Ber. P. 23933 a (+) b

This document uses the languages of a letter, but is written parallel to the recto’s fibers. This may be a memorandum that summarizes and important letter,*1* or this may be one of the few examples of a report genre known from the papyri (e.g. Pl. 13445A (+) 582 h, 47 + 476 q, 26).*2* Additionally P. 23123 a-c shares some similarities in script and material, but no direct join to that manuscript has been made. Frag. 449 + 518 l, line 2. The adverbial phrase לקדמינ is rare in the surviving Aramaic sources. The expected form is קדמן. It is found with the י but not the ל in TAD A.4.7.25, and with the י and ל only on the memorandum TAD A.4.9.10. In this latter source one finds the form לקדמן only two lines prior (ln. 8) and מן קדמן before that (ln. 5). The hand of that memorandum is quite diverse, but one could reasonably argue that it is a slightly larger scaled version of the hand found here. Frag. 539. This fragment is taller than the previous, but approximately the same width of the roll’s vertical folds. The hand and pen and the same. This is the end of the line/column (?), and must be the edge of the document because the line begins to curve upward as though the writer were trying to fit more words on the line while maintaining a margin. *1*So too P. 13497 = TAD A.4.9. The sole surviving memorandum from Bactria also appears to contain dialogue (ADAB no. C4 ll. 52–57), and may also be a summary of a more official document (cf. Moore, “Who Gave You That Decree?” ##.). *2*I consider those epistolary documents that begin עבד a type of informal report. Of the few examples (e.g. EM 43493 = TAD A.3.1 [first text, recto ⟂]; perhaps EM 43494 = TAD A.3.2; Pl. 13445A = TAD A.4.6 recto ∥ (see above); and EM 43467 = A.4.10 recto ∥), all but one are written parallel to the recto’s fibers. In his discussion of the formula of EM 43467, Schwiderski claims that this document is missing the address and greeting because “sich der Text an eine höhergestellte Persönlichkeit wendet (vgl. die Relationsbezeichnungen עבדיך ‘deine Knechte’ und מראן ‘unser Herr’ in Z. 7 und 12)” (Handbuch, 113). I fail to see why a document sent to a higher official would be less formulaic. Perhaps instead, these are notes from which the formal letter could be drafted and sent. In this interpretation the report genre serves as a receipt of a more formal letter.