PHYSICAL FORM: DOUBLE-DOCUMENTS

A further aspect of this effort to please a potential Roman audience - “enthu­siasm... for cooperation with the state”, as Goodman puts it^[136] - was a modifi­cation in the physical format of the documents.

This is how Egyptian double-documents had decayed over time, and those from these areas further east have the same history: the two earliest Aramaic documents from Nabataea preserved have abbreviated inner texts.

Later, however, there is a reversal of the trend towards compression of

Figure 1 Papyrus double-document: (a) unrolled state (recto); rolled state (recto); rolled state with witness-signatures (verso). Artist's rendition based on P Yadin 15 and 16; drawing by SeungJung Kim.

the inner text, with the interior versions becoming considerably fuller again, both in the Aramaic and, especially, the Greek documents.^[143] In Arabia, it is likely that this change is again linked to some special sensitivity - to a perception that, for certain kinds of documents, this is what the Romans wanted. As edicts from Lycia and Egypt demonstrate, the Roman authorities could make their understanding of, and therefore their requirements for, the proper condition and format of a document perfectly clear: no interpola­tions, no erasures, no palimpsest-writing - no slovenly handling, in short.^[144] Even the vaguest perception of the existence of such standards could have prompted the Arabian scribes to write out fuller inner texts in ten of the double-documents, some with inner texts that are even fuller than the outer ones. The story in Judaea is, apparently, quite different. Leaving aside the three Greek double-documents, only one of which is well enough preserved to permit a comparison of the inner and outer texts,^[145] the Aramaic double­documents from Judaea between AD 50 and AD 150 seem to be wobbling their way into a merely cursory interior text: two (P Hever 9 and P Mur 19), dated at their latest in the early 70s, have full inner texts, but three more (P Mur 23 [66-70], P Jericho 7 [84], and P Mur 28 [undated]) have only short inner texts.^[146] A Hebrew text from the first Jewish revolt (P Mur 30) also had a compressed inner text.^[147] Compared to the residents of Arabia, those of Judaea seem to have been unmoved by the inclination to meet any Roman standard or pander to any Roman attitude in the matter of how a document should be constructed.

Table 3. Single vs Doubled Documents

3.1(a) unknown origin:

single or “simple” (like a page of our writing):

1 P Hever 66 (loan with hypothec, in Greek, possibly from Philadelphia, AD 99 or 109).

3.2(a.1) Arabia (before AD 106):

doubled: type 1 (inner text starts at top of back [=verso] and continues on top of front [=recto], followed by outer text, then rolled over and sewn and knotted shut):

3 (all Nabataean Aramaic): **P Starcky = P Yadin 36 [acknowledgment of debt, 58-67], inner “possibly a much abridged version” (Yardeni [2001] 125 [as in n 18]); *P Yadin 2 [sale of date-grove, 99], inner/outer close but outer has more details and is longer; *3 [sale of same date-grove, 99], inner text damaged, but inner/outer probably close.

doubled: type 2 (inner text top of front, outer text bottom of front, then rolled inner/top rolled over and sewn shut):

2 (both Nabataean Aramaic): *P Yadin 1 [debenture, 94], inner text “much compressed”; *4 [agreement, 99], inner text not preserved.

unknown: 1 (Nabataean Aramaic): **P.Se’elim 2 [deed of sale, 100], inner text missing.^[148]

3.2 (a.2) Arabia (after ad 106):

single or “simple”:

11 (*P Yadin 5 [acknowledgment of deposit in Greek, 110], *6 [tenancy agreement in Nabataean Aramaic, 119], *9 [waiver in Nabataean Aramaic, 122], *8 [purchase contract for two animals in Jewish Aramaic, 123], *13 [personal copy of petition to the governor in Greek, 124], **P Hever 60 [receipt for tax on dates in Greek, 125], P Yadin 42 [lease agreement in Jewish Aramaic, 132], **P Hever 63 [deed of renunciation of claims in Greek, 127?], **P Hever 12 [receipt for dates in Jewish Aramaic, 131: “unparalleled in other Hebrew and Aramaic texts”, Yardeni in DJD 27.210], *P Yadin 27 (receipt for orphan's maintenance in Greek, 132), 43 (receipt for partial payment of lease in Jewish Aramaic, 132]).

paired (two single sheets written in “simple” format, but one from perspec­tive of buyer, one from seller):

1 *P Yadin 21-22 [sale, Greek, 130].

doubled: highly unusual type (two texts on one sheet of papyrus, one written upside down, one from perspective of seller, one from perspective of buyer; each was doubled but the inner texts do not survive):

1-2 P Yadin 47a-b [buying and selling, Jewish Aramaic, 134]; nb “Helle­nistic practice is single text”, P Yadin 1.94).

doubled: type 1:

1 *P Yadin 7 [deed of gift in Jewish Aramaic, AD 120] “following Nabataean procedure”; inner/outer very close.

doubled: type 2:

22 *P Yadin 10 [Babatha's ketubba in Jewish Aramaic, 124-125], inner text not preserved; *P Yadin 12 [extract from council-minutes of Petra, 124-125], inner text one sentence; *14 [summons by Babatha to guard­ians of son, 125], inner text fuller than outer;^[149] *15 [deposition 125], inner/outer close; *16 [land-declaration in census, 127], inner text one sentence; **P Hever 61 [land-declaration in census, 127], fragmentary; **62 [land-declaration in census, 127], inner text one sentence; *P Yadin 17 [acknowledgment of deposit written in objective style, 128], inner/ outer close; *18 [marriage contract written as objective statement of fact, 128], noteworthy variation inner/outer (not compression); *19 [deed of gift written as objective statement of fact, 128], inner damaged, but disagreement inner/outer?; **P Hever 64 [deed of gift, 129], literal trans­lation from Aramaic, first-person inner fuller than third-person outer but also some variations; *P Yadin 20 [concession of rights, 130], inner text fuller than outer; *23 [summons to Babatha, 130], only closing formula reduced in inner text; *24 [deposition, 130], fragmentary; *25 [summons and counter-summons, 131], inner text fuller than outer; *26 [summons and counter-summons, 131], inner text badly abraded; 31 [contract? after 125], entire document poorly preserved; *33 [copy of posted petition, 125], inner text one sentence; *34 [?copy of petition, 131], unfinished (inner text never written); **37=**P Hever 65 [marriage contract possibly written in objective style, 131, inner text only]; *P Yadin 35 [summons, 132], fragmentary; 32 [contract? no date], almost entirely abraded; 32a [contract? no date], almost entirely abraded.

3.3(a.1) Judaea:

single or “simple”:

1 (unknown: either Jewish Aramaic or Hebrew): P Mur 38 (nd).

10 (Jewish Aramaic): P Jericho 2 [deed of lease], 3 [deed of sale; both end first or beginn. second century]; P Yadin 42 [lease agreement, 132], 43 [receipt, 132]; P Hever 8a [deed of sale, 134 or 135], 10 [receipt], 13 [waiver of claims, ⁵³ 134 or 135], 26 [deposit?]; P Mur 27 [deed of sale]; P Sdeir 2 [acknowledgment of debt, 135].

17 (Hebrew): P Mur 7 [legal fragments on leather, 100-120], 24 [12 lease agreements, 133]; P Hever 49 [promissory note, 133]); P Yadin 44-46 [leases of land from Ein-Gedi, all 134].

5 (Greek): Ein-Gedi Pap. 1 [land transaction or loan?, 90-130];⁵⁴ P Mur 114 [acknowledgment of debt, 124]; P Hever 67 [document re falling timber, 127 or 128]; P Jericho 4 [deed of sale or lease, 132-136], 5e [transactions concerning seeds, “Roman”].

R Haensch, Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und Provinzialverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit (1997) 559 no 42 believes.

53 An identification affirmed by H M Cotton and E Qimron, “XHev/Se ar 13 of 134 or 135 CE: A wife's renunciation of claims” (1998) 49 Journal of Jewish Studies 108, after some controversy.

54 Cohen, “New Greek papyri” (n 26) 89-92.

doubled: type 2

24 (Jewish Aramaic): P Mur 18 [acknowledgment of debt, 55-56], inner not preserved; P Mur 20 [marriage contract, 51 or 65], outer not preserved; P Hever 9 [deed of sale, end Herodian], inner/outer close (outer fragmentary at end), P Hever 21 [deed of sale, end Herodian], fragmen­tary; P Hever 22 [deed of sale, end Herodian], fragmentary; P Mur 23 [sale, 66-70], inner only a resumé; P Mur 25 [sale, 66-70], fragmentary; P Hever 348 [Aramaic deed, Herodian], fragmentary; P Mur 19 [divorce, 72], inner/outer close; P Jericho 7 [sale of date crop, 84], inner much compressed; PJericho 8 [deed, first century AD], fragmentary; P Mur 21 [marriage contract, first half second century], inner not preserved; P Mur 28 [sale, undated], inner only a resumé; P Mur 31 [sale, undated], inner text not preserved; P Hever 7 [deed of sale, 134 or 135, on hide], fragmen­tary; 8 [deed of sale, 135], inner text Jewish Aramaic, outer Hebrew and not well preserved; 9a [unknown, fragmentary, and undated]; 11 [marriage contract, 70-end Bar Kokhba revolt], very fragmentary; 23 [deed of sale, 70-end Bar Kokhba revolt], fragmentary; 24 [deed], fragmentary; 24a [deed], fragmentary; 25 [deed], fragmentary; P Hever 50 + P Mur 26 [deed of sale], fragmentary; P Hever 345 [?deed; no date], fragmentary.

4-5 (Hebrew): P Mur 29 [sale, 66-70], fragmentary;^[150] 30 [sale, 66-70], inner compressed;^[151] P Jericho 9 and 10 [deed, first century AD; may be same document], fragmentary; P Mur 22 [deed of sale, 134], inner/outer close.

3 (Greek): *P Yadin 11 [acknowledgment of debt, 124] inner/outer close; P Mur 115 [marriage contract written in objective style, 124], outer fragmentary but ed. thinks two close; P Hever 69 [marriage contract, AD 130], very little left of inner.

Two types of Greek double-document from Arabia help to make the case for Roman influence there a little more dramatically. These two types of document do not exist in, or at least survive from, Judaea, which may or may not be a significant fact. One type is procedural, the raft of double-documents associ­ated with hearings before the Roman governor. Babatha spent several years manoeuvring to get better child support for her son from her first marriage, or at least to be allowed to invest his money on the argument that she would be able to get a better return, and thus provide better maintenance for him. (Her first husband had died, and part of his estate had been put into trust.)^[152] In pursuit of this, there are summons, counter-summons, and depositions (the /.taQTVQonoL/M), all in double-document form with full inner texts.^[153] In a context where Babatha knew she had to put her best foot forward and please the Roman authorities, she is very careful indeed to conform to their standards and mind her manners.^[154]

The other type of “official” legal document that suggests Roman influence is best described as an attested copy of legal obligations or legal acts that have been fulfilled or performed, and officially memorialised elsewhere, but for which it is useful, indeed possibly required, that the individual involved have his (or her) own copy. In this category belong attested copies of an extract from the council minutes of the city of Petra (P Yadin 12, AD 124­125), as well as copies of land declarations that landholders have made when the census of the province was taken (P Yadin 16 and P Hever 62, both AD 127) and a copy of a posted petition (P Yadin 33, AD 125). These double­documents are different from the others because their inner texts are rarely more than a line long, and basically refer the reader to where the full original text is posted - although a copy of the full text is also given as the outer text of the document. To have this kind of cross-referencing interior text must have been an official choice: Romans (and the council of the city of Petra) were the issuing authorities; it was their decision in these cases to issue documents that looked like this; and this worked well because, after all, they did have the originals in their own possession. For most purposes that anyone could imagine the double-document copy would do; if there really were a dispute the Romans (or the city council) could resolve it themselves by looking at their own records. What the copies of the declarations made for the census particularly attested was that a proper procedure - of declaring property - had been performed, and the authorities were willing to say so.

In the Arabian documents, the shift to an approximation of the “Roman way” seems pretty sudden and pretty complete. Not only is the use of Greek after AD 106 massive, but twenty-two (of twenty-seven total) Greek documents are doubled, while only one, a deed of gift (P Yadin 7 of AD 120), of the six published Aramaic documents after 106 is. Double-documents were

?3 other contracts (Greek)

4 deeds of sale and gift (Jewish and Nabataean Aramaic, Greek)

2 acknowledgments of debt, deposit (Nabataean Aramaic, Greek)

1 concession of rights (Greek)

21 deeds (usu. of sale; Jewish Aramaic and Hebrew)

2 acknowledgments of debt (Jewish Aramaic, Greek)

1 divorce (Jewish Aramaic)

3 unknown

The only notable difference between the two provinces in the matter of doubling documents arises from the choice, in Arabia, to compose or present these more important documents as Greek rather than Aramaic double­documents, and to employ fuller interior texts. Care and completeness characterise the construction of these significant legal documents aimed at a Roman audience, an audience assumed for a higher proportion of significant documents in Arabia than in Judaea.

The rate of change may not, however, be quite as sudden as it seems. A hint of an intermediate moment, an approximate adjustment, can perhaps be seen in P Yadin 5 of the year AD 110, only four years after the official creation of the province. This peculiar “simple” (undoubled) document, written in awkward Greek, may be a witnessed translation of an Aramaic document, made to make the document acceptable to a new or different court.^[155] Compare this to P Hever 64, a deed of gift from the year 129. The “ungrammatical and non-idiomatic” Greek of this document is (also) a consequence of its virtually direct translation from the Aramaic.^[156] Despite this, it is diplomatically a much more conventional double-document, with an inner text fuller than the outer one. Twenty years after the creation of the province, conformity to a perceived diplomatic standard is easier to achieve and there is less to be confused about. The ability to write Greek may vary considerably from scribe to scribe, but a double-document with full inner and outer texts can be put together with, apparently, a minimum of difficulty. One man was even sufficiently adept in both languages and styles by the 120s that he could write a marriage contract in Jewish Aramaic for his own wife, Babatha, in 124-125, but be party to his daughter's marriage contract in Greek in 128.^[157]

E.