Reputation and Social Obligation in Roman Egypt: Some Notes on the Dinner Invitations in Papyri,” Emerita 90:327–351; R. H. el-Mofatch 2016, “Where Is the Party?,” in Studying Papyri, vol. 3 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), 1993–2010; C.-H.  Kim 1975, “The Papyrus Invitation,” JBL 94:391–402; *Klauck 2006, 2–3; J.  S.  Kloppenborg 2016, “Precedence at the Communal Meal in Corinth,” NovT 58:167–203; R.  E.  Kritzer and P.  Arzt-Grabner in *Arzt-Grabner 2006, 321–24; M.  Nelson, C.  W.  Marshall, and C.  Gardner 2018, “P.Brit.Col. Inv.  1 and Invitations to Sarapis Dinners,” ZPE 205: 207–12 (=  TM 749345); P.  Pruneti 2016, “Alcune considerazioni sui biglietti d’invito,” Analecta Papyrologica 28: 117–28; R.  Raja 2016, “In and Out of Contexts: Explaining Religious Complexity through the Banqueting Tesserae from Palmyra,” Religion in the Roman Empire 2:340–71; R. Raja 2019, “Dining with the Gods and the Others: The Banqueting Tickets from Palmyra as Expressions of Religious Individualisation,” in Religious Individualisation: Historical Dimensions 8 On the teaching of letter-writing in ancient schools, see more extensively in PNT 2, pp. 13–14. 9 On the entire subject, see vol. 2 of this series.

198

Chapter 6

and Comparative Perspectives, vol. 1, ed. M. Fuchs et al. (Berlin: De Gruyter), 243–55; D.  Scahill 2016, “Dining and the Cult of Aphrodite: The Function of the South Stoa at Corinth,” in Houses of Ill Repute: The Archaeology of Brothels, Houses, and Taverns in the Greek World, ed. A.  Glazebrook and B.  Tsakirgis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), 129–42; M.  Stroppa 2019, “Due ostraka greci inediti,” Aeg 99:21–27; *Stroppa 2023, 33–36; M.  Thoma 2022, “Some Remarks on Women’s Social Life in Roman and Late Antique Egypt: Religious and Social Celebrations,” in PapCongr. 29, 948–56; J.  R.  White 2013, “Meals in Pagan Temples and Apostolic Finances: How Effective Is Paul’s Argument in 1 Corinthians 9:1–23 in the Context of 1 Corinthians 8–10?,” BBR 23:531–46.

People have always celebrated festivals on certain occasions, regardless of how large or diverse the group of participants was. Several letters of invitation and more than 50 formal, more or less stereotyped, papyrus tickets from Egypt, as well as more than 1,100 different types of banqueting tesserae from Palmyra, attest to the tradition of inviting relatives, friends, neighbors, and authorities to celebrate a public or private event with them. The tesserae from Palmyra, made of clay and dating from between the late first and third centuries CE, served as entrance or dining tickets to monitor access to the sanctuaries where religious events were celebrated. The iconography of the tesserae depicts priests, deities, libation or incense offerings, and various symbols. Many tesserae have preserved inscriptions that indicate the name of the person or group hosting the banquet, the date of the event, or the measure of food and drink for each invitee (Raja 2016; 2019). Papyrus invitation tickets have been attested for Oxyrhynchos, the Arsinoite nome, and perhaps other Egyptian nomes from the late first or second century (P.Oxy. 31.2592) to the fifth century CE. They consist simply of the formula “N.N. invites you to dine” and mention the name of the inviting person, the event, the place where the festival would take place, the particular day and/ or date of the festival, and the hour when the festival would start (in most cases is the 9th hour (i.e., about 3 p.m.). It is remarkable that in only four cases the name of the invited person is mentioned.10 This phenomenon can only be explained by a scenario in which the tickets were delivered by a messenger who received a list of names that he could check, while the invitations themselves were identical copies of the same text. This is confirmed, in particular, 10

Two of them are special: P.Oxy. 52.3694 (218–225 CE?) is an invitation of a whole village to a strategos and in P.Oxy. 49.3501 (III CE) the invited persons are not mentioned by name but, after the formal part, the inviter specifies that not only the male person addressed should come to the celebration but that both he and his wife are invited. Only P.Heid. inv. G 1639 (ed. Berkes 2018; III–IV CE) and P.Oxy. 9.1214 (V CE), which are both rather late, are invitations with the usual form but including the name of the person invited.

The “Egyptian Question”

199

by P.Oxy. 75.5057 [1.47] (II–III CE), a papyrus from Oxyrhynchos with two identical copies of an invitation from a certain Heraïs to celebrate the wedding of her son. Obviously, the messenger was left with two copies of the invitation, which had not been delivered. In the majority of these tickets (34 out of 53 in the list of *Arzt-Grabner 2016, 517–20), the term expressing the invitation is “to request” (in Greek ἐρωτάω), which is also used in Luke 7:36 in connection with Simon the Pharisee who “requested” Jesus to dine with him and, similarly, in Luke 11:37 regarding another Pharisee. In 15 tickets, however, the corresponding term is “to call, invite” (in Greek καλέω), which is not only used in Luke 14:7 but also in the parables about invitations to weddings: In Matt 22:3, 9 the term refers to the king sending out his slaves to “invite” guests to his son’s wedding; John 2:2 refers to Jesus’s invitation to the wedding at Cana; the verb is used in the two parables Luke 14:8–13 and 16–24; in Rev 19:9, an invitation to the wedding feast of the Lamb is mentioned. Paul uses the term in connection to invitations to idol meals in Corinth (1 Cor 10:27) and, somewhat metaphorically, when referring to God, who is inviting the members of Christ groups into his own kingdom and glory (1 Thess 2:12) or into fellowship with his son Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1:9). Similar references are 1 Pet 2:9 and 5:10. It is thus important to realize that the New Testament passages provide valuable evidence that the terminology used in the tickets from Egypt was also known and used for invitations in other parts of the Roman Empire. The papyrus invitations from Egypt and the tesserae from Palmyra also preserve an important context for imagining how and why early Christ groups still participated in idol meals, as confirmed in 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14. Some papyrus invitations mention the celebration of a private event combined with a religious ceremony, such as SB 16.12511 (II CE), the invitation to a birthday party which is to be celebrated with a “kline of Lord Sarapis.” Perhaps, private parties (especially weddings and birthdays) were celebrated in the dining halls of a temple precinct for two reasons: these dining halls provided enough space for a large feast and were thus well suited to accommodate groups wishing to celebrate their special events with a religious or cultic ceremony.11 The festival most frequently mentioned in the papyrus tickets is the “kline of the Lord Sarapis.” The Greek term κλίνη (in Latin lectus or triclinium) literally refers to a kind of couch on which a person lay down during a banquet but, in the invitations, the term refers to the whole event, the festival of Sarapis, which was celebrated on a certain day of the year (perhaps in mid-November). Most of these 11

As for Corinth, archaeologists have identified the South Stoa as at least one place where private and religious feasts could be celebrated; its functions included banquets related to the cult of Aphrodite (Scahill 2016).

200

Chapter 6

celebrations took place either in the Sarapeion, the temple precinct of Sarapis, usually in one of its dining halls, or in the temple of Thoëris, or in a private house. Other religious festivals mentioned in the invitations were dedicated to Isis or Anubis. A similar situation can be established for Palmyra, where at least four dining halls could be identified, two of them in a clearly religious context: one in the courtyard of the Sanctuary of Bel and a smaller one within the perimeter of the Sanctuary of Baalshamin. The clay tesserae were mostly left behind in these halls and eventually ended up in their draining systems (Raja 2016, 347, 349–50). The participating groups “seem to have had functions that could be described … as moving on the border between the private and public spheres as well as negotiating between them” (Raja 2016, 367). Regardless of the event to be celebrated, people apparently enjoyed celebrating religious and private festivals together with their family, relatives, friends, business partners and benefactors. That the gods played an important role in banquets is confirmed not only by the term “kline of Sarapis” and similar expressions, but also by several series of coins from Alexandria, gems, and Egyptian and Roman terracottas from the late second and early third centuries CE, in which Sarapis, Isis, Harpocrates, Demeter, and Anubis participate both as hosts and guests at banquets and lectisternia in Egypt and Rome (Bricault 2013). Naturally, such traditions did not stop by themselves because someone joined an early Christ group. Apart from such formal invitations, some private letters attest to the social importance of festivities in more detail and describe in a vivid manner how enthusiastic people could get about a forthcoming festival of a relative, friend, neighbor, or business partner (for the extant examples see *Arzt-Grabner 2016, 509–16). PSI 12.1242 was written during the first century BCE or first century CE. Only its second part is preserved. The senders of the letter were probably on a business trip, and a relative or nanny was taking care of their son Dionysios in the meantime; they could have written the letter while they were still on their way home to make sure that the recipient, a woman named Antonia Tekosis, would receive the letter in time. The words have been chosen carefully and some phrases seem to be just philophronetic, but the contents still go far beyond stereotypical formulaic language. The letter authors express their hope that the celebrations will happen most pleasantly (lines 3–6) and add: “For as far as we ourselves are concerned, we will put away with complete pleasure (sc. any external hindrance). May it be well that also you celebrate in a manner suitable to the first birthday of Dionysios, the first-born child” (lines 6–11). Finally, the letter senders confirm to be already about to sail (lines 11–12). P.Oxy. 46.3313 (II CE) is a completely preserved private letter from Oxyrhynchos. It was sent by the couple Apollonios and Sarapias to a certain

The “Egyptian Question”

201

Dionysia who is obviously about to organize the wedding of her son (or stepson) Sarapion. It is clear that Apollonios and Sarapias had been invited to be part of the festival assembly, for they mention that they would have come immediately to personally serve the bridegroom on his day and rejoice with everyone else present. However, they have to apologize for not being able to come due to business reasons as well as health issues. The senders of the letter are obviously running a business of growing and selling flowers, as they had arranged with Dionysia to send certain quantities of roses and narcissi and agreed on a certain price. Now they apologize for not having enough roses available, which leads them not only to compensate by sending twice the number of narcissi (4,000 instead of 2,000), but by also refusing to accept any money. “The warm tone which permeates this memorable letter reveals that we are privy to a circle of close friends” (G. H. R. Horsley in New Docs. 3:11). T.Vindon. 45 (ca. 25–100 CE), a wax tablet from Vindonissa in Switzerland, contains the incompletely preserved Latin invitation to a banquet with drinking and games. To communicate the place of the feast, the inviting soldier reminds his comrade of the landlady known to him at house number 12. On an ostracon from Elephantine, SB 5.7575 (I–II CE), a rather short and simple letter, is preserved. It was sent by a certain Petesouchos to Neilas, asking him to deliver some goods and to “come to the feast” (lines 6–7). Since no further details are given, this invitation probably refers to a festival that took place at a certain time of the year. Another but more extensive letter of invitation is BGU 1.333 (II–III CE) by which the unknown addressee is asked to do everything possible to come—presumably together with his wife or family—to the birthday party of “our son Sarapion.” The letter sender also mentions to have already invited the addressee earlier. Right after the opening greeting of P.Tebt. 2.592 (III CE), a certain Alexandros reminds his son Epimachus that he had already sent him a letter before a certain festival so that he would come quickly, and that he had already prepared everything for him.12 In P.Oxy. 1.112.3–4 (III–IV CE), a certain Petosiris urges Serenia to do all she can to come to the god’s birthday festival on the 20th of an unspecified month, and he asks her to indicate whether she will come by ship or on a donkey, so that it may be sent to her. The religious context of this event is significant in itself. Moreover, this letter is a very good example of how excited and persistent people sometimes were

12

In the edition, only the first five lines have been transcribed. As visible on the digital image, the following lines are very fragmentary but reveal that the father still hopes that his son will join him (see https://dpg.lib.berkeley.edu/webdb/apis/apis2?invno=&apisid= 183&item=1).

202

Chapter 6

to get others to participate in a festival: Petosiris seems to spare no effort or expense to get Serenia to join the festivity he is organizing. From the late first or early second century CE, two letters of invitation of about the same length are preserved. One, BGU 2.596 [1.48] (10 May 84 CE), originates from the Arsinoite nome in Egypt and was written by a certain Didymos to his most honorable Apollonios, who lived in Bakchias as a kind of estate manager. The other one, T.Vindol. 2.291 [1.49] (97–105 CE), is probably the most famous of the tablets that have been unearthed since 1973 in the Roman fort Vindolanda at Hadrian’s Wall. It was issued by Claudia Severa and sent to her friend Lepidina, the wife of Flavius Cerialis, who was the prefect of the Ninth Cohort of Batavians stationed at Vindolanda between 97 and 105 CE. Apart from the usual opening greeting (Greek χαίρειν in BGU 2.596.3 and Latin salutem in T.Vindol. 2.291.2) and the passing on of greetings, no detail of one letter has a clear formal parallel in the other. A proper comparison of the two letters written so far apart from each other is nevertheless revealing insofar as both letter senders are obviously concerned with inviting the letter partner to the upcoming celebration in a very cordial manner. This is particularly evident from the fact that the letter writers do not use simple formulas but wellformed and individually phrased sentences. As might be expected, particularly skilled letter writers tended to design their letters in an individual way, so that they show only few or even no comparable details in formal terms. The tablet from Vindolanda, however, proves that basic human interests were cultivated throughout the Roman Empire. Festivals and celebrations took place everywhere and were usually an integral part of social life, as Paul also testifies, at least indirectly, in 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14. As illustrated by the examples above, sometimes the inviting persons even urged their invitees to do everything possible to come to the party and the guests certainly won the favor of the inviter by supporting the organization of the event13 and doing everything possible to make the celebration as pleasant as possible.

13

As an ostracon from the first century CE, TM 873616 (ed. Stroppa 2019, 22–26 no. 1), indicates, one of the more important tasks was the temporary rental of a temple room for the party, since—as the same ostracon confirms—the banquet could begin on one day and last until the next one, thus including the night between the two days. In connection with the preparation of such celebrations, we also find the engagement of entertainers, such as in P.Köln 9.369 with BL 13:118 (II–III CE), and orders for food, such as in P.Fay. 114.17–20 with BL 3:54 and 4:29 (14 Dec 100 CE), P.Princ. 3.165 [2.146] (II CE), and P.Oxy. 12.1568 with BL 2.2:101 (28 Sep 265 CE).

The “Egyptian Question”



203

A Closer Look #7: Slave Sale Contracts from Various Provinces

Literature P. Arzt-Grabner 2004, “Onesimus erro: Zur Vorgeschichte des Philemonbriefes,” ZNW 95:131–43; P. Arzt-Grabner 2010a, “How to Deal with Onesimus? Paul’s Solution within the Frame of Ancient Legal and Documentary Sources,” in Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, ed. F.  Tolmie, BZNW  169 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), 113–42; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 21–32; P. Arzt-Grabner 2019a, “Everyday Life in a Roman Town like Colossae: The Papyrological Evidence,” in Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, vol. 5 of The First Urban Churches, ed. J. R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn, WGRWSup 16 (Atlanta: SBL Press), 187–238, here 217–22; G.  Bazzana 2013, “New Testament Studies and Documentary Papyri: Interactions and New Perspectives,” Papyrologica Lupiensia 22:5–34; I. Bieżuńska-Małowist 1977, Période romaine, vol. 2 of L’esclavage dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine, Archiwum Filologiczne 35 (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich); G.  Camodeca 2006, “Cura secunda della tabula cerata londinese con la compravendita della puella Fortunata,” ZPE 157:225–30; G. Camodeca 2012, “Una nuova compravendita di schiavo dalle Tabulae Herculanenses,” Vesuviana 4:199– 211; J. A. Harrill 1999, “Using the Roman Jurists to Interpret Philemon: A Response to Peter Lampe,” ZNW 90:135–38; J.  Hengstl 2010, “Zum Erfahrungsprofil des Apostels Paulus aus rechtshistorischer Sicht,” in *Arzt-Grabner and Kreinecker 2010, 71–89; É. *Jakab 1997; *Jakab 2015, 213–31; B. Kupisch 2002, “Römische Sachmängelhaftung: Ein Beispiel für die ‘ökonomische Analyse des Rechts’?,” Legal History Review 70:21–54; J. G. Nordling 2004, Philemon, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia); J. A. Straus 2004, L’achat et la vente des esclaves dans l’Egypte romaine: Contribution papyrologique à l’étude de l’esclavage dans une province orientale de l’Empire romain, APF Beiheft 14 (München: Saur); R. S. O. Tomlin 2003, “‘The Girl in Question’: a New Text from Roman London,” Britannia 34:41–51. – See also p. 185.

Among the documents originating from outside Egypt, slave sale contracts are particularly numerous. Papyri and wax tablets from places as distant as Beth Phouraia in Syria (Mesopotamia), Seleukeia Pieria in Syria (modern-day Türkiye), Side in Pamphylia, Alburnus Maior in Dacia, sites in Italy (Ravenna, Puteoli, and Herculaneum), or Londinium (Roman London) illustrate in great detail the conditions and rules that were agreed upon when it came to selling or buying a slave in the Roman Empire, and they may well be compared with the documents from Roman Egypt. In general, it is not surprising that the contracts from the different Roman provinces show similarities, because the slave trade throughout the empire was regulated by the edict of the curule aediles. This already existed in its basic features at the time of the Roman playwright Plautus (ca. 250–184 BCE) and regulated the market to prevent defects in slave merchandise (*Jakab 1997; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b). A large part of this edict has been preserved at the beginning of book 21 of Justinian’s Digesta. Dig. 21.1.1.1 (Ulpianus 1 ad ed. aedil. curul.) states:

204

Chapter 6 Those who sell slaves should notify the purchasers of what disease or defect one would have, who would be a fugitive or a loiterer, or would not be released from liability for damages committed: All of these things must be publicly stated at the time the slaves are sold. If a slave should be sold contrary to this, or contrary to what has been said or promised at the time of the sale, on account of which it may be held that the purchaser and all the parties interested should be indemnified, we will grant a case (iudicium) that the respective slave be returned.

The aim of the edict was to prevent the purchaser from receiving false information about a slave from the vendor (cf. Dig. 2.14.31, Ulpianus 1 ad ed. aedil. curul.). However, the aediles did not unconditionally force the parties to act according to all the details mentioned in the edict; rather, its clauses were meant to be used as a model that was highly recommended by the aediles (*Jakab 1997, passim). In the strict sense of the edict, the vendor was not required to state anything if the slave for sale was not afflicted with any disease or defect, had never run away or proved to be a loiterer, or could not be charged with any damage. The vendor was also not forced to make any promises or give any guarantees at all, but if he did make any, the aediles stipulated that he had to comply with all of them. In case of a breach of the mentioned obligations or of the promises made before and during the sale, the purchaser was legally entitled to return the slave and get a full refund of his payment. Since the aediles did not regulate the form or the specific type of information that the vendor had to use, it is not surprising that we find several different forms of how the slave traders notified the potential purchasers about the slave’s condition. One common form was the so-called titulus, a sign hung around the slave’s neck noting illnesses and whether the slave had ever run away or roamed about.14 Symbolic outfits could also be used: the corona (a special kind of crown) marked the slave as a prisoner of war, while a certain type of cap, the so-called pilleus, meant that the vendor gave no guarantee and thus indicated to the purchaser that he could buy this slave at a relatively low price. Criminal slaves and fugitives were brought to market in chains (*Jakab 1997, 35–45). Of course, diseases, defects, and whether a slave was a fugitive or a loiterer, could also be communicated orally, as Horace attests in a letter to his friend Florus (Ep. 2.2.1–19; cf. *Jakab 2015, 222–23). A more sophisticated way to provide all the information and details necessary for the sale or purchase of a slave is in a sale contract. It can be assumed that such a contract included all the essential information that may have already been presented to the purchaser orally (or symbolically as in the case 14

Aulus Gellius (Noct. att. 4.2.1) refers to such a sign, but there are no references to it in the papyri or inscriptions.

The “Egyptian Question”

205

of the corona and the pilleus) before the contract was drawn up. As mentioned above, among the documents from outside Egypt preserved on papyri, ostraca, and wax tablets, there is a relatively high number of slave sale contracts. Yet to what extent are these contracts influenced by or even based on the curule edict? Several contracts from Italy, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt explicitly refer to the edict. For example, TPN 84 [1.50] (21 Aug 38 CE, cf. line 3.3) and T.Herc. A6 (before or after 63/64 CE) were filed at Puteoli/Italy, T.Herc. 60 (before 63/64 CE, cf. lines 9–10) was filed at Herculaneum, P.Turner 22 [4.xxx] (142 CE, cf. lines 4, 19–20) and BGU 3.887 [1.51] (8 Jul 151 CE, cf. lines 4, 16) were concluded in the forum of Side/Pamphylia, Ch.L.A. 3.200 (24 May 166 CE, cf. line 7) was filed in Seleukeia Pieria/Syria, and P.Hamb. 1.63 (125/126 CE, cf. line 3 with BL 7:66) in Egypt (probably Upper Egypt). In addition, the phrase “under good (or even best) condition(s),” which is found in several other contracts, can be seen as a clear reference to the conditions explained in the edict (*Jakab 1997, 187–90). In SB 3.6304.7–8 (ca. 151  CE) from Ravenna/Italy, the Latin version optimis condicionibus (written in Greek characters) is attested. The Greek equivalent appears in a contract from Askalon/Judea, BGU 1.316.5 (12 Oct 359 CE), and in several contracts from Egypt, namely SB 5.8007.5 (Hermopolis, first half IV CE), P.Abinn. 64.15 (Alexandria or Philadelphia/Arsinoites, 337–350 CE), and P.Cair. Masp. 1.67120.5 (Antinoopolis, ca. 567/568 CE). It is also important to notice that the contracts from Side, Ravenna; Seleukeia Pieria, and Askalon were brought to Egypt, along with the purchased slaves, and found there. Somewhat surprisingly, the documentary evidence of a vendor explicitly informing the buyer of a slave’s serious disease or defect is, so far, extremely scarce. P.Oxy. 78.5166 (ca. 29–20  BCE) is an instruction to the banker Apollophanes from Oxyrhynchos to receive from Philiskos the tax on the sale of the slave in question. The document offers at least an indirect hint that the vendor of the female slave Thermouthion had informed the purchaser Philiskos that the slave was a runaway. The female slave is literally described as “being on the run, whom Philiskos will track down and bring back for himself” (lines 5–6), which confirms that Thermouthion is still on the run at the time the contract was filed and the tax on the sale was paid.15 15 An interesting document is also P.Cair.Preis. (2nd ed.) 1 (ca. 148–150 CE), the report of proceedings about a fugitive slave girl, possibly written in Oxyrhynchos. The case of the anonymous plaintiff is all the more dramatic as the slave girl Eutychia, whom he had purchased from a certain Sarapion, has not only taken “much of his belongings” but also “her sales contracts” (line 6) so that he is no longer able to prove whether the contract contained a guarantee against flight or not.

206

Chapter 6

Most of the slave sale contracts that have been preserved, however, do not give any information about diseases16 or defects, but rather include assurances that none of these are the case. Many vendors affirm the healthy condition of the slave, while some exclude a guarantee regarding epilepsy or stipulate to the purchaser that the slave cannot be returned except due to external claims or epilepsy. Comparatively few slave traders guarantee in the contracts that the slave is neither a fugitive nor a loiterer, whereas others offer a full guarantee, except in case of the slave’s flight (thus ensuring that they cannot be held responsible for any flight of the slave in the future).17 Some almost completely preserved contracts cover all aspects explained in the edict of the curule aediles, but only in the form that has just been mentioned.18 The overall record of slave sale contracts thus confirms that the writers of these contracts did not rely on one and the same template, but that different forms and models were used throughout the empire. This fact may be seen as “a strong argument for an individual designing of … contractual terms,” and “that the warranty clause was commonly negotiated among the parties. […] Drawing up a sale document was an interactive action between purchaser, vendor and scribe, shaped strongly by local custom” (*Jakab 2015, 220). As such, the documentary evidence also attests that “rules of concluding a contract, specifying the liability of the parties and allocating special risks seem deeply rooted in every day legal practice (law in action)” (*Jakab 2015, 214). Besides the strictly legal issues and formalities, common and comparable concerns can be recognized. Taking into account both the differences and the similarities of the contracts, we should not forget that a signed slave sale contract was valid throughout the empire, no matter whether it was written according to the experience of a scribe in the forum of Side in Pamphylia, in the port of Ravenna in Italy, or in Alexandria. The contracts written elsewhere but brought to Egypt and found there (see above) are good evidence of this. Even if the authors of New Testament writings may have had only general or practical knowledge of the law—apart from the legal issues connected with their occupation (e.g., Paul as a tentmaker or weaver)—, slave sale contracts illustrate many different features of ancient slavery and are therefore of some 16 In  P.Mich. 5.264.22 and its duplicate 265 (7  Feb  37  CE), the female slave to be sold is described as having “somewhat inflamed eyelids.”. 17 For more details see Arzt-Grabner 2010a, 126–33; *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 25–30. 18 Among these contracts are BGU 4.1059.1–20 [4.xxx] (30 BCE–14 CE) from Alexandria, P.Mich. 5.264 and its duplicate 265 (7 Feb 37 CE) from the Arsinoite nome in Egypt, T.Herc. 62 (30 Nov 47 CE) from Herculaneum, T.Dacia 6 (17 Mar 139 CE) and 7 [4.xxx] (16 May 16 142 CE) from Alburnus Maior/Dacia, or P.Turner 22 [4.xxx] (142 CE) and BGU 3.887 [1.51] (8 Jul 151 CE) from Side/Pamphylia.

The “Egyptian Question”

207

interest to those New Testament passages that deal with slavery. One example shall suffice to illustrate this point:19 The contractual clause of slave sale contracts attests to the distinction between a fugitive slave and a loiterer. This distinction provides an important background for the interpretation of Paul’s description of the slave Onesimus in his letter to Philemon. As mentioned above, the edict of the curule aediles obliged the vendor of a slave to notify potential purchasers as to whether the slave was a fugitive or a loiterer, thus making a distinction between the two. The earliest documentary evidence of this distinction dates from the first century CE. TPN 84 [1.50] is a Latin contract drawn up at Puteoli in Italy on 21 August 38 CE and found in Pompeii. Not all parts of the original diptych are preserved or still legible, but the stipulated clauses of this contract for the sale of an unknown slave are preserved almost in their entirety on the first page of tablet II (numbered as page 3). Here, lines 1–5 confirm that the slave sold “is not a fugitive or a loiterer and so on, as written and included in the edict of the curule aediles for this year.” T.Herc. A6, a contract again concluded in Puteoli but found in Herculaneum, is also only fragmentarily preserved. Since the consular year is lost, an exact dating is impossible (G. Camodeca in T.Herc., p. 198). The wording of the contract’s general clauses is almost identical to that of TPN 84 [1.50], which may indicate that it was copied from the same template (the assurance that the sold slave is “not a fugitive or a loiterer” is preserved on page 2, line 11). With or without explicit reference to the edict, the relevant clause is also preserved in the following lines of these Latin contracts, which have been inscribed on wax tablets: T.Herc. 62.1.6–7 (30 Nov 47 CE) and 60.1.7–8 (before 63/64  CE) from Herculaneum;20 AE 2003.1016.7 [4.xxx] (Tomlin 2003; 75–126 CE) from Londinium/Britannia, and T.Dacia 6.7 (17 Mar 139 CE) and 7.6 [4.xxx] (16 May 16 142 CE) from Alburnus Maior/Dacia. The Greek equivalent of the clause is preserved in P.Turner 22 [4.xxx] (142  CE, cf. lines 4 and 20) and BGU 3.887 [1.51] (8 Jul 151 CE, cf. lines 5 and 16), two papyrus contracts drawn up in Side/Pamphylia where the respective slaves had been purchased and then taken to Egypt where the contracts were found. So far, no contracts written in Egypt containing this clause have been identified, but perhaps the confirmation that the slave “is faithful (πιστός) and does not run away” has a similar function, since “faithful” is exactly where the contracts mentioned above confirm that the slave is not a loiterer. So far, only three contracts preserve this clause, and they were all written in Egypt: SB 3.6016 (Alexandria, 28 Mar 154 CE, cf. line 26); P.Abinn. 64 (Alexandria or 19 PNT 4 will deal with the subject of slavery in greater detail. 20 It is not used, e.g., in T.Herc. 61 (8 May 63 CE) from Herculaneum.

208

Chapter 6

Philadelphia, 337–350 CE, cf. line 14), and SB 5.8007 with BL 4:82 (Hermopolis, first half IV CE, cf. line 5). Be that as it may, the edict of the curule aediles and the contracts of sale listed above distinguish between a fugitive slave and a loiterer or vagabond. The contracts do not further explain the difference between both, but the Roman jurists paid much attention to this question. What, at first glance, may seem to be “academic games having little to do with the practice of law” (Harrill 1999, 137), turns out to be a thoroughly practical and workable discussion, especially in light of Paul’s letter to Philemon. The discussions included in Dig. 21.1 all relate to the regulations of the edict of the curule aediles and address the question of whether or not a slave should be called a fugitive, and they were thus of practical importance for the ongoing operation of the slave trade and the slave holding system. Dig. 21.1.17 consists of quotations from the commentary of the Roman jurist Ulpian (born ca. 170 CE in Tyre) on the edict, in which he refers to earlier jurists and their opinions on the matter. According to Ofilius, a friend and agent of C. Iulius Caesar, “a fugitive is someone who remains outside of the master’s house for the purpose of flight, or to conceal himself from the master” (Dig. 21.1.17 pr.). This basic definition is shared by several other jurists, such as Vivianus in the late first century CE, who states that “a slave is understood to be a fugitive by virtue of his intention rather than by the fact of his flight,” and provides several examples of when a slave, despite running away, would not be considered a fugitive (fleeing from an enemy or a robber, escaping a fire or the destruction of a house, running away because he was treated too harshly). This, according to Vivianus, “applies only if the slave … returns to his master, but if he does not return to his master, he should without any doubt be considered a fugitive” (Dig. 21.1.17.3). A loiterer (erro) is to be distinguished from the fugitive slave. For this distinction, Ulpian first refers to Labeo, a jurist of the time of Augustus who died before 22 CE, who “defines an erro as a petty fugitive (pusillus fugitivus), but a fugitive on the other hand as a great loiterer (magnus erro).” Afterwards, Ulpian himself defines “an erro as one who, in fact, does not run away, but frequently roams about without reason and, having wasted his time on trivial matters, returns home late” (Dig. 21.1.17.14).21 21

According to some scholars (e.g., Harrill 1999, 136), this opinion was reversed by Ulpian in Dig. 11.4.1.5: “fugitivus should be interpreted as covering an erro as well.” This passage, however, is not about runaway slaves and loiterers in general, but about “the efforts used to track down runaways in order to bring them to justice” (Nordling 2004, 141). In such cases, there “is no distinction registered between fugitivi and errones,” as Nordling (ibid.) correctly remarks. What the passage also suggests is that it was certainly difficult for a

The “Egyptian Question”

209

The crucial criterion for distinguishing between fugitivus and erro was thus the slave’s attitude toward his master: a fugitivus was defined as a slave who had run away with the intention of staying away from his master’s household for good and never coming back, while an erro could (hope to) demonstrate that his original intention was to return to the master’s household, albeit later than allowed or expected.22 This seems to be exactly what Paul of Tarsus is aiming at in his letter to Philemon, when he tries to convince the master of Onesimus with many arguments that his slave is now returning to him of his own accord. The best argument that Paul provides on behalf of the slave in this regard is undoubtedly the letter that Onesimus himself is to deliver to his master. In it, Paul not only writes that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon (Phlm 12), but he also emphasizes: “For perhaps it was for this reason that he went away from you for a short time, that you would have him back forever.” Modern translations usually render the first part as “… he was separated from you,” since the Greek text uses a passive form at this point. However, the passive form of χωρίζω is always met in both literary and documentary sources with an active meaning that is best translated as “to leave, depart, go away” (Arzt-Grabner 2004, 136–39; 2010a, 123–24). Among the papyrological evidence is P.Ryl. 2.125 (28/29 CE), the petition of a certain Orsenouphis, who reports a theft that had taken place “after I had left on business concerning my livelihood” (lines 10–11). The sender of the private letter P.Berl.Möller 11, written on 30 January 33 CE, reports, “Sarapas and your brother have departed for Koptos.” In another letter, probably written during the first or second century CE, a certain Sarapias is informed by the letter sender Asklas: “I went away from you on the 25th and I went up to Psonis” (SB 10.10529B.3–4 with BL 8:359).23 There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that passive forms of the verb χωρίζω were ever used to reflect a passive meaning (“to be separated”) when referring to people. Therefore, the passive form ἐχωρίσθη in Phlm 15 should also be interpreted in the usual sense, namely, “he went away.” Against this background, Paul’s wording can even be understood as an accurate definition of a slave who is not to be regarded as fugitivus, but as erro. In any case, with this description, Paul wanted Onesimus to appear as such and to encourage his correspondent Philemon to take back his slave in a benevolent

22 23

runaway to prove that he intended to return home of his own accord if he had not already done so (see next paragraph). It was definitely too late for such an attempt at persuasion when the runaway had already been searched for and apprehended (cf. Arzt-Grabner 2010a, 133). For further examples see *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 104 (including n. 219); 2010a, 123 (including n. 48).

210

Chapter 6

manner. Thus, it is not only that the slave sale contracts and legal discussions of the time are an empirical and illustrative background for the Letter to Philemon, but the reverse is also true. That is, Phlm 15 is to be regarded as valuable testimony of the first century CE for the distinction between a fugitive slave and a loiterer, suggesting that what Ulpian wrote more than a century later was already advocated for in a comparable wording by Paul. This is all the more likely because Paul as an entrepreneur (Hengstl 2010, 77–79; Bazzana 2013, 23) was probably familiar not only with contracts of apprenticeship, but possibly also with slave purchases and the corresponding contracts of sale. With this example, we can see once more that the documentary papyri, ostraca, and tablets from all geographical regions and of all text genres are important for a more accurate and deeper reading and understanding of the New Testament.

Texts [1.44]–[1.51] [1.44] BGU 2.423 (TM 28137) Letter from Apion alias Antonius Maximus to Epimachos

Greek papyrus, written most probably at Misenum/Italy (TM Geo 3152), sent to Philadelphia (TM Geo 1760), found in Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), II CE (after 105 CE) Ed. P.  Viereck 1898 (BGU 2.423). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:45; 2.2:17; 8:27; 9:20; 13:21. – Cf. *Erman and Krebs 1899, 214–15; *Milligan 1910, 90–92 no. 36; *Schubart 1912, 79–80 no. 66; U. Wilcken 1912 (Chrest.Wilck. 480); *Milligan 1922, 36–38; *Schubart 1923, 97–99 no. 70, image: p. 98; *Deissmann 1927, 179–83 no. 12, image: fig. 32 (before p. 179); N. Hohlwein 1927, “La Papyrologie grecque,” Le Musée Belge 31:5–19, here 17; A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar 1932 (Sel.Pap. 1.112); *Lietzmann 1934, 3, 4–5 no. 1; *Metzger 1974, 52–53 no. 64; J. Finegan 1946, Light from the Ancient Past: The Archeological Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion (Princeton/NJ: Princeton University Press), 327–28, image: Plate  138 (after p.  318); J.  Hengstl 1978 (C.Pap.Hengstl 84); *White 1986, 159– 60 no. 103A; U.  Luft and G.  Poethke 1991, Leben im ägyptischen Altertum: Literatur, Urkunden, Briefe aus vier Jahrtausenden, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Papyrus-Sammlung), 62, image: p.  63; P.  Arzt 1994, “The ‘Epistolary Introductory Thanksgiving’ in the Papyri and in Paul,” NovT 36:29–46, here 33–35; *Campbell 1994, 13–14 no. 10; *Pestman 1994, 167–69 no. 39; E. Banfi and D. Foraboschi 1995, “Giovanissimi e giovani scrivani nell’Egitto greco-romano,” in Scritture bambine: Testi infantili tra passato e presente, ed. Q. Antonelli and E. Becchi, Quadrante Laterza 80 (Bari: Laterza), 43–60, here 50–52, image: 51 fig. 4; B. Palme 1998, “Alltagsgeschichte und Papyrologie,” in Alltägliches Altertum, ed. E. Specht (Frankfurt a.M.: Lang), 155–205, here 183–89 no. 5; B. Pferdehirt 2002, Die Rolle des Militärs für den sozialen Aufstieg in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Forschungsinstitut für den

The “Egyptian Question”

211

sozialen Aufstieg in der römischen Kaiserzeit 49 (Bonn: Habelt), 170; *Klauck 2006, 9–14; *Palme 2006a, 285–87; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 80–82 no. 7 (by mistake with wrong dating and provenance), image: p. 116 Abb. 5; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 176 no. 210; *Reinard 2016, 952–53. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb. museum/02350/. In the following translation, the layouts of the opening greeting in lines 1–2 and of lines 23–30 reflect that of the papyrus as closely as possible; the layout of lines 3–22 only roughly matches that of the papyrus.

Apion to Epimachos his father and lord, very many greetings. Above everything else I pray that you are healthy and always well and fortunate together with my sister |5 and her daughter and my brother. I thank the lord Serapis that he, while I was in peril at sea, immediately saved me. When I came to Misenum, I received as journey money from Caesar |10 three pieces of gold, and it is well with me. I am asking you therefore, my lord father, write me a letter, firstly about your well-being, secondly about that of my brothers (and my sister),1 |15 thirdly that I may make obeisance to (your) hand because you have taught me well, and because of that I hope to advance quickly if the gods are willing.  Greet Capito many times and my brothers (and my sister)1 |20 and Se[reni]lla and my friends. I am sending you by Euktemon a little picture of me. My name is Antonis Ma ximus.2  I pray that you fare well. Centuri(a) Athenonica.2 (Left margin, downwards)

|25 Serenus the son of Agathos Daimon greets you, [and …]s the son of […-] ros and Turbo the son of Gallonios and D[…]nas the son of […] sen[…] […] … […] …

212

Chapter 6 (Back) To Philadelphia for Epim- ⪥ achos from Apion his son.

(Upside down in smaller script) Deliver to the first Cohort of the Apamenians to (?) Iulianus An… the ⪥ |30 lib⟨e⟩larius, from Apion so that3 to Epimachos his father.

Notes 1 The plural form “brothers” should refer to Apion’s siblings mentioned in lines 4–5, i.e., to his sister and his brother which is why *Deissmann 1927, 180, translates “my brother and sister.” 2 According to U.  Wilcken, the note on Apion’s new name as well as “Centuria Athenonica” (line 24) were added after the final greeting had already been written (cf. BL 1:45). Antonis is a frequently used variant for the name Antonius. 3 There is a verb missing here; the meaning is “so that he may convey it to …”

As indicated in the letter itself (lines 8–9), it was written shortly after the author’s arrival at Misenum, where he joined one of the main divisions of the imperial fleet, the classis praetoria Misenensis. Apion, who at this time was hardly older than 18 to 20 years, probably wrote the letter himself; at least he thanks his father for a good education and hopes, as a result of it, to advance quickly at his new place of employment (lines 15–18). In fact, the letter reveals proficiency in handwriting, knowledge of cultivated Greek (see also p. 196), and nearly flawless spelling. The fact that Apion’s hopes for a quick career were justified has been shown by research on the subaltern ranks of the Roman army (principales, beneficiarii), which indicates that assignment to chancery service would occur very early in a soldier’s career, soon after basic training (*Palme 2006a, 287). The fact that the Egyptian soldier Apion has now adopted the Roman name Antonius Maximus could also be an expression of his hopes (cf. lines 22–23). An interesting feature is preserved on the back of the papyrus, where two addresses are preserved instead of just one. The first one in line 28 names, as expected, the recipient of the letter (Epimachos, the father of the letter sender) and the destination (the village Philadelphia in the Arsinoite nome). Unusually, however, a second address is also present (lines 29–30): the letter should first go to the libelarius Iulianus, the scribe of the cohors I Apamenorum stationed in Alexandria. Iulianus should then convey the letter to Epimachus. Strictly speaking, Roman soldiers were forbidden from using the military dispatch service for private mail. If Apion could nevertheless count on Iulianus forwarding the letter, this indicates that his father Epimachus had already

The “Egyptian Question”

213

been a soldier and, although he was now a veteran in the Fayum, still maintained relations with his former comrades in Alexandria (*Palme 2006a, 287). The thanksgiving to the lord Serapis expressed in lines 6–8 was labeled by *Deissmann 1927, 181 n. 5, as “a thoroughly ‘Pauline’ way of beginning a letter, occurring also elsewhere in papyrus letters”; and he argued that “St. Paul was therefore adhering to a beautiful secular custom when he so frequently began his letters with thanks to God.” In fact, many papyrus letters offer good parallels to the Pauline thanksgiving, contributing significantly to its interpretation, but BGU 2.423.6–8 is not one of these parallels, since Apion does not thank his god here for the addressee’s well-being, but for his own rescue from peril at sea (Arzt 1994, 34). [1.45] BGU 2.632 (TM 28196) Letter from Antonius Maximus to Sabine

Greek papyrus, written presumably at Misenum/Italy (TM Geo 3152) or nearby, sent to and found in the Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), II CE (written after BGU 2.423 [1.44]) Ed. F. Krebs 1898 (BGU 2.632). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:58; 2.2:19; *Arzt-Grabner 2003, 130 n. 91. – Cf. *Erman and Krebs 1899, 215; *Deissmann 1927, 184 no. 13, image: fig. 33 (after p. 184); *White 1986, 159–61 no. 103B; *Klauck 2006, 15–17; *Palme 2006a, 287– 88; *Scholl and Homann 2012, 82–85 no. 8. – Online information and images: https:// berlpap.smb.museum/02371/.

An[toni]us Maximus to Sabine, his sister, very many greetings. Above everything else I pray that you are healthy, and I myself am |5 healthy too, making remembrance of you before the gods here. I received one letter from Antoninus our fellow citizen, and when I learned that |10 you fare well, I rejoiced greatly. And I, at every occasion, do not hesitate to write to you about my well-being and that of my people. Greet Maximus |15 much and Kopres, my lord. My companion Aufidia greets you and (so does) Maximus m[y son], whose birth[day] is the thirtieth of Epeiph according |20 to Greek reckoning, as well as Elpis and Fortu[nat] a. Greet my lord[…] and … […] … Hat[re]s and … (Five mutilated lines, probably containing additional salutations) |28 I [pray that you fare well]. (Back)

[To Sabine] his sister, from Antonius Maximus her brother.

214

Chapter 6

Apion’s second letter was most probably written in Italy (*Scholl and Homann 2012,82; *Deissmann 1927, 184–85 n. 4, argues that it was sent from Alexandria). About eight years may have passed since the first letter, but the letter writer, who now uses only his Roman name Antonius Maximus, is still serving in the Imperial Navy, where military service normally lasted 26 (or more) years (*Palme 2006a, 287). The whole situation is now different. Since his father is not mentioned, he has probably passed away in the meantime. The letter is addressed to the author’s sister Sabine, who must be identical to the unnamed “sister” of BGU 2.423.4. Sabine’s daughter (cf. BGU 2.423.5) is also not mentioned in this second letter, which is why it is thought that she may have died as well. Antonius Maximus himself meanwhile lives with a woman named Aufidia and has started a family. In addition to his son Maximus, whose birthday he joyfully communicates to his sister, the women or girls Elpis and Fortunata, who are mentioned immediately afterwards in lines 20–21, are perhaps two older daughters belonging to the soldier’s family. In any case, it is noteworthy that none of the children has an Egyptian name. Moreover, the author now no longer writes that he prays to “the lord Serapis” (cf. BGU 2.423.6), but to “the gods here” (line 6). The style, use of formulas and epistolary conventions, and orthography are as excellent as in the earlier letter, BGU 2.423.6 (see also p. 196). At the beginning of the letter body (following the opening greeting, a prayer report, and a remembrance motif), Antonius Maximus mentions that a letter from his sister had been delivered to him by their fellow-citizen Antoninus which informed him about the sister’s well-being which made him rejoice. Now, in his own letter, Antonius Maximus not only reports the delivery of the sister’s letter and his joyful reaction but also promises that he will take every opportunity to write to her about his welfare and that of his family (lines 7–14). [1.46] BGU 1.27 (TM 28211) Letter from Eirenaios to Apollinarios

Greek papyrus, written in Rome/Italy (TM Geo 2058), sent to and found in Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), II–III CE Ed. F.  Krebs 1895 (BGU 1.27). – Addenda/Corrigenda: H.  Diels in BGU 1, Index p. 353; P. Viereck in BGU 1, Index 395; BL 12:10. – Cf. *Erman and Krebs 1899, 213–14; *Lietzmann 1934, 3, 10 no. 8; *Milligan 1910, 100–102 no. 41; *Schubart 1912, 85–86 no. 72; U. Wilcken 1912 (Chrest.Wilck. 445); *Ghedini 1923, 47–53 no. 1; *Schubart 1923, 105 no. 76; A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar 1932 (Sel.Pap. 1.113); *Winter 1933, 38–39; G. Charles-Picard and J.  Rougé 1969, Textes et documents relatifs à la vie économique et sociale dans l’Empire romain (31 avant J.-C.–225 après J.-C.), Regards sur l’Histoire: Sciences auxiliaires de l’Histoire 6 (Paris: Société d’Édition d’Enseignement supérieur), 121–22 no. XXXIII; P. Guyot and R. Klein 1994, Die Christen in der heidnischen Gesellschaft, vol. 2 of

The “Egyptian Question”

215

Das Frühe Christentum bis zum Ende der Verfolgungen: Eine Dokumentation, Texte der Forschung 62 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft), 47–49; *Naldini 1998, 67–69 no. 2; *Burnet 2003, 62–63 no. 12; P. Herz 2004, “Beiträge zur Organisation der Getreideversorgung Roms,” in Ad fontes! Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag am 15. September 2004 dargebracht von Kollegen, Schülern und Freunden, ed. H. Heftner and K. Tomaschitz (Vienna: Eigenverlag der Herausgeber), 609–18; N. Tran 2013, “The Work Statuses of Slaves and Freedmen in the Great Ports of the Roman World (First Century BCE–Second Century CE),” Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales 68:659–84, here 664. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb. museum/01700/.

[Eirenaios to Apolinarios1 his sweete]st brother, many greetings. And I pray that you are always healthy. I myself am healthy too. I want |5 you to know that I came ashore on the 6th of the month Epeiph and unloaded (the ship) on the 18th of the same month. But I went up to Rome on the 25th of the |10 same month, and the place received us, as the god willed. And day after day we are waiting for the dimissoria so that until today no one of the |15 grain people has left. I greet your companion2 many times and Serenus and all those who love you by name. |20 Farewell. Mesore 9th. (Back)

To Apolinarios

⪥ from Eirenaios, the brother.

Notes 1 The names of the sender and the recipient of the letter can be safely reconstructed from the address on the back of the papyrus. 2 In Greek, a masculine form is used for both a male and a female “companion” (Greek σύμβιος); the companion’s gender may be determined by the form of the definite article, which in this case is feminine.

The letter sender is probably the captain of an Egyptian ship transporting grain in connection with the annona urbica, the yearly supply of grain to Rome from Egypt. The addressee may be addressed as “brother” in a metaphorical sense. Early interpreters of this papyrus argued that “the place” (in Greek ὁ τόπος) in line 11 could refer to a Christian community of Rome and “god” in the same line to the Christian God. This interpretation was already rejected by U. Wilcken (in Chrest.Wilck. 445). P. Herz (2004) has convincingly shown that the journey of Eirenaios from the port of his arrival, probably Portus Traianae near Ostia, to Rome corresponded to the administrative routine related to the annona urbica, since there he had to personally present his (hopefully) complete and

216

Chapter 6

correctly processed documents to the representatives of the praefectura annonae in order to receive his dimissoria in return (Herz 2004, 617). What the papers called dimissoria (line 13, plural) contained is not known in full detail, but the procedure for obtaining them was certainly complex and involved several steps (for details see Herz 2004, 611–17), which is also evident from the letter of Eirenaios written on 9 Mesore (= 2 August) of an unknown year. He had already reached the port on 6 Epeiph (= 30 June), more than a month earlier. Although he had to wait there until 18 Epeiph (= 12 July) for the grain cargo to be unloaded, another 21 days have passed since then, and the crucial part of his stay in Italy has still not been successfully completed. As he himself makes clear, he admittedly shared this fate with the other captains of the grain fleet from Alexandria, whom he literally refers to as “those with the grain” in line 15. Presumably, it was only with the dimissoria that a member of the fleet also received an order for payment of the previously agreed transportation costs and an official confirmation stating that he had completed his work properly. And in order for the entire enterprise of a captain like Eirenaios to be finally and properly completed for the Roman administration, he still had to present these official papers upon his return to the port of Alexandria (Herz 2004, 617–18). [1.47] P.Oxy. 75.5057 (TM 128898) Invitation from Heraïs to a wedding

Greek papyrus, Oxyrhynchos/Egypt (TM Geo 1524), II–III CE Ed. R. E. Kritzer 2010 (P.Oxy. 75.5057, image: plate II). – Cf. *Arzt-Grabner 2016, 523– 24; *Stroppa 2023, 33. – Online information and image: https://doi.org/10.25446/ oxford.21180844.v1. The layout of the following translation matches that of the papyrus as closely as possible. Just as on the papyrus, the two copies of the invitation are set side by side in the following translation. Top and bottom of the papyrus are preserved completely. (Col. 1)

Heraïs [asks] you to [dine] at the wedding of her [son] in the [Great] Thoërion, to- |5 [morrow, which] is [the 26th, from] hour 9 onwards.

(Col. 2)

Heraïs asks you to dine at the wedding of her son in the Great Thoërion, tomor|5 row, which is the 26th, from hour 9 onwards.

Half of the left-hand column is missing, but the right-hand margin is completely preserved, indicating that the papyrus contains a half and a full copy

The “Egyptian Question”

217

of the identical invitation, the last two of a roll. The line breaks are identical in lines 1–3 but different in lines 4–6, indicating that the writer of the invitations copied the same text each time, but without bothering about an identical layout. Obviously, these two copies were not delivered, but we can only guess at the reason: Did the scribe make more copies than necessary? Or did the messenger not manage to meet all the people he had on his checklist? [1.48] BGU 2.596 (TM 9252) Letter from Didymos to Apollonios

Greek papyrus, Arsinoites/Egypt (TM Geo 332), 10 May 84 CE Ed. F.  Krebs 1898 (BGU 2.596). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:55. – Cf. *Erman and Krebs 1899, 217; *Milligan 1910, 63–64 no. 23; *Schubart 1912, 53 no. 44; *Olsson 1925, 142–43 no. 49; M. Vandoni 1964 (Feste 151); *Arzt-Grabner 2016, 511–12; *Reinard 2016, 251–52, 839. – Online information and images: https://berlpap.smb.museum/01863/; https://grammateus.unige.ch/document/9252. The layout of the following translation matches that of the papyrus as closely as possible.

Didymos to Apollonios, the most honorable, greetings. Please be so good as to join |5 Ailourion, who is bringing you the letter, so that he buys for us little pi geons for the festival, and please come down |10 and feast together with us. For in doing so you will be someone who has laid down a great favor for me. Greet all your people. |15 Farewell. In the third (year) of the Emperor Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Pachon 15. (Back)

To Bakchias, [deliver to Apollonios], the most honorable.

218

Chapter 6

According to the address, the recipient of this letter lived in the village of Bakchias in the Arsinoite nome (TM Geo 392), whereas the sender must have lived in the western part of the Fayum, near Lake Qarun, because only this area is even lower than the village of Apollonios (*Schubart 1912, 53). The addressee is asked to assist the letter carrier in buying little pigeons for an upcoming festival. Since all other examples of shipping pigeons refer to animals that are alive, *Reinard (2016, 251–52, 839) assumes that live pigeons were to be purchased and then slaughtered for the feast. Regarding the phrase “to lay down a favor” in line 13, *Olsson (1925, 143) referred to the identical combination in Acts 24:27. [1.49] T.Vindol. 2.291 (TM 114529) Letter from Claudia Severa to Lepidina

Latin wooden tablet (tilia), Vindolanda/Britannia (TM Geo 3201), ca. 97–103 CE Ed. A. K. Bowman and J. D. Thomas 1994 (T.Vindol. 2.291, image: plate XX). – Addenda/ Corrigenda: A. K. Bowman and J. D. Thomas in T.Vindol. 3, p. 158. – Cf. P. Cugusi 1992 (C.Epist.Lat. 1, pp. 145–46 no. App. Vindol. γ); M. Trapp 2003, Greek and Latin Letters: An Anthology, with Translation, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 82–83 no. 22; 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 97–98 no. 5; *Zeiner-Carmichael 2014, 171 no. 198, image: fig. 4.3; *Arzt-Grabner 2016, 515–16; *Eckardt 2018, 46, image: fig. 3.1; *Sarri 2018, 38–39, image: 38 fig. 4. – Online information and image: http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk (“View tablet number” = 291); https:// www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_1986-1001-64; https://www.wikiwand. com/en/Sulpicia_Lepidina. The layout of the following translation matches that of the diptych as closely as possible.

Cl(audia) Severa to [her] Lepidina1 [greet]ings. On 11 September, sister, for the day of the celebration of my birthday, I |5 warmly invite you to make sure that you come to us, to make the day more enjoyable for me by your arrival, if you are present(?). Greet your Cerialis. My Aelius |10 and my little son greet [you?].

The “Egyptian Question”

219

(h2) I shall expect you, sister. Farewell, sister, my soul, as I hope to prosper, dearest, and hail. (Back)

|15 (h1) To Sulpicia Lepidina, (wife of) Cerialis, from Cl(audia) Severa.

Note 1 Sulpicia Lepidina was the wife of Flavius Cerealis, the prefect of the Ninth Cohort of Batavians, stationed at Vindolanda in 97–105 CE. Her husband is greeted in line 9.

The completely preserved birthday invitation from Claudia Severa to her friend Lepidina was written on a diptych (see also p. 202; lines 1–6 are preserved on tablet 1, lines 7–14 on tablet 2). Since a brief message at the end of the letter and the extended closing greeting (lines 11–14) are quite certainly written by Severa herself (A.K.  Bowman and J.D.  Thomas in T.Vindol. 2, p.  256; *Eckardt 2018, 46), it is the earliest known example of originally preserved writing in Latin by a woman. Quite certainly, Severa also wrote the closing greetings of T.Vindol. 2.292 and 293 in her own hand. The scribe whom Severa employed to write the letter, is probably the same who wrote T.Vindol. 2.243, 244, and 248 [1.3]. Another tablet from Vindolanda, T.Vindol. 3.629 (97–105  CE), refers to a (birthday?) party of Sulpicia Lepidina. The sender of the tablet, a certain Clodius Super, must have previously received an invitation from Flavius Cerialis, the addressee of the current tablet and husband of Lepidina (cf. note 1). Now, Clodius Super obviously wants to apologize for not being able to come because he assures Cerialis: “Most willingly, brother, just as you had wanted, I would have been present for your Lepidina’s [birthday?] … for you surely know that it pleases me most whenever we are together” (lines i.3–ii.3). [1.50] TPN 84 (TM 144026) Contract for the sale of an unknown male slave

Latin wax tablet, written in Puteoli (TM Geo 3189), found in Pompeii (TM Geo 2788), 21 Aug 38 CE Ed. J. G. Wolf 2012 (TPN 84). – Cf. G. Camodeca 1999 (T.Sulpicii 43); *Arzt-Grabner 2010b, 26; *Jakab 2015, 217–18. – Online information: http://db.edcs.eu/ (“EDCS-ID” = 08000895); https://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/edh/inschrift/HD001916; http:// www.edr-edr.it/edr_programmi/res_complex_comune.php? (“Record Number” = EDR079310).

220

Chapter 6 (Tablet 2, page 3)

… that he is released from liability,1 that he is not a fugitive or loiterer, and so on as written and included in the edict of the curule aediles of that year, |5 be duly granted, and that double the purchase price, as provided in the form, as is customary, be duly paid to him, Titus Vestorius Arpocra Minor stipulated, Titus Vestorius Phoenix solemnly promised. |10 Transacted at Puteoli on the 12th day before the Kalends of September under the consuls Servius Asinius (and) Sextus Nonius.

(Page 4)

Gaius Iulius Senecion, son of Gaius, of the tribe Falerna; Gaius Faunnus Rufus, son of Gaius; Aulus Fuficius Donatus; |5 Lucius Pontius Philadelphus; Titus Vestorius Phoenix; Gaius Paccius Felix; Gaius Claudius Flaccus, Gaius Mateius Primogenius, |10 Gaius Suettius Dama.

Note 1 The clause ending at the beginning of the first line of page 3 was part of the vendor’s guarantee that the slave “is released from liability for [theft and damage]” (cf. the clause repeated in four contracts from Herculaneum: T.Herc. 60.7; 61.1.1; 62.1.5–6; A6.2.10–11).

This contract, originally written on a diptych of two wax tablets (tabulae ceratae), of which only tablet 2 (pages 3–4) is still legible, was drawn up in Puteoli/ Campania in Italy between the vendor Titus Vestorius Phoenix and the purchaser Titus Vestorius Arpocra Minor. The latter of the two apparently lived in Pompeii since the fragments of the contract were found there. On page 3, most of the general clauses of the contract are preserved, and page 4 lists the witnesses. The agreed provisions follow the usual standard, based on the edict of the curule aediles (cf. pp. 203–6) to which the contract explicitly refers on page 3, line 3. Since the preceding text has not been preserved or is no longer legible, the specific data of the slave (name, age, origin, purchase price) are lost. According to the grammatical forms on page 3, the contract seems to have been about a male slave.

The “Egyptian Question”

[1.51] BGU 3.887 (TM 20070) Contract for the sale of the slave girl Sambatis, renamed Athenais

221

Greek papyrus, written in Side/Pamphylia (TM Geo 2133), found in Egypt, 8 Jul 151 CE Ed. W. Schubart 1903 (BGU 3.887). – Addenda/Corrigenda: BL 1:77, 350; 3:15; 7:16; 8:36. – Cf. U.  Wilcken 1901, “Papyrus-Urkunden,” APF 1:544–59, here 556–57; L.  Mitteis 1912 (Chrest.Mitt. 272); V. Arangio-Ruiz 1943 (FIRA 3.133); V. A. Tcherikover 1964 (C.Pap.Jud. 3.490; only lines 1–4, 31); *Jakab 1997, 177–80; J. Nollé 2001, Griechische und lateinische Inschriften (5–16) – Papyri – Inschriften in sidetischer Schrift und Sprache – Ergänzungen und Berichtigungen – Konkordanzen – Epigraphische Indices, vol. 2 of Side im Altertum: Geschichte und Zeugnisse, Inschriften griechischer Städte in Kleinasien  44 (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt), 617–22, image: Tafel  109. – Online information and image: https:// berlpap.smb.museum/02199/. See also the illustration on the cover of this volume, courtesy of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz.

In the consulship of [Sextus Quintilius Max]imus and Sextus Quintilius Condianus, 8th day before the Ides of July, in Side, when [Demoni]kos son of Demonikos the son of Myros was demiourgos (and) priest [of Dea Roma], on the 16th of the month Panemos. Artemidoros son of Kaisios,1 an Alexandrian, purchased in the agora [from Lucius Iulius] Protoktetos the girl2 Sambatis, renamed Athenais, or by whatever other name she may be called, a Phrygian by origin, ca. [twelve years of age, for a price of] 350 silver denarii, whereby Hermias son of Hephaistas vouched and decreed with his own fidelity that she be healthy according to the edict |5 [… and] free from claims from all sides and neither a loiterer nor a fugitive and free from epilepsy.3 But in case any of this should happen, [either that she should not be healthy, or that a claim should be made] on her or a part of her, and that there should be a deprivation, Artemidoros son of Kaisios1 has in good faith demanded that double the purchase price should then [be handed over to him fairly] without a report; Lucius Iulius Protoktetos has conceded to hand it over in good faith [and] to have received [the purchase price]. And that this should be so for him with his own fidelity and guarantee, Hermias son of Hephaistas has decreed. (h2) I, [Lucius Iulius] Protoktetos, have sold the girl2 for three hundred and fifty denarii |10 and received the amount as written above. (h3) I, [Hermias son of Hephaistas] vouch for the girl2 and decree with my own fidelity as written above. (h4) In the consulship of [Sextus Quintilius Maximus and Sextus Quintilius Co]ndianus, 8th day before the Ides of July, in Side, when [Demonikos son of Demonikos the son of Myros] was

222

Chapter 6

demiourgos (and) priest [of Dea Roma], on the sixteenth [of the month] Panemos. Artemidoros son of Kaisios,1 an Alexandrian, [purchased in the agora from Lucius Iulius Protoktetos the girl2 Sambatis, renamed] Athenais, or by whatever other [name |15 she may be called, a Phrygian by origin, ca. twelve years of age, for a price of 350 s]il[ver denarii], whereby [Hermias son of Hephaistas] vouched and [decreed with his own fidelity that she be healthy] according to [the edict … and] free from claims from all sides and neither a loiterer [nor a fugitive and free from epilepsy.3 But in case any] of this should happen, either that she should [not] be healthy, or that a claim should be made on her or a part of her, and [that there should be a deprivation], Artemidoros son of Kaisios1 has in good faith demanded [that double the purchase price should then be handed over to him] fairly [without a report]; [Lucius Iulius Protoktetos has conceded] to hand it over in good faith [and] to have received the purchase price. And that this should be so for [him with his own] fidelity and guarantee, |20 [Hermias son of Hephaistas has decreed.] (h2) I, [L]uc[iu]s Iulius Protoktetos, have sold the girl2 for three hundred and fifty denarii and received the purchase price as [written above]. (h5) I, [Hermias son of Hephaistas] vouch for the girl2 and decree with my own fidelity as written above. I, […], public […], signed for him because he said he is |25 illiterate. (h6) I, […], purchased the girl1 […]. (h3) […] (h7) […] |30 … for the purchase of the girl2 … (h6) I, Artemidoros son of Ka⟨i⟩sios, the aforementioned, [confirm that …] the slave2 Sambatis, renamed Athenais, has been purchased … Notes 1 Kaisios is the Greek transcription of the Latin name Caesius. 2 The Greek term κοράσιον is not a slave term in particular (in the sense of “slave girl”) but may be used for any girl (cf., e.g., Mark 5:41–42 || Matt 9:24–25; Mark 6:22, 28 || Matt 14:11). In this context, however, the term refers to a young female slave. Only in line 31 is Sambatis explicitly called “slave” (δούλη). 3 As usual, epilepsy is here literally called the “holy disease.”

A similar contract from Side, written only a few years earlier and providing more or less the same clauses and stipulations, is P.Turner 22 [4.xxx]. Both

The “Egyptian Question”

223

contracts of sale are recorded in what is known as a double document, which means that the text was written twice, with an inner text at the top, which was tied up and sealed after the witnesses had signed it. This was so that it could no longer be changed without breaking the sealings. There was also an outer text at the bottom, which was left unsealed and could be consulted at any time. Only in the case of dispute or doubt about its authenticity was the inner text opened again; its version was considered the authentic original. In this way, the contract was protected from forgery. In Egypt, the double document disappears shortly after the Roman occupation, while in other eastern provinces it remains in use at least until the beginning of the third century CE. The contract at hand is a good example of this. According to the different scribal hands, BGU 3.887 can be divided as follows: Lines 1–9 contain the inner text, which is followed by the signatures of the vendor (lines 9–10) and the guarantor (line 11). After a blank space of about 3 cm, lines 12–20 contain the copy of the contractual text, the so-called outer text. This is again followed by the signatures of the vendor (lines 21–22) and the guarantor (line 23), the latter being supplemented here by the confirmation of a scribe that he wrote for the guarantor who is illiterate (lines 24–25). In line 26, there now follows the very fragmentary signature of the purchaser, then (in line 27) perhaps the signature of a witness. The text in lines 28–30, which is also very incomplete, could be a tax receipt. The document is concluded by a confirmation of purchase by the buyer (lines 31–32). It is noteworthy that, as is visible from the differences in handwriting, the upper text (hand 1) was not written by the same scribe as the lower text (hand 4). Furthermore, the first signature of the guarantor (hand 3 in line 11) differs from his second one (hand 5 in lines 23–25), whereas both confirmations by the purchaser (in lines 26 and 31–32) were apparently written by the same person (hand 6). Of particular interest is the slave girl Sambatis, or, more precisely, her Jewish name, which refers to the Sabbath. This was most likely given to her by her parents or former masters, who would almost certainly have been Jews and thus observers of Sabbath. We can imagine that the current vendor, in accordance with the purchaser, changed her name to Athenais “because they had nothing to do with the Sabbath and Sabbath-observance” (V. A. Tcherikover in C.Pap. Jud. 3, p. 73; cf. pp. 45–46, 51 n. 1; Nollé 2001, 621). There was a strong Jewish population in Phrygia, but the name Sambatis was used not only by Jews but also by Christians and pagans, the latter deriving it from Zeus Sabazios (Nollé 2001, 621–22). The name Athenais was most likely given to the girl in reference to the city goddess of Side, where (according to Strabo, Geogr. 14.667) Athena was worshipped in a temple (Wilcken 1901, 557).

Prospect You have reached the end of this volume. Is that it? Is this all the light we can gain from the Ancient East and have we reached the end of documentary studies to shed light on the New Testament? Certainly not. J. G. Keenan has summarized the future of papyrology in the following manner: Suppose we start by accepting as accurately estimated the million and a half papyri thought to exist in today’s collections worldwide, most of them part of the ‘torrent’ of finds from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Next consider that not even 100,000 of them have been published. Deduct from the million and a half the hundreds of thousands that are ‘practically useless’: the hundreds of thousands that remain will still, at current rates, take easily more than a thousand years to publish, to reach the end point of what Eric Turner once referred to as papyrology’s ‘will o’ the wisp’—that is, full publication of all known papyri. The endeavor calls to mind the ancient philosopher Zeno’s most famous paradox, but with pertinent twists. Imagine, if you will, a Wily (sic) Coyote-Roadrunner type of cartoon, in which Achilles the Papyrologist, in frustration, tries vainly to catch up to a papyrus-stuffed tortoise. (J. G. Keenan 2020, “Papyri Tell Tales: Creating Narratives from Documents,” BASP 57:277–296, here 280)

So, if this is not the end, what’s next? PNT 2, of course, which will deal with ancient letters, their writers, letter writing, letter conventions and formulas—and all of this with the intention to come to a more thorough understanding of the New Testament, its authors, its stories, its textual genres, and its socio-historical contexts. In the coming years, the Papyri and New Testament series will investigate a variety of topics and areas relevant for New Testament studies, including associations, slaves, craftspeople, agriculture, taxes and money, social relations, women, health and medical care. Stay tuned—and thank you for reading.

© Brill Schöningh, 2023 | doi:10.30965/9783657790418_008

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 Greco-Roman-Byzantine Egypt. https://www.organapapyrologica.net/. archephodos – police officer in a village. 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. comarch – administrative officer in a village with police power. chalkoi – see below “Weights and Currency.” cheirographia – sworn declaration. 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 used 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, Heptanomia, and Thebaid) who had to be a Roman knight. grapheion – administrative archive of a town or village. 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). kados – see metretes.

228

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). metretes – liquid measure; 1 metretes = 1 kados = 12 choes = 4 keramia (38.9 liters). obol – see below “Weights and Currency.” prefect (of Egypt) – governor of the Roman province Egypt; highest official of Egypt who had to be a Roman knight; his residence was in Alexandria. 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 = 3 artabas (approximately 116.42 liters of wheat). 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 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

Indexes Documentary 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, we have arranged this index as a single list with all documents arranged alphabetically by the document name. Page numbers in italics refer to the presentations of entire documents. 4Q350 186 AE 1984.702 193 AE 1998.994 193 AE 2003.1016 [4.xxx] 207 AE 2003.1018 193 AE 2003.1019 193 AE 2003.1020 193 AE 2003.1226 193 AE 2010.1082 193 AE 2011.855 192 AE 2017.1216 193 Agora 21.B1 [2.52] 55 BGU 1 5 BGU 1.27 [1.46] 189, 194, 196, 214–16 BGU 1.37 [1.2] 5, 6, 7, 31–32 BGU 1.168 140 BGU 1.244 174 BGU 1.316 205 BGU 1.326 63, 131 BGU 1.333 XXXII, 201 BGU 2.374 139 139 BGU 2.375 BGU 2.376 139 BGU 2.423 [1.44] 189, 194, 196, 197, 210–13 BGU 2.486 166 BGU 2.596 [1.48] 202, 217–18 BGU 2.627 170 X XXII, 189, 194, BGU 2.632 [1.45]  196, 213–14 BGU 2.634 139 BGU 3.822 52

BGU 3.884 62 BGU 3.887 [1.51] 78, 188, 205, 206, 207, 221–23 BGU 3.913 188 BGU 4.1059 [4.xxx] 206 BGU 4.1080 [2.180] 85 BGU 4.1141 [2.58] 27 BGU 5.1210 166 BGU 7.1567 136 BGU 7.1569 139 BGU 7.1662 131 BGU 11.2015 139 BGU 11.2080 139 BGU 11.2081 139 BGU 11.2082 139 BGU 11.2083 139 BGU 16.2600–2674 20 BGU 19.2788 165 BGU 20.2863 177 C.Epist.Lat. 1.14 193 C.Epist.Lat. 1.15 193 C.Epist.Lat. 1.87 193 C.Epist.Lat. 1.88 193 C.Epist.Lat. 3.15bis 193 C.Epist.Lat. 3.88bis.1–43 193 C.Gloss.Biling. 1.1 131 C.Gloss.Biling. 1.5 131 131 C.Gloss.Biling. 1.6 C.Gloss.Biling. 1.7 131 C.Gloss.Biling. 1.8 131 C.Gloss.Biling. 1.9 131 C.Gloss.Biling. 1.11 131 C.Gloss.Biling. 1.12 131

230 C.Gloss.Biling. 2.3 C.Gloss.Biling. 2.6 C.Gloss.Biling. 2.7 C.Ord.Ptol. 28 C.Pap.Lat. 304 [2.100] Ch.L.A. 3.200 Ch.L.A. 3.219 Ch.L.A. 4.267 [1.42] Ch.L.A. 5.295 Ch.L.A. 5.299 Ch.L.A. 11.477 Ch.L.A. 11.480 Ch.L.A. 18.660 Ch.L.A. 43.1241.L1.d Ch.L.A. 43.1242 Ch.L.A. 46.1361 Chrest.Wilck. 295 CPF 2.2, pp. 381–390 [1.27] CPR 5.4 CPR 7.52 CPR 15.3 CPR 15.30 CPR 17B.7 GEMF 1 Jur.Pap. 36 O.Berenike 2.129 [2.79] O.Bodl. 2.2000 [1.37] O.BuNjem O.BuNjem 74–117 O.Claud. 2.191 O.Claud. 2.192 O.Claud. 2.283 O.Claud. 2.309–336 O.Claud. 2.368 O.Claud. 2.369 O.Claud. 2.370 O.Cret.Chers. O.Did. O.Did. 49 O.Did. 326 O.Did. 353 O.Did. 358 O.Did. 429 [2.92] O.Did. 451 [1.36] O.Edfou 1.14 O.Edfou 1.40 O.Edfou 1.41

Indexes 131 131 131 19 195 187, 205 132 9, 134, 154–55 189 134 188, 194 131 133 127 133 132 127 77, 102–4 127 36 170 93 170 14 187 27 85, 118 55, 189 192 131 131 195 133 127 127 127 55, 188 18 120 195 127 195 195 8, 82, 116–18 127 127 127

O.Edfou 1.53 127 O.Edfou 1.120 127 O.Edfou 1.124 127 O.Edfou 2.261 127 O.Edfou 3.373 127 O.Krok. 1 18 O.Krok. 2 18 O.Ont.Mus. 1.65 76 P.Aberd. 60 139 P.Abinn. 64 205, 207 P.Amh. 2.78 174 P.Ammon 1.3 [2.188] 61 P.Ant. 2.87 136 P.Bad. 4.75a XXIX P.Bad. 4.75b XXIX P.Bagnall 58 XXVI P.Bas. 2.43 [1.4] 11, 34–35 P.Berl.Leihg. 1.16 A 136 P.Berl.Möller 7 38 P.Berl.Möller 11 209 P.Bingen 59 87 P.Bingen 74 [2.132] 195 P.Bour. 25 193 P.Brem. 2 62 P.Brem. 61 [1.15] 60, 65–67 P.Brem. 63 [1.35] 82, 115–16 P.Brem. 64 116 P.Brookl. 6 139 P.Cair. Masp. 1.67120 205 P.Cair.Masp. 3.67288 165 P.Cair.Mich. 2 18 P.Cair.Mich. 3 18 P.Cair.Mich. 3.31 85 P.Cair.Preis. (2nd ed.) 1 205 P.Cair.Preis. (2nd ed.) 5 139 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59021 62 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59029 195 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59036 194 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59037 194 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59056 194 P.Cair.Zen. 1.59092 19 P.Cair.Zen. 3.59317 45 P.Cair.Zen. 3.59419 XXXI P.Cair.Zen. 4.59532 19 P.Cair.Zen. 4.59533 19 P.Col. 4.66 193 P.Col. 4.68 61

231

Indexes P.Col. 7.171 P.Col. 8.215 [1.14]

182 X  XII, 27, 47–48, 106 P.Col. 8.225 47 P.Dime 3.11 XXX 93 P.Dime 3.19 P.Dime 3.22 93 P.Dime 3.25 XXXI XXXI P.Dime 3.26 P.Dime 3.27 XXXI P.Dime 3.29 [1.20] 74, 92–93 P.Dime 3.40 XXXI P.Diog. 9 131 P.Dura 187 P.Dura 12 17 P.Dura 15–44 17 P.Dura 19 187 P.Dura 30 187 P.Dura 31 187 P.Dura 32 187 P.Dura 45–46 192 P.Dura 55–81 192 P.Dura 62 192 P.Euphrates 1–5 187 P.Euphrates 6–9 187 P.Euphrates 14 187 P.Euphrates 16–17 187 P.Euphrates 20 187 P.Fam.Tebt. 37 139 P.Fay. 37 139 P.Fay. 109 [2.70] 52 P.Fay. 110 [2.91] 74, 166 P.Fay. 110–112 32 P.Fay. 113 XXXI P.Fay. 114 XXXI, 202 P.Fay. 115 XXXI P.Fay. 116 32 P.Fay. 119 XXXI P.Fay. 120–122 32 P.Flor. 2.259 [2.182] 85 P.Flor. 3.332 67 P.Flor. 3.367 [2.174] 52 P.Gen. 3.126 62 P.Gen. 3.127 62 P.Giss. 1.17 116 P.Giss. 1.20 116 P.Giss. 1.21 116

P.Giss. 1.21–23 116 P.Giss. 1.24 116 P.Giss. 1.77 116 116 P.Giss. 1.78 P.Giss.Univ. 1.15 139 P.Giss.Univ. 3.20 63 P.Grenf. 2.66 139 P.Hamb. 1.63 205 62 P.Harrauer 35 P.Heid. 7.400 96 P.Heid. inv. G 1639 198 P.Hever 18 P.Hever 12 120 P.Hever 13 154 P.Hever 30 120 P.Hever 60 120 P.Hever 60–65 126, 186 P.Hever 61 120 P.Hever 62 120, 121 P.Hever 63 120 P.Hever 64 120, 121, 122 P.Hever 65 120, 187 P.IFAO 1.5 38 P.IFAO 3.43 37 P.Jud.Des.Misc. 187 P.Köln 3.160.v 120 P.Köln 5.229 170 P.Köln 9.369 202 P.Köln 10.413 [1.12] 24, 44–46 P.Köln 14.573 [1.13] 24, 46–47 P.Köln 15.613 [1.28] 78, 104–5 P.Kron. 16 111 P.Kron. 35 111 P.Lips. 1.9 132 P.Lips. 1.40 137 P.Lond. 2.257 (pp. 19–28 XXVIII P.Lond. 2.258 (pp. 28–36 XXVIII P.Lond. 3.1170.r (pp. 92–103) 170 P.Lond. 3.1178 (pp. 214–219) 124, 190 P.Lond. 6.1912 [1.39] 125, 144–51 P.Lond. 7.2033 61, 68 P.Lond. 7.2061 45 P.Lund. 6.2 139 P.Marm. r 170 P.Masada 186 P.Masada 724 132 P.Masada 745 126

232 P.Masada 746 P.Mich. 2.121.r P.Mich. 3.176 P.Mich. 3.177 P.Mich. 3.178 P.Mich. 3.188 [1.18] P.Mich. 3.189 P.Mich. 3.196 P.Mich. 3.206 P.Mich. 3.209 [2.154] P.Mich. 5.243 P.Mich. 5.249–355 P.Mich. 5.252 P.Mich. 5.257 P.Mich. 5.264 P.Mich. 5.265 P.Mich. 5.269 P.Mich. 5.270 P.Mich. 5.293 P.Mich. 5.346a [1.17] P.Mich. 5.348 P.Mich. 7.441 P.Mich. 8.464 [1.29] P.Mich. 8.465 [2.106] P.Mich. 8.466 P.Mich. 8.467–471 P.Mich. 8.475 P.Mich. 8.476 P.Mich. 8.476–481 P.Mich. 8.478 P.Mich. 8.480 P.Mich. 8.487 [2.107] P.Mich. 8.490 [2.139] P.Mich. 8.491 [2.140] P.Mich. 8.501 P.Mich. 9.542 P.Mich. 9.546 P.Mich. 9.549 P.Mich. 10.589 P.Mich. 11.623 P.Mich. 15.751 P.Mich. 15.752 P.Mich. 21 P.Mil.Vogl. 2.76 [1.32] P.Mil.Vogl. 2.77 P.Münch. 3.63 P.Murabba‘ât P.Murabba‘ât 43

Indexes 126 87 XXVIII, XXIX XXVIII, XXIX XXVIII, XXIX XXX, 73, 88–90 XXX 89, 90 96 96 87 72 87 87 206 206 87 87 87 73, 86–87, 87 87 133 79, 105–6, 111 187, 193 187, 193 134 195 195 134 195 195 189, 193, 194 18, 125, 189, 194 18, 125, 189, 194 189, 194 181 181, 188 96 139 170 96 96 18 81, 106, 111 111 188 187 120

P.Murabba‘ât 44 120 P.Murabba‘ât 45–52 120 P.Murabba‘ât 113 187 P.NYU 2.12 37 P.Oslo 2.20 139 P.Oslo 2.26 127 P.Oxf. 2 63 P.Oxy. 1 5 105 P.Oxy. 1.73 P.Oxy. 1.99 105 P.Oxy. 1.112 201 P.Oxy. 1.119 [1.1] XXII, 4, 28–32, 78 P.Oxy. 2.237 136 P.Oxy. 2.244 131 P.Oxy. 2.245 38 P.Oxy. 2.263 26 P.Oxy. 2.270 26 P.Oxy. 2.288 43 P.Oxy. 3.486 140 P.Oxy. 3.494 XXXII P.Oxy. 3.577 105 P.Oxy. 4.722 105 P.Oxy. 4.723 105 P.Oxy. 4.743 62 P.Oxy. 4.744 [2.67] 27 P.Oxy. 6.930 [1.34] 82, 113–14 P.Oxy. 6.936 [2.175] 63 P.Oxy. 8.1100 [1.24] 75, 76, 99, 100, 169 P.Oxy. 9.1201 131 P.Oxy. 9.1214 198 P.Oxy. 12.1463 [1.33] 81, 112–13 P.Oxy. 12.1466 132 P.Oxy. 12.1507 139 P.Oxy. 12.1568 202 P.Oxy. 17.2111 177 P.Oxy. 18.2161 177 P.Oxy. 18.2191 189 P.Oxy. 18.2192 85, 165 P.Oxy. 22.2341 183 P.Oxy. 31.2559 [1.21] 74, 94–95 P.Oxy. 31.2592 198 P.Oxy. 34.2710 132 P.Oxy. 34.2720 105 P.Oxy. 36.2771 188 P.Oxy. 36.2772 131 P.Oxy. 36.2791 XXXII P.Oxy. 38.2850 37

233

Indexes P.Oxy. 42.3030 173 P.Oxy. 42.3057 [2.96] 52 P.Oxy. 42.3059 [2.144] 82 166, 200 P.Oxy. 46.3313 P.Oxy. 49.3501 198 P.Oxy. 49.3504 177 P.Oxy. 50.3559 174 P.Oxy. 50.3593 188 188 P.Oxy. 50.3594 P.Oxy. 51.3614 174 P.Oxy. 51.3619 137 P.Oxy. 52.3694 198 P.Oxy. 55.3778 37, 38 P.Oxy. 55.3779 37, 38 P.Oxy. 55.3810 [2.162] 52 P.Oxy. 55.3819 96 P.Oxy. 60.4060 139 P.Oxy. 63.4365 86 P.Oxy. 65.4443 177 P.Oxy. 67.4627 126 P.Oxy. 71.4823 38 P.Oxy. 75.5057 [1.47] 198, 216–17 P.Oxy. 75.5063 52 P.Oxy. 78.5166 205 P.Oxy. 80.5243–5251 14 P.Oxy. 80.5245 [1.8] 14, 40 P.Oxy. 80.5246 [1.9] 14, 41 P.Oxy. 84.5433 13 P.Oxy. 84.5435 [1.6] 13, 37–38 P.Oxy. 84.5436 37 P.Oxy. 84.5437 37 P.Oxy.Hels. 31 26 P.Panop.Beatty 1.389–391 [1.16] 61, 67–68 P.Petaus 86 170 P.Petaus 121 73 139 P.Petr. 3.32.r.g.b P.Petra 187 P.Pintaudi 52 127 P.Prag. 1.12 139 P.Prag. 1.13 139 P.Prag. 2.126.v 139 P.Princ. 1.8 XXVIII P.Princ. 2.23 [1.7] 13, 38–39 P.Princ. 2.24 [1.5] 13, 36–37 P.Princ. 3.165 [2.146] XXXII, 202 P.Princ. 3.186 XXVI P.Rain.Cent. 63 170

P.Rain.Cent. 70 [1.31] 81, 110 P.Rev. 3, 9 P.Ryl. 2.116 170 P.Ryl. 2.124–152 39 P.Ryl. 2.125 209 136 P.Sakaon 32 P.Schow 2 P.Schøyen 1.23 173 P.Schøyen 2.26 173 P.Stras. 1.41 136 P.Stras. 4.188 139 P.Stras. 5.334b 27 P.Tebt. 2.583 [2.165] 190, 194 P.Tebt. 2.592 201 P.Tebt. 2.594 139 P.Tor. 2 P.Turner 9 83 P.Turner 17 170 P.Turner 22 [4.xxx] 188, 205, 206, 207, 222 P.Turner 26 170 P.Vind.Tand. 8 136 P.Wash.Univ. 1.4 170 P.Wisc. 1.9 109 P.Wisc. 1.13 170 P.Wisc. 2.84 [1.22] 75, 95–97 P.Worp 16 [1.11] 23, 43–44 P.Yadin 126, 186 P.Yadin 1 18 P.Yadin 1.5 120 P.Yadin 1.11 120 P.Yadin 1.12 121 P.Yadin 1.13 120 P.Yadin 1.14 121, 122 P.Yadin 1.15 121, 122 P.Yadin 1.16 121, 186 P.Yadin 1.17 [1.19] 74, 90–91, 120 P.Yadin 1.18 120, 187 P.Yadin 1.19 120 P.Yadin 1.20 121, 122 P.Yadin 1.21 121, 122 P.Yadin 1.22 121, 122 P.Yadin 1.23 120 P.Yadin 1.24 120 P.Yadin 1.25 120 P.Yadin 1.26 120 120 P.Yadin 1.27 P.Yadin 1.28 120

234 P.Yadin 1.29 120 P.Yadin 1.30 120 P.Yadin 1.31 120 120 P.Yadin 1.32 P.Yadin 1.32a 120 120 P.Yadin 1.33 P.Yadin 1.34 120 P.Yadin 1.35 120 18 P.Yadin 2 P.Yadin 2.1 120 P.Yadin 2.2 120 P.Yadin 2.3 120 P.Yadin 2.4 120 P.Yadin 2.6 120 P.Yadin 2.7 120 P.Yadin 2.8 120 P.Yadin 2.9 120 P.Yadin 2.10 120 P.Yadin 2.44 120, 154 P.Yadin 2.45 120, 154 P.Yadin 2.46 120 P.Yadin 2.49 120 P.Yadin 2.52 [1.41] 74, 126, 152–54 P.Yadin 2.59 126 P.Yadin 2.60 120 P.Yadin 2.61 120 126 P.Yadin 2.64 P.Zen.Pestm. 37 45 PGM 1–3 14 PSI 1.53 XXVIII, XXX PSI 4.403 61 PSI 4.414 45 PSI 4.421 45 PSI 5.446 [1.25] 76, 99–100, 166, 171, 175 PSI 8.905 87 133 PSI 9.1026 PSI 9.1051 93 PSI 10.1130 87 PSI 12.1242 XXXI, 200 PSI 12.1247.v [2.171] 81 PSI 13.1326 [1.43] 136, 155–56 PSI 13.1357 170 PSI 15.1539 20 PSI 15.1552 139 PSI 15.1553 [2.170] 52 SB 1.1010 131 SB 1.5247 XXXI

Indexes SB 1.5814 127 SB 3.6016 207 SB 3.6260 188, 194 SB 3.6263 [2.153] 96 SB 3.6304 131, 190, 205 SB 3.7268 166 SB 5.7575 201 SB 5.7600 [1.38] 27, 124, 127, 142–44 SB 5.8007 205, 208 SB 5.8027 195 SB 5.8246 136 SB 5.8754 52, 63 SB 6.9165 195 SB 6.9244 106 SB 6.9298 131 SB 6.9406 136 SB 6.9557 189 SB 10.10529b 195, 209 SB 12.10794 37 SB 12.10797 181 SB 12.11034 139 SB 12.11107 139 SB 14.11342 170 SB 14.11391 136 SB 14.11875 181 SB 14.11942 50 SB 14.12144 [1.23] 75, 76, 97–98, 100 SB 16.12239 170 SB 16.12497 + 20.14584 35 SB 16.12511 XXXII, 199 SB 16.12609 120 SB 16.12707 139 SB 18.13156 136 SB 18.13782 170 SB 18.13896 139 SB 18.14014 139 SB 18.14015 139 SB 20.14132 [2.101] 31 SB 20.14303 XXIX SB 20.14440 [1.10] 23, 41–43 SB 20.14662 63, 140 SB 20.15139 130 SB 22.15708 [1.30] 78, 106–10 SB 22.15765 187 SB 22.15777 182 SB 24.15878 182 SB 24.15884 182

235

Indexes SB 24.15988 [1.40] 126, 151–52, 153, 186, 192 SB 24.16328 84 SB 26.16465 139 SB 26.16659 192 SB 26.16660 192 SB 26.16758 96 SB 28.17089 55 58 SEG 50.276 [2.53] SEG 65.631 55 SPP 22.1 139 SPP 22.173 93 Syll.3 3.1259 [2.54] 58 T.Bloomberg 190 T.Bloomberg 1.1–25 193 T.Bloomberg 1.184 193 T.Bloomberg 1.185 193 T.Dacia 133, 190 T.Dacia 6 206, 207 T.Dacia 7 [4.xxx] 206, 207 T.Herc. 131, 190 T.Herc. 60 205, 207 T.Herc. 62 206, 207 T.Herc. A6 205, 207 T.Jucundus 190 T.Mom.Louvre 902 XXXII T.Sulpicii 190 T.Vindol. 190 T.Vindol. 2.243 219 T.Vindol. 2.244 219 T.Vindol. 2.248 [1.3] 9, 33, 219 T.Vindol. 2.291 [1.49] 33, 202, 218–19 T.Vindol. 2.292 219 T.Vindol. 2.293 219 219 T.Vindol. 3.629 T.Vindon. 190 T.Vindon. 5–65 193 T.Vindon. 45 201 T.Vindon. 52 195 193 T.Vindon. 70 T.Vindon. 76 193 T.Vindon. 85 193 TM 59942 (Cairo, Egyptian Museum 77 JdE 65445) TM 61495 (London, British Library Add MS 34186 [1] + [2]) [1.26] 77, 100–102, 176

TM 62289, 62290, and 62292 (P.Fouad inv. 266) 177 TM 69890 (ed. Bernini 2018) 187 TM 97890 (ed. Minns 1915, no. 2) 187 TM 133412 (ed. Cohen 2006, 92–95 no. 2) 126 TM 244038 (ed. Ast et al. 2011–2012, 214–18 no. 1) 189 TM 244039 (ed. Ast et al. 2011–2012, 219–24 189 no. 2) TM 832322 (P.CtYBR inv. DP 33) 192 TM 873616 202 (ed. Stroppa 2019) TPN 131, 190 TPN 84 [1.50] 205, 207, 219–20 TPN 107 131 New Testament Matt 8:5 8:5–13 8:9 9:24–25 14:11 18:10–14 18:28 19:27–30 20:1–16 20:2 20:9 20:10 20:13 22:3 22:9 22:19 27:11 27:11–14 27:27–31

127 128 128 222 222 13 127 134 24, 46 127 127 127 127 199 199 127 128 137 138

236 Mark 1:22 5:36 5:41–42 6:22 6:28 6:37 6:50 7:25–30 10:28–31 12:14 12:15 14:5 15:2 15:2–5 15:16–20 15:39 15:44 15:45 Luke 1:1–4 1:5 2:1 2:1–4 2:1–7 2:2 3:1 3:1–2 3:21–23 7:1–10 7:8 7:36 7:41 10:35 11:37 12:32 14:7 14:8–13 14:16–24 15:4–7 18:28–30 20:24 22:63–65 23 23:1–16 23:3 23:4

Indexes 127 24 222 222 222 127 24 128 134 127 127 127 128 137 138 127 127 127 XXVI XXXII 23 141 XXXIII 127 141 XXVI XXV 128 128 199 127 127 199 24 199 199 199 13 134 127 138 140, 141 138, 141 128, 137 140

23:7 138 23:14–15 140 23:18–25 141 John 2:2 199 4:46–54 129 6:7 127 6:20 24 14 9:7–11 12:5 127 18:33–38 128, 137 19:2–5 138 19:20 121, 122 Acts 15:23–29 128 20:9 24, 47 21:37–40 128 23:26–30 128 24:27 218 Rom 25, 125 1:8 27 14 199, 202 16 6 16:4 27 1 Cor 25, 26, 59 1:4 27 1:9 199 1:14 27 1:18–27 67 2:14–27 67 3:18–19 67 4:10 67 5:9 61 8 199, 202 10:27 199 14:18 27 16:3 6 16:21 26 16:22 127 2 Cor 25, 26, 59, 60, 61, 64 3:1 6 7:8 61, 64 7:12 61, 64 10–13 64

237

Indexes Gal 25, 61 5:7 14 26 6:11 Eph 25 Phil 25 1:3 27 Col 25 1 Thess 25, 26, 28 1:2 27 2:12 199 2:13 27 4:1 27, 28, 144 2 Thess 25, 26, 27, 28 1:1–2 26 1:3 27 1:8 26 1:9 26 1:10 26 1:11 26 2:1 27

2:3 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:14 3:12 3:17 3:18 Phlm 4 4–22 11 12 13–14 15 19 1 Pet 2:9 5:10 Rev 6:6 19:9

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 27, 28 26 26 25, 26 27 7, 32 32 209 32 209, 210 27 199 199 127 199