The following article deals with the use of verbs in the so-called summonses and petitions for summonses. Starting from the two typical forms of summonses in the Arsinoite and the Oxyrhynchite nome from the first to the third centuries AD, the two verbs, ἀναπέμπω and πέμπω, will be examined in petitions for summonses, in an attempt to gain new insights into the dispersal of the technical use of these verbs in Egypt and the Roman Empire. Furthermore, petitions of summonses will prove themselves to be of major importance when it comes to giving actual reasons for summonses.

1. Summonses

A lot has already been said and written concerning the so-called summonses («Überstellungsbefehle»). There is no need to repeat the valuable results of important analyses such as those of Ursula Hagedorn or Hans-Joachim Drexhage. In a nutshell and as a starting point, one may summarize as follows: summonses were usually issued in the strategos’ bureau on petitions¹; they contain at least the names of both the addressee and the person who is supposed to be summoned. Quite often, the petitioner or accuser is also mentioned, whereas the name of the sender, the reason for the summons, and dates are usually missing². In the typical procedure of the first to third centuries AD, the claimant appealed directly to the strategos of the nome, whose bureau then had a formal summons written to a local police official³. There was no need to mention the official sender of summonses, because it was the strategos himself⁴. The administration was reorganized in the mid-third century AD and the forms of police power also changed⁵.

Papyri tell us that men as well as women, both in the singular and in the plural, and having all different kinds of professions, were summoned: we see officials next to fishermen, farmers, weavers, slaves etc. Sometimes an escort is mentioned, e.g. SB XII 11107 (II AD) and SB XVI 12706 (first half of III AD). The reason for an explicit mention of an escort is unclear; Drexhage suspects either especially serious accusations, or actual imprisonment⁶.

1.1. The major forms of summonses in the Arsinoite and the Oxyrhynchite nomes

Ursula Hagedorn has pointed out in her analysis of the so-called summonses that two main forms can be identified in the Roman administration in Egypt before Diocletian⁷. One comes from the Arsinoite, the other one from the Oxyrhynchite nome⁸. The general form of the first is: [address] ἀνάπεμψον τὸν δεῖνα ἐγκαλούμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ δεῖνοc ἐξαυτῆc «[to N.N.], send up N.N., who is accused by N.N., at once»; of the latter: [address] πέμψον τὸν δεῖνα ἐντυχόντοc τοῦ δεῖνοc «[to N.N.], send N.N. following the petition of N.N.». Where the verb ἀναπέμπω is used in the Arsinoite nome, the simple verb πέμπω occurs in the Oxyrhynchite. In the Arsinoite form a conjunct passive participle identifies the plaintiff; in the Oxyrhynchite, the plaintiff is given by a genitive absolute. Initially, the adverb ἔξαυτῆc is found only in the Arsinoite nome.

While the Arsinoite form did not change until the third century AD in all of the three merides, and thereby, kept the verb ἀναπέμπω as its primary technical term, the Oxyrhynchite form changes shortly before AD 256⁹. The hitherto unused verb ἀναπέμπω finds its way into the official form of summonses. This change is supposed to have taken place within a process, so the different forms most likely did not coexist, but were in use one after the other. The later form in the Oxyrhynchite nome was customary until the fourth century and distinguishes itself from the earlier one in several points: (a) often the sender is mentioned – a fact that leads to the conclusion that the bureau of the strategos was no longer necessarily the sender of the summonses; furthermore (b), the adverb ἔξαυτῆc, which is well known from the Arsinoite nome, finds its way into the wording, although – unlike in the Arsinoite form – usually not at the end of the sentence; and finally (c), ἀναπέμπω is used next to other verbs¹⁰.

Two recently published documents from the Oxyrhynchite nome, however, do not seem to follow that pattern. On the one hand both of these Oxyrhynchite texts follow the earlier pattern, putting the addressee (ἀρχέφοδοc) at the beginning and not mentioning the sender, which leads to the conclusion that the strategos – or the bureau of the strategos – is the sender; on the other hand, both texts use ἀναπέμπω, which belongs to the later pattern.

P.Oxy. LXXIV 5003 (II AD): ἀρχεφόδωι Πακερκη. ἀνάπεμψον | τοὺc πρεcβ(υτέρουc) | Πατέρμουθιν Διογᾶτοc, μη(τρὸc) Ἀμμωναρίὸύ, | Κοπρέαν [Ὀ]φελλίου, μη(τρὸc) Ταύριοc. «To the archephodos of Pakerke. Send up the presbyteroi: Patermouthis, son of Diogas, mother Ammonarion. Kopreas, son of Ophellios, mother Tauris.»¹¹

P.Oxy. LXXIV 5004 (III AD): ἀρχεφόδῳ Τακονα. ἐξαυτῆc̣ ἀ̣ν̣ά̣π̣ε̣μψον̣ | Ἀκύλαν Ἀποληγίου ἢ τὸν πατέραν ἐ̣γ̣[γ]υ̣ητ̣[ὴν] | αὐτοῦ ὂντα ἢ cὺ̣ α̣ὐτὸc ἄνελθε. «To the archephodos of Takona. Send at once Aquila, son of Apolegius, or his father who is his guarantor, or else come up yourself.»¹²

These documents probably reflect the transition from the earlier to the later pattern. This seems especially true in the case of P.Oxy. LXXIV 5004, where the adverb έξαυτησ can also be found. If such an interpretation is correct, these two examples give evidence of the development and the process of the changing of the form. As previously mentioned, Hagedorn stated that they did not coexist but were in use one after the other. Further evidence of the transition of the forms is likely to be found in SB XVIII 13854 (I AD), a summons that has the verb ἐκπέμπω, but the adverb ἐξαυτῆc, and SB XVI 12649 (II AD), where the simple verb πέμπω and the adverb ἐξαυτῆc can be found¹³.

Although other verbs such as ἐκπέμπω or μεταπέμπω are used in summonses, summonses in the Arsinoite mainly display ἀναπέμπω and summonses in the Oxyrhynchite prefer πέμπω from the first to the mid-third centuries AD. Therefore, the following observations will focus on these two main verbs. It will thus be determined whether this preference for the use of different verbs in summonses can also be seen in petitions asking for summonses.

2. Petitions for summonses

As previously mentioned, summonses normally do not give the reason why someone is to be summoned. The opposite is true of petitions for summonses. The misdeed of a person is often expressed in detail in order to make sure the addressee acknowledges one’s mistreatment and will guarantee justice. Sometimes these petitions include a remark written by a second hand that a summons is to be initiated¹⁴. Therefore the following examples in most cases do not tell us whether a summons has actually taken place. But since we are interested in the verbs used to express a summons, this need not bother us. In the previous section we identified two typical verbs in summonses, namely ἀναπέμπω in the Arsinoite and πέμπω in the Oxyrhynchite nome. Now petitions will be presented that contain either πέμπω or ἀναπέμπω in order to ask for a summons.

2.1. The verb ἀναπέμπω in petitions for summonses

In documentary papyri, ἀναπέμπω appears in four different meanings, which of course can overlap. Firstly, it can simply mean to «send something or somebody back». Secondly, it can be understood geographically, meaning «to send something or somebody up». More technically it refers, thirdly, to the delegation of a matter or an issue to higher or lower (!) authorities and is very often used in the forwarding process of all kinds of petitions. Fourthly, ἀναπέμπω is used as the technical term in the previously mentioned summonses, in the Arsinoite nome, and from the mid-third century on, also in the Oxyrhynchite nome. One must consider the simple fact that the Greek language has one word for these four different situations or occurrences, while modern languages offer different translations and, thereby, also different interpretations of these situations. This is important, in as far as ἀναπέμπω, of course, could very often been translated in a literal – geographical – sense, especially in documents coming from the Arsinoite nome, where everything and everyone going to the capital had to go «up». But although this is the case, at the same time the geographical meaning does not necessarily exclude a more technical meaning. One may even argue that the geographical conditions offer a plausible explanation of how the term ἀναπέμπω could become a highly understandable technical term.

Only a few petitions contain the verb ἀναπέμπω itself. The earliest example dates from the Ptolemaic period and thus by far precedes the summonses from the Roman period shown above. Nevertheless, this early occurrence in particular could suggest that a technical understanding of the word has a long history.

The petition P.Petr. III 32, recto (g) (b) from the Arsinoite nome is dated to December 217 BC and is addressed to the oikonomos Poseidionios. Ptolemaios complains about two men called Kalliphon and Sokmenis who, without permission, allowed his cattle to graze on Ptolemaios’ property. Ptolemaios now asks Poseidionios to write to the strategos, who in turn is to send a summons to the ἐπιστότηc from Persea, the place where Kalliphon is currently living. 9-11 (with BL VII 161 and XII 159): ἀξιοῦμεν οὖν cὲ γράψαι Πωcειδίωνι[ωι] τῶι cτρατηγῶι | ἐπιcτεῖλαι τῶι ἐν Περcέαι ἐπιcτάτηι ἀναπέμψαι Καλλιϕό̣ν̣τ̣α | κ̣α̣ὶ̣ Cο̣κ̣μ̣ῆ̣ν̣ι̣ν ὅπωc τὴν ἐπίσκεψιν ποιήc̣ηι «We therefore request that you write to Poseidionios, the strategos, to command the epistates in Persea to send up Kalliphon and Sokmenis in order that you may investigate the matter.»¹⁵

I have not been able to find further examples of petitions coming from the Arsinoite nome in which a summons is expressed by the verb ἀναπέμπω. Strictly speaking from this evidence, no equivalent within the relevant timeframe can be given for the summonses presented in the first section. Nevertheless, ἀναπέμπω is attested in other nomes, e.g. in the petition P.Fam.Tebt. 37 (AD 167) from Antinoopolis, to the south. This petition has a close connection with the Arsinoite nome. The brothers Lysimachos and Philosarapis write to the epistrategos about their slave Martilla, whom they own together with their brother Philantinoos through inheritance from their mother. Martilla is said to have been kidnapped while she was working in the Arsinoite nome, where the brothers’ property lay. The suspected kidnappers are the brothers Sarapammon and Dios, to whom Philantinoos is indebted. Lysimachos and Philosarapis ask the epistrategos to send for the two kidnappers and to summon them from the Arsinoite to the Antinoite nome for further investigation. 17-21: κελεῦcαι γραϕῆναι τῷ τῆc | Θεμίcτου καὶ Πολέμωνοc μερίδων cτρατ[η]γῷ ἀνα|πέμψαι αὐτοὺc ἔνθα εἰc τὴν Ἀντινόου πόλειν (l. πόλιν) | ἐπὶ τὴν cὴν τοῦ κυρίου διάγνωcιν περὶ ἧc ἐποιήcαντο | βίαc καὶ ἀπο[c]παcμοῦ τῆc δούληc «(...) to have a letter written to the strategos of the Themistos and Polemon divisions [in the Arsinoite nome] enjoining him to send them hither to the city of Antinoos for your, the lord’s, inquiry concerning their act of violence and the kidnapping of the slave.»¹⁶ Based on later documents, we know that Lysimachos and Philosarapis are mistaken, because their own brother Philantinoos has rented Martilla, and kept the money – together with the information – for himself. Of course he had no right to do so, given the fact that he owned only one third of the slave¹⁷.

Another example for a technical meaning of ἀναπέμπω can possibly be seen in a letter from a strategos to his colleague in the official correspondence P.Oxy. LX 4060 (AD 161), which is technically speaking not a petition, but nevertheless, a request for the transferring of people. Apollonides, the strategos of Peri Thebas, writes to Phokion, the strategos of the Oxyrhynchite nome, asking him to be on the lookout for two men who have fled Peri Thebas after they have been summoned for breaking into a house – or so it seems¹⁸; he asks him also to summon them to Peri Thebas. 75-76: ἐὰν εὑρεθῶcι ἀνα|[πέμψῃ]c «if they are found, send them up».

Although the verb can, of course, be perfectly understood in a mere geographical sense, the context makes it quite clear that the sending of these people is in some way official (like a summons), not in the least because the two suspects have to be questioned. It is quite remarkable that the addressee is asked for a summons by use of the verb ἀναπέμπω, a word he himself – being a strategos – obviously never used in the summonses coming from his own bureau in the Oxyrhynchite nome. But we may not be mistaken in assuming that Phocion understood quite well what his colleague was asking for and, thereby, that he had some kind of understanding of ἀναπέμπω as a technical term.

Later and from a different geographical area comes P.Euphrates I 3 (AD 252-256). This document is notable because it gives evidence that ἀναπέμπω was used in a technical way to indicate summonses for a hearing in Coele Syria. In P.Euphrates I 3 (with a copy in P.Euphrates I 4), Aurelius Abidsauta accuses a certain Philotas, along with his slave Sibbaraios, of raping him. He asks for a hearing to which the two and he himself will be summoned. 11-16: ἀξιῶ καὶ δέομέ (l. δέομαί) c[ο]υ τῆc | φιλανθρωπία̣[c] ἐπὶ τὰ ἐνκλήματα | ἅ ἐνκαλοῦμε (l. ἐπεὶ τὰ ἐγκληματα ἅ ἐγκαλοῦμαι) μείζ[ον]οc δικαcτοῦ ἐπιδε|όμενα ἐξεταcθῆνε (l. ἐξεταcθῆναι) ἀναπέμψαι αὐτοὺc | cὺν ἐμοὶ ἐπὶ τὸ μέγεθοc τοῦ τὴν ὑπα|τείαν διέ[π]οντοc Πομπωνίου Λαιτιανοῦ «I ask you and beg your philanthropy – the misdeeds on which I accuse him make it necessary to be investigated by a higher judge – to summon them together with me in front of your greatness Pomponius Laetianus exercising your consular power.»

The preceding examples allow only for rare occurrences of ἀναπέμπω in petitions for summonses. Nevertheless, those few examples tell us at least one thing for sure: contrary to the usual practice of summonses, where ἀναπέμπω appears for the most part only in the Arsinoite nome in the first to mid-third centuries AD, the petitions quoted above show that ἀναπέμπω must have been understood in a technical sense also outside the Arsinoite. The very early example from Ptolemaic times and the later one from Syria suggest that the technical meaning of the verb cannot be strictly confined temporally or geographically.

Above all, events occurred within those petitions that were considered by people to be worth further investigation and, thereby, worth a summons. But, as already stated before, we mostly do not know, simply on the basis of the documents themselves, whether these petitions truly led to a summons. Examples of such situations are trespasses, kidnapping of a slave (even if it turns out that technically there was no kidnapping), flight after a break-in and the use of force.

2.2. The verb πέμπω in petitions for summonses

In the previous section, we have seen that the use of the verb ἀναπέμπω with a technical meaning to express summonses is not limited to the Arsinoite nome. On the contrary, it is most likely that ἀναπέμπω was understood beyond its borders. The same seems true for the simple verb πέμπω in the Oxyrhynchite, because its use to note summonses is not restricted to this nome. In fact, I cannot identify a single petition from the Oxyrhynchite nome in which πέμπω is used to ask for a summons. All the examples derive from other nomes, including the Arsinoite.

In three petitions from the Arsinoite nome, people ask for summonses using the simple verb πέμπω, a form which was never used in the official summonses in this nome¹⁹. But the following examples make it rather clear that πέμπω must have been comprehensible in a technical way.

In P.Louvre I 2 (Soknopaiou Nesos, Arsinoite nome, AD 133), a certain Satabous writes to the prefect, probably knowing well that his petition will be forwarded to the strategos; traces of this may occur in lines 38-39, written by a third party. By writing to the highest authority, Satabous nevertheless ensured somehow that the prefect was informed about his case. Unfortunately, the papyrus is too fragmentary to allow full certainty about the case itself. A man whose name is lost is accused of breaking into the house of Satabous’ grandfather and of taking away several things from a sealed room. Satabous requests the prefect «to order the strategos to make investigations in regards to the act of violence that was committed by him against me; and if it is proven, that this was the case, to summon him in your holiest juridical hearing, because I cannot do anything against him at this place.» 24-32: [τ]ῶ̣ι̣ | cτ̣ρα̣[τηγ]ῶ̣ι [δια]λα̣β[ε]ῖν πε|ρὶ τῆc γ̣[ε]ινο̣[μέ]νη̣[c] (l. γινομένηc) μ̣οι βί|αc ὑπ’ [α]ὐτοῦ̣, [καὶ ἐὰ]ν̣ κ̣α̣τ̣α̣λ̣ά|βηται τ̣αῦθ’ ο[ὕ]τ̣ωc ἔχ̣[ο]ντα, | πέμ[ψ]αι αὐτ̣ὸ̣ν̣ ἐπὶ τὴ̣ν̣ ἱ̣ε̣|ρωτ[άτ]ην cο[υ] δ̣ιάγν̣[ωc]ιν̣, | οὐ δυ̣ν̣α̣μέν[ου] μ[ο]υ̣ ἐ[π]ὶ τῶ̣[ν] | τόπων πρὸc αὐ̣τό̣[ν].

In P.Amh. II 77 (later than August 15, AD 139), Pabous, priest and guard at the customs-house of Soknopaiou Nesos, complains that the customs-house officials, Polydeukes and Harpagathes, defrauded the customs-house and beat him up, as he was handing in the information about the accounts in order that they be checked. Pabous now asks for the following. 29-33: κ̣α̣ὶ̣ ἀ̣ξ̣ι̣[ῶ ἐὰ]ν̣ δ[ό]ξῃ cοι [πέ]μψαι [πρὸc c]ὲ καὶ | τὸν Πολυδεύκην καὶ τὸν Ἁρπα[γάθην τὸ]ν̣ | κ̣ρ̣άτ̣ι̣c̣τον τοῦ κακοῦ καὶ προcεπίτροπο[ν (?)] ἵνα | δυνηθῶ τὴν ἀπόδιξιν (l. ἀπόδειξιν) ἐπ’ αὐτοὺc π̣[ο]ιηc̣[ά]μενο(c) | τυχεῖν καὶ τῆc ἀ̣πὸ cοῦ εὐεργεcίαc «(...) and I request, if you think fit, that you should send for Polydeuces and Harpagathes, the chief cause and prime mover in the mischief, in order that I may produce the proofs against them and obtain your beneficence.»²⁰

In P.Mich. VI 425 (Karanis, Arsinoite nome, AD 198), a certain Gemellus, a.k.a. Horion, writes to the epistrategos to whom he was sent after having written a petition to the prefect. In the original writing, as well as in the attached copy of the first petition, Gemellus, who has sight only in one eye, requests that Kastor be summoned after having attacked both Gemellus and his mother and destroyed their house, although no fiscal reason can be given for this behavior. 17-18: καὶ κατενηνεγμένων ἡμῶν μηδὲν [ὀφειλόντων] | τῷ ταμείῳ «and we were beaten although we owed nothing to the fiscus». In both occurrences, Gemellus uses the simple verb to ask for a summons. 4-7: ἀξιῶ, ἐάν cου | τῇ τύχῃ δόξῃ, γράψαι τῷ διακειμένῳ ἐν τῷ Ἀρcινοείτῃ ἑκατοντάρχῃ πέμψαι | τὸν ἀντίδιχον (l. ἀντίδικον) ἐπὶ τὴν cὴν διάγνωcιν καὶ ἀκο̣ῦ̣cαί μου πρὸc αὐτὸν ὅπωc τύχω | τῶν δικαίων «I request, if it seem good to your Fortune, that you write to the centurion stationed in the Arsinoite nome, that he should send (for?) the defendant for your examination and that you hear my complaint against him, in order that I may obtain justice.» In the forwarded first petition, Gemellus phrases his request as follows. 20-22: ἀξιῶ ὑ[πὸ cοῦ, κύριε,] | ἀκουcθῆναι καὶ ἐγδικηθῆναι (l. ἐκδικηθῆναι) ἵν’ ὦ εὐεργετ̣η̣μένοc, τὸν δὲ ἀ[ντίδικον πεμ]|φθῆναι ἐξ αὐθεντίαc cου ἐπὶ τὴν cὴν διάγνωcιν «I request, my lord, that I be heard and avenged by you, so that I may be the object of your beneficence, and that the defendant be sent for your examination by your authority.»²¹

The petition P.Fam.Tebt. 43 (Antinoite nome, AD 182) is an example from another nome in which πέμπω is used in a technical way to refer to summonses. The nomarch of Antinoopolis, Artemidoros, writes to the strategos of the Themistos and Polemon divisions in the Arsinoite nome, because the following matter has been forwarded to him by the epistrategos: Lysimachos, a.k.a. Didymos, has lent 240 drachmae to a certain Dios, but he has not received his loan back. Now that Dios is dead, the guardian of his heirs, Serenos, refuses to pay him back the 240 drachmae. All in all, a summons has been requested in this document, once in the actual petition, twice in the forwarded copy. 10-12: ὅπωc πέμψῃc ἐνθάδε τὸν δι’ αὐτοῦ δηλού|μενον Сερῆνον κριθηcόμενον κατὰ | τὰ̣ ἐπὶ Ἀντιν̣οέων διατεταγμένα «(…) in order that you send hither Serenos whom he mentioned, to be brought to trial according to the rules laid down for Antinoites». 23-27: ἀξιῶ cε ἐπιcτεῖλαι τῷ | τῆc Θεμίcτου καὶ Πολέμωνοc μερίδων τοῦ Ἀρcινοείτου | cτρατηγῷ πέμψαι ἐνθάδε τὸν δι’ αὐτοῦ δηλούμενον | κριθηcόμενόν μοι κατὰ τὰ ἐπ’ Ἀντινοέων διατεταγμέ|να «I request that you give orders to the strategos of the Themistos and Polemon divisions in the Arsinoite nome to send hither the man who is mentioned in it, to be brought to trial on my behalf according to the rules laid down for Antinoites.» 43-47: δέομαι, ἐάν cου τῇ τύχῃ δόξῃ, κελεῦcαι γραφῆναι | τῷ τῆc Θεμίcτου καὶ Πολέμωνοc μερίδων τοῦ Ἀρ|cινοείτου cτρατηγῷ πέμψαι τὸν προγεγραμμέ|νον Сερῆνον ἐνθάδε εἰc τὴν Ἀντινόου κατὰ τὰ ἐ|π’ Ἀντινοέων διατεταγμέ[ν]α «I request, if it seems right to your fortune, that you have a letter written to the strategos of the Themistos and Polemon divisions in the Arsinoite nome, with a view of sending hither to Antinoopolis the aforesaid Serenos, to be brought to trial on my behalf in this question, according to the rules laid down for Antinoites.»²²

The few examples given of the use of πέμπω to express a summons in petitions demonstrate that the simple verb, although mainly used in summonses from the Oxyrhynchite nome, was not at all common in petitions for summonses from this nome²³. We can again see, however, that the technical meaning of the verb is not limited to a single nome, but was obviously understood and used in other parts of Egypt as well.

3. Conclusion

Earlier analysis of the so-called summonses identified in the period between the first and the mid-third century AD two main standard forms, which – among other things – differ from each other in the use of a technical verb: ἀναπέμπω, as a term for summonses, is found only in the Arsinoite nome; πέμπω, on the other hand, occurs only in the Oxyrhynchite nome.

The present observations on the occurrence of these two verbs as technical terms for summonses have shown that this no longer holds true, for neither of these verbs is restricted to a single nome. This has been established on the evidence of petitions for summonses. In fact the petitions make clear that both verbs must have been understood and used in a technical way in more than just one nome. This leads to the conclusion that both άναπέμπω and πέμπω enjoy a wider dispersion as technical terms than was thought hitherto, when summonses were studied in isolation. At the same time, those petitions offered a wide range of reasons explaining why people think that a summons is appropriate, such as problems relating to property, inheritance, taxes, attacks, leases, theft, and so on.

Furthermore, the one example given from Coele Syria suggests that ἀναπέμπω, as a technical term, was known and in use in the Roman Empire, not only in Egypt, but also outside of this province. In order to strenghthen this argument a final, non-documentary, example will be adduced. According to the Gospel of Luke ’s special material in the passion narrative, Jesus was sent from Pilate to Herod Antipas and back from Herod to Pilate. The word used to describe this kind of transfer is ἀναπέμπω, which does not appear in any other canonical gospel²⁴. Even if we expand the date of origin of the Gospel of Luke generously to AD 80-100, we are right in the middle of the relevant timeframe for our observations from the papyri. Although we do not know exactly where the Gospel was written, its language and readership show quite clearly that it stood within the Greco-Roman sphere of influence. This suggests that the verses quoted above offer another example of a technical use of ἀναπέμπω outside the Arsinoite nome.

This argument can be strenghthened by pointing at other similarities with the papyrological evidence. As is the case in the papyri, the summoning of Jesus is ordered by authorities, among whom the procedure can be delegated (1)²⁵. The purpose of summonses is further investigation – the papyri have made this quite evident. When a summons is issued, no verdict is given, or even intended. This seems also true in the Gospel of Luke (2), when Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate, who then claims that neither he himself, nor Herod, has found in Jesus what he has been accused of (Luke 23, 14-15). As is the case in the petitions, concrete accusations (3) are brought forward against Jesus by a group of, more or less, identifiable people (4). Therefore, we have both reasons and accusers. The accusations can be found in Luke 23, 2, where Jesus is said to have perverted the nation, forbidden men to give tribute to Caesar, and to have said that he himself is Christ a king. As accusers (Luke 23, 1-2), we find the mention of a multitude that contains at least Judas, a servant of the high priest, chief priests, captains of the temple, and elders (Luke 22, verses 47, 50 and 52) and the mention of an assembly of the elders of the people, the chief priests, and scribes (Luke 22, 66). For these reasons, we may draw the conclusion that, on the basis of the papyrological evidence, ἀναπέμπω is used in a technical way also in Luke. This is but one example of how the consideration of papyrological material may provide additional insight into biblical texts.

This article has shown that attention restricted to the so-called summonses may offer a distorted, or limited, picture of the use of the technical terms ἀναπέμπω and πέμπω. By enlarging the picture to include other documents like petitions, the wide dispersal of the technical meaning of these words becomes quite evident.