the imitation hypothesis 203
likely by the prefect11—to write to a certain Tryphon and to give him back
for his own benefit his cheirographia (χειρογραφία), a written down sol-
emn affirmation,12 which was taken from him. The same matter13 is again
the reason for a request in p.nyu II 18.10–13 (february 19, 6 ce). The basic
needs behind a request within an official letter can be particularly well seen
in o.krok. I 14 ( January 22, 109 ce), a correspondence between a curator
and the prefect. The mill in a camp is broken, which makes the food situ-
ation unbearable. The rider krinolaios has been sent to the prefect, who
is now asked—with the plural ἐρωτοῦμεν14—to send him back urgently.
lines 8–11: δ̣ιὸ ἐρωτοῦμέν | σε, κύριε, ἐκπένψαι (l. ἐκπέμψαι) αὐτο�̣[ν ἐ]ξαυτῆς·
οὐ γ̣ὰρ ὑπάρ|χει ἡμῖν πῶς ζήσωμε̣ν̣ ἠὰν μὴ ὁ μυ�̣λος | γενηθῇ (“we ask you,
lord, send him immediately back, for we have no way of living if the
mill is not working”).15 one particular use of ἐρωτῶ in documentary
papyri is the formula ἐρωτῶ κύριε, which is exclusively used in petitions
to translate the latin phrase rogo, domine.16 This kind of request consis-
tently does not take an accusative of the person, unlike the instance in
2 Thessalonians. examples of such translated petitions concerning inheri-
tance (agnitio bonorum possessionis) are p.oxy. XlIII 3108.7 (ca. 240 ce);
IX 1201.15 with the latin text17 (september 24, 258 ce), psI X 1101,5–6
( January–february 271 ce), examples of petitions concerning legal guard-
ianship are p.oxy. XII 1466.4 with the latin text (may 21, 245 ce) and p.oxy.
XXXIV 2710.5–6 (may 17, 261 ce). although this is a highly official usage
of ἐρωτῶ in documentary papyri, the fact that it is exclusively used in this
11 cf. rudolf haensch, “die Bearbeitungsweisen von petitionen in der provinz aegyp-
tus,” ZPE 100 (1994): 487–546: 527 remark 1.
12 cf. friedrich preisigke, Fachwörter des öffentlichen Verwaltungsdienstes Ägyptens in
den griechischen Papyrusurkunden der ptolemäisch-römischen Zeit (göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & ruprecht, 1915; repr. new york: hildesheim, 1975), s.v. χειρογραφία.
13 cf. B. nielsen and k. a. worp in p.nyu II pp. 138–139.
14 according to Basil g. mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-literary Papyri (athens:
hellenic ministry of culture and sciences, 1973), § 52.2, ἐρωτοῦμεν instead of ἐρωτῶμεν is an
example of “transition of -άω verbs into the -έω category” within documentary papyri.
15 personal concern can also be seen in Bgu XVI 2614 (21 bce–5 ce), o.claud. II 366
(II ce), Bgu XVI 2613 ( January 27 or July 26, 14 bce).
16 The reason for a latin primary version of these texts can be explained by the kind
of legal documents themselves: as agnitio bonorum possessionis and appointments of legal
guardianship are part of the ius civile, which was carried out in latin, cf. arthur stein,
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter roemischer Herrschaft
(stuttgart: J. B. metzlersche Buchhandlung, 1915), 140–51 and 171. for the connection of
greek words and the latin terms rogo and oro cf. eleanor dickey, “latin Influence and
greek request formulae” in Trevor V. evans, and dirk d. obbink (eds.), The Language of
the Papyri (oxford: oxford university press, 2010), 208–20.
17 cf. rudolf haensch, “die Bearbeitungsweisen,” 529 remark 22.