Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 48 (2011) 225-231
Notes on Papyri
With the correction in BL 1:95 the opening of this second/third-century
letter (lines 2-3) reads as follows: cUxatpiavc e5ptv Toi npb<; as ipxo voo
xdpqv,cv os dadTct(o[at (for dond(to at). H. Ljungvik, in his Apostelgeschichten1 (never excerpted for the BL) thinks (p. 25) that the neuter participle could
have been written instead of the expected infinitive (cf. RRoss.Georg. 3.18,
where a feminine participle seems to have been used in that way). This would
mean that the writer had the opportunity of going to the addressee himself.
But why did he then proceed to write the letter? The solution is simple: the
participle is correct and refers to the (anonymous) letter carrier (the ed.princ.
had read a proper name Exaipov instead of cuxatpigv, but this left the genitive unexplained). The (anonymous) letter carrier in the genitive following
cuxatpla is common in letters of the later Roman period (starting with BOxy.
1.123, a letter of the third-fourth century; cf. now PGen. 4.169.1-2n.). BGU
4.1081 seems to provide the earliest example.
We can now translate the opening of the letter as follows: "When I found
that someone who was going in your direction was available, I was glad that
I could greet you." The performative verb daT(o[at does not surprise in this
University of Cincinnati Peter van Minnen
' H. Ljungvik, Studien zur Sprache der apokryphen Apostelgeschichten (diss. Uppsala,