¹ The Adler Papyri. The Greek texts edited by Adler, Elkan Nathan, Tait, John Gavin and Heichelheim, Fritz M.. The Demotic texts by the late Professor Francis Llewellyn Griffith, LL.D., F.B.A. (1939). Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar.

² Actes du V^e Congrès de Papyrologie (1938), 14.

³ The Adler Papyri, p. 3 f.

⁴ Heichelheim, F. M., Die auswaertige Bevoelkerung im Ptolemaeerreich. Klio Beiheft 18 (1925), 100 f.Google Scholar, and supplements of the same author in Archiv fuer Papyrusforschung IX (1928), 53 f. and XII (1936), 61 f.

⁵ For the many articles and books dealing with the Persians of the Epigone cf. the survey of Heichelheim, F. M., Bericht ueber griechische Staatskunde (1902–1932 (1934)), in Bursian's Jahresbericht ueber die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. 250 (1935), 274 f.Google Scholar, and in addition F. Zucker in Pauly-Wissowa, R. E. XIX, 910 f. art. ‘Persai’; Pringsheim, F., Journ. Eg. Arch. XXVI (1941), 146Google Scholar.

⁶ The Adler Papyri, p. 4.

⁷ For this double terminology cf. E. Bickermann, Arch. f. Pap. VII (1926–27), 220 f.

⁸ The Adler Papyri, p. 5.

⁹ I refer to P. Amh. 50; U. P. Z. II 190 (Upper Egypt); P. Hibeh 89 (Heracleopolites); P. Hamb. 2 (Heliopolites); B. G. U. 1053; 1055; 1146 (Alexandria). Cf. also F. Preisigke, Woerterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden I (1925) s.v. ἄτοκος. The abbreviations for editions of papyri which are used in this article are those of the Archiv fuer Papyrusforschung. Cf. for a complete list Cl. Préaux, , L'Economie Royale des Lagides (1939), p. 571 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ The editors refer to P. Tebt. 818 as to a loan without interest. Such a reference needs a commentary, since the loan of two talents 500 drachms of copper mentioned here is granted with the usual interest of 24%. It is recorded, indeed, in the contract that this loan is the amount which the debtor still owes to the creditor out of the sum of five talents which he received from a former agreement. The editors suppose, evidently, that this former loan was ἄτοκος and that the interest stipulated in the second agreement was regarded as a fine for the non-repayment of the former loan at the fixed time. It may be that they are right, especially as the parties to the contract are Jews; but it is nothing more than a suggestion.

¹¹ The editors (p. 5, note 3) refer to ‘Jewish (?) loans’ in B. G. U. IV (cf. M. Schnebel, Aegyptus XIII, 35 f.). The question mark after the word ‘Jewish’ shows that they themselves were not certain.

¹² Repayment of the ἡμιόλιον and 24% in P. Tebt. 817 and 818.

¹³ The Adler Papyri, p. 57 s.v. πρᾶξις.

¹⁴ The editors refer to an unprinted article of Professor Marmorstein, which deals with English Jewry of the Middle Ages. It appears that he found mediaeval analogies to the formulae of contracts which were used by Greeks in Hellenistic Egypt; yet how can these analogies solve our problem? Even if we assume that Jewish contracts of the Middle Ages were influenced by similar contracts of the Hellenistic period, it would only prove that Jews retained for a long time some features of Hellenistic judicial practice, but not that this practice itself was created or influenced by Jews.

¹⁵ Cf. Préaux, Cl., L'Economie Royale des Lagides (1939), 282Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Cf. M. Schnebel, Aegyptus XIII, 40.

¹⁷ The Adler Papyri, p. 5.

¹⁸ In Nehemiah's time the Jewish people took an oath to observe the precept of the seventh year (Neh. X 32). We have, indeed, evidence from the Hellenistic age that the shemita of the soil (šemiṭṭath 'adhāmâh) was observed (I Macc. 6, 49; 6, 53; Joseph., Bell. Jud. I, 60; Ant. XII, 378; cf. also note 21). As to the shemita of debts (šemiṭṭath kaspîm), the question is more complicated. From Mishna Shebiith X 3 we may draw the conclusion, that theoretically the Biblical precept retained its power, but was practically abolished, because most money-lenders refused to grant loans on the approach of the seventh year. This state of affairs culminated at the time of Herod in the famous reform of Hillel, which enabled the money-lenders to persist in their rights in spite of the Biblical law with the help of the so-called Prosbol. Cf. L. Blau, Prosbol im Lichte der griechischen Papyri und der Rechtsgeschichte (Festschrift zum 50 jaehrigen Bestehen der Franz-Joseph-Landesrabbinerschule in Budapest), pp. 96–151.

¹⁹ Cf. P. Adler Gr. 15.

²⁰ Deut. XV 9; Mishna Shebiith X 3.

²¹ We are able to compile a list of ‘seventh’ years during the Hellenistic age from the certain dates 164–3 B.C. (I Macc. 6, 49), 136–5 B.C. (Joseph., Bell. Jud. I, 60; Ant. XIII, 234) and 38–7 B.C. (Joseph., Ant. XIV, 475; XV, 7). Cf. E. Schuerer, Geschichte des juedischen Volkes I (3rd ed.), 35 f. The years 101–100 and 94–3 B.C. obviously belong in this list. Cf. also Reinach, Th., Inscriptions de Touba. Rev. Et. Juives 85 (1928), 1 fGoogle Scholar.

²² It was, therefore, necessary to write the so-called Prosbol, i.e. a declaration annulling the effect of the shemita. Cf. Blau, op. cit., 110.

²³ Cf. The Adler Papyri, p. 6.

²⁴ The word ἀδελϕός is restored here, but the editors rightly pointed out that P. Adler Gr. 7 is the ἀντίγραϕον of a contract, the original of which, S. B. III 6645, is in our hands too. The word ἀδελϕός occurs in this additional copy. Its restoration is, therefore, to be considered as absolutely certain.

²⁵ I am obliged to Dr. Heichelheim for sending me a copy of this papyrus. The text mentions Ταθῶτις Φίβιος Περσίνη, and her guardian and ἀδελϕός Πανοβχοῦνις τοῦ Νεχούτου Πέρσης, who is actually her nephew.

²⁶ Cf. the genealogical table of The Adler Papyri, p. 4.

²⁷ Cf. Preisigke, op. cit., s.v.

²⁸ Gen. XIII 8; XIV 16; XXIV 15; 48; XXIX 12; 15; XXXI 23; 32; Job XLII 11. For ἀδελϕή as ‘kinswoman’ cf. Gen. XXIV 6; Job XLII 11.

²⁹ The Adler Papyri, p. 6.

³⁰ The Adler Papyri, p. 5.

³¹ Cf., for example, Schuerer, op. cit., III, 175; Baron, S. W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews (1937), I, 138 f.Google Scholar; III, 36.

³² It is possible that in the Roman age there was a considerable number of Egyptians observing the Sabbath. I shall discuss this problem in my Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum mentioned above.

³³ On the contrary, we have proof from the papyri that Jewish inhabitants of Egypt acted in their judicial and other affairs in accordance with the general injunctions of the laws of the country. Cf. P. Gurob 2 (a Jewish woman acting with the help of a guardian like an Egyptian or Greek woman). The great influence of the Egyptians upon the Jews can be recognized from the Edfu ostraca published by Manteuffel, J. in Fouilles Franco-Polonaises, Tell Edfou I (1937), p. 145 f.Google Scholar; II (1938), p. 146 f., which reveal a considerable number of Egyptian names among the Jews in Edfu during the Roman age.

³⁴ Cf. The Adler Papyri, p. 6. Among these ‘other texts’ the editors refer to P. Cairo Zen. 59 762; P. Tebt. 817–18; O. G. I. S. 73–4 and Joseph., Contra Apion. II, 10, 123. All these texts are of doubtful meaning. P. Cairo Zen. 59 762 cannot prove Jewish influence upon Egyptians, because it is not certain whether the man who is mentioned in this text as observing the Sabbath was an Egyptian, a proselyte or a genuine Jew. For P. Tebt. 817–18 see above. The inscriptions O. G. I. S. 73–4 cannot be considered as Jewish religious propaganda, since the name of the Jewish god was not directly mentioned in them. As to the reference to Josephus, the words can be understood to concern Egypt as well as any other country where Jews and Greeks met together.

³⁵ The size of the volume had already been fixed, before I was asked to collaborate. This made it inevitable that the commentary on the texts had to omit a number of problems, and had to treat all questions as concisely as possible. The selection could not be completely satisfactory, but will, I sincerely hope, be considered as sufficient.

³⁶ Cf. Roberts, C. H., Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library (Manchester, 1936)Google Scholar.

³⁷ P. Grenf. I 43 = W. Chr. II 57.

³⁸ Cf. for this question Kittel, G., Theologisches Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament I (1933), 144–5Google Scholar and A. Crampon, La Sainte Bible (1928), notes on p. 331.

³⁹ Baba Mezia 48b–49b (late first century A.D.).

⁴⁰ P. Adler Gr. 1 (Saturday, Horus is not a party to this contract nor concerned in any way); 2 (Saturday, the name of Horus is only restored and not at all certain); 3 (Friday); 4 (Saturday, the name of Horus is again only restored and rather uncertain); 5 (Wednesday); 7 (Monday); 8 (Monday); 9 (Monday and Wednesday); 10 (Tuesday); 11 (Thursday); 12 (Tuesday); 13 (Friday); 14 (Tuesday); 15 (Thursday); 16 (Tuesday); 17 (Saturday!); 18 (Tuesday); 21 (Wednesday); P. Adler dem. 2 (Tuesday and Wednesday); 4 (Tuesday); 6 (Sunday); 7 (Friday); 13 (Sunday); 15 (Sunday); 16 (Saturday!); 17 (Friday); 19 (Sunday); 20 (Thursday); 21 (Friday); 22 (Thursday); 23 (Wednesday); 24 (Wednesday); 25 (Saturday!). The day of the week should regularly be established for all texts which refer to Jews. I mention from my notes on this question B. G. U. 1272 (Thursday); 1282 (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday); P. Cairo Zen. 59 241 (Sunday); P. Enteuxeis 23 (Saturday!, Thursday, Wednesday); P. Gurob 2=Chr. II 21 (Friday); P. Gurob 8 (Monday and Tuesday); P. Hamb. 108 (Sunday); P. S. I. 381 (Monday); P. Tebt. 800 (Tuesday, but registered by a pagan official on a Saturday); 817 (Monday); 818 (Friday); 820 (Friday). Cf. R. Schram, Kalendariographische und chronologische Tafeln (1908).

⁴¹ Cf. M. Schnebel, Aegyptus XIII, p. 35 f. and the texts mentioned in note 9, for which Dr. Tscherikower's remarks should also be considered. The registration of a loan with interest between Jews in P. Tebt. 815 Recto col. II 17 f. refers probably to a similar type of loan as the editors of The Adler Papyri, p. 5 (cf. also note 10 of this article) suggested for P. Tebt. 818.

⁴² Cf. Baba Mezia 61b: R. Eleazar (first quarter of IInd century A.D.): ‘Direct interest can be reclaimed by court, but not indirect interest. ------- This refers to prepaid and postpaid interest.’ Of other passages referring to interest between Jews I mention Baba Mezia 61b; Baba Mezia V 6 and 71b–72b (reference to the habit of ascribing money to a gentile and lending it to an Israelite on interest indirectly; cf. for this habit also the documents from Angevin England mentioned above); Midrash Rabbah III Exodus XXXI 4; Baba Mezia V 5 and 69b–70a (allowed interest between Jews). Finally, Midrash Rabbah IV Leviticus III 1 (‘Better is he who possesses ten gold pieces with which he does business and maintains himself than he who goes and borrows on interest’) shows well the dissuasive, but not always completely negative attitude of the Talmudic period in the question of interest. Cf. also Goodenough, E. R., The Jurisprudence of the Jewish Courts in Egypt (1929), p. 50Google Scholar; Heinemann, I., Philos griechische und jüdische Bildung (1932), p. 428 fGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ Davis, M. D., Hebrew Deeds of English Jews before 1290. Anglo-Jewish Hist. Exhib. Publ. II (1888)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Cf. for the meaning of this passage Loewe, H., Starrs and Jewish Charters Preserved in the British Museum II (1932), p. 284Google Scholar and the following extract from the unprinted lecture of A. Marmorstein, ‘Some New Aspects of Jewish Religious Life and Literary Activity in Anguevin England,’ which the author, who was the first to point out a historical connection between P. Tebt. 817 and 818, and the above documents, kindly allowed me to quote: ‘A Jew, Jacob ben Eliab, borrowed 60 shillings from his brother Solomon and promised to repay the sum before Easter 1254. The loan was originally without interest; yet, in case of default within a calendar-year, Jacob, the debtor, undertakes to pay 2 pennies per month for each pound to a certain gentile, who steps in the place of the Jewish creditor. It is easy to imagine or visualise what happened. The debtor pays the interest weekly or monthly to the gentile, who after some deduction for his trouble delivers the rest to the Jewish creditor. Solomon ben Eliab was by no means the only one who availed himself of such a practice. There was another English Jew who evaded the Biblical injunction in exactly the same way. Rabbi Abraham, a man, as the title shows, of some scholarly attainment or distinction, the son of the holy martyr R. Asriel, and his brother-in-law Elijah ben Isaac agreed to a similar arrangement with each other. There can be no doubt about one or two facts to be noticed in all these and other transactions. First of all that these loans were originally contracted without interest. Secondly that the gentile was merely a man of straw, who was substituted for the Jewish creditor, and consequently a Jew paid interest to another Jew. This is a plain breach of the Mosaic law. Thirdly, it is quite unlikely that these and other Norman Jews would have acted thus without instruction or permission on the part of their authorised teachers or spiritual guides.’

⁴⁵ Both here and elsewhere the pronoun might refer to the person or the bond. In the former case ‘devolve upon him’ would be a better translation (H. Loewe).

⁴⁶ This provision is added to cover a supplementary clause written between the lines. Any such insertion must be legitimated by a provision of this nature which must come before the words: ‘And all,’ etc., since nothing is valid which follows these words (H. Loewe).

⁴⁷ Cf. for this formula Loewe, Starrs II, p. 277 f. note 1263 A, B, C, G, K.

⁴⁸ Cf. for this expression Loewe, Starrs II, p. 283.

⁴⁹ Cf. the references in Loewe, Starrs III, p. 502. It is probable, but not certain that the creditor, or the creditors, of this third contract were Jews.

⁵⁰ Henry II or Edward I cannot be restored (H. Loewe).

⁵¹ Cf. with a full bibliography of the earlier discussion of this coin Sukenik, E. L., The Oldest Coins of Judaea, Journ. Palest. Orient. Soc. XIV (1934), 178 f.Google Scholar; id., More About the Oldest Coins of Judaea, Journ. Palest. Orient. Soc. XV (1935), 341 f.; Cook, S. A., The Yahu Coin, Z. f. A. T. W. XV (1938), 268 f.Google Scholar; Cook, A. B., Zeus III (1940), 1072Google Scholar. The coin to which we refer had on the Rev. either the inscription YHW, i.e. Jahveh or YHD. The latter reading is almost certain for a younger group of Palestinian coins, imitations of Athenian ‘owls,’ which were issued in the second half of the fourth century B.C.

Sukenik's interpretation of the reading YHD as an abbreviation of Yehûdhâh, i.e. ‘Jehûd,’ a name for Palestine during the Persian period, has been convincingly refuted by S. A. Cook and A. B. Cook. They rightly point out that only names of nations, persons or gods, but never names of regions occur on the many coins of this period. Apart from this, Sukenik's actual readings can only be refuted with palaeographic proofs which seem to be difficult to produce, at least for the younger group of coins. Could not YHD be understood as an abbreviated writing of Yehûdîm (Jews)?

⁵² Cf. C. H. Roberts — T. C. Skeat — Nock, A. D., The Gild of Zeus Hypsistos, The Harvard Theol. Review XXIX (1936), 39 f.Google Scholar; Cook, A. B., Zeus II (1925), 884Google Scholar, 887 f.; III (1940), 1162, where an acute and convincing discussion and interpretation of practically all the sources for this syncretistic cult can be found. Cf. also Wilcken, U., Arch. f. Pap. XII, 219 f.Google Scholar, and for similar syncretistic cults Pauly-Wissowa, R. E. I A 1560 f. art. Sabbatistai; II A 2097 f. art. Sibyllen.

⁵³ Cf. with bibliography Pauly-Wissowa, R. E. II A 2102 and Reinach, A. J., Noé Sangariou. Rev. Ét. Juives 65 (1912), 161 f.Google Scholar; 66 (1913), 1 f.

⁵⁴ Cf. for this material Cook, A. B., Zeus I (1914), 233 f.Google Scholar; Th. Hopfner, Griechisch-Aegyptischer Offenbarungszauber, (Stud, fuer Palaeogr. und Papyruskunde XXI and XXIII, 1921–4), Indices s.v. Jahweh; Kagarow, E. G., Griechische Fluchtafeln. Eus Supplementa IV (1929), 63 fGoogle Scholar.