Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T21:41:19.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deeds of Will on Papyrus and the Use of the Term διαθήκη in the Letters of Paul

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2024

Romeo Popa Open the ORCID record for Romeo Popa [Opens in a new window]
Romeo Popa*
Affiliation:
Department of Biblical Studies and Ecclesiastical History, Faculty of Catholic Theology, Paris-Lodron University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
*
Email: romeopopa@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The numerous testaments on papyrus provide a valuable basis for an investigation of legal language around διαθήκη in the Pauline letters. Of particular importance is the ancient practice of revoking wills, which I consider to be the legal frame of reference for the recipients of the Pauline letters to grasp expressions like καινὴ/παλαιὰ διαθήκη. In the Corinthian correspondence the conformity to the current legal practice is evident, but in Galatians Paul turns the whole procedure upside down, manipulating in the construction of his argument not only the practice of testamentary cancellation, but also the traditional connection of Abraham with circumcision. We are compelled to a text-internal solution of the problem in Gal 3.15–17 by the fact that the papyrological evidence shows clearly that no other type of document than the ordinary revocable διαθήκαι can be taken into consideration. This approach is not compilatory, as it is often the case when dealing with documentary papyri applied to New Testament texts, but heuristic, with the purpose of elaborating new exegetical insights in old controversies.

Keywords

Paul's letterslegal languagewills on papyrusrevocation of willsold/new Testamentdisputes over inheritance
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , April 2024 , pp. 262 - 274
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Papyri are abbreviated according to the ‘Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets’ available at https://papyri.info/docs/checklist.

2 Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. New and completely revised edition with eighty-five illustrations from the latest German edition, translated by Strachan, L.R.M. (New York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1923) 337Google Scholar.

3 The significant Pauline passages 1 Cor 11.25 and 2 Cor 3.6, 14 did not receive due attention in the thematic papyrological commentaries on the New Testament; cf. R.E. Kritzer in P. Arzt-Grabner/R.E. Kritzer et al., 1. Korinther (PKNT2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006) 398–9; in P. Arzt-Grabner, 2. Korinther (PKNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014) 259–61, the reader gets about wills basically nothing more than a compilation of documents drawn up in I ce. More promising with regard to the legal language in the Pauline letters is the new series Rechtsgeschichtlicher Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, of which the first volume just appeared: Einleitung, Arbeitsmittel und Voraussetzungen (ed. F. Siegert with J. Maier and F. Lötzsch; Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2023).

4 See some elements of this development in Bammel, E., ‘Gottes διαθήκη (Gal. iii. 15–17) und das Jüdische Rechtsdenken’, NTS 6 (1960) 313–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 313–4; Llewelyn, S.R. in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 6 (ed. Llewelyn, S.R.; Sydney: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre Macquarie University, 1992) 43–6Google Scholar; Trick, B.R., Abrahamic Descent, Testamentary Adoption, and the Law in Galatians. Differentiating Abraham's Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise (NovTSup 169; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2016) 168–72Google Scholar.

5 Cf. Bjerkelund, C.J., ‘“Nach menschlicher Weise rede ich”. Funktion und Sinn des paulinischen Ausdrucks’, StTh 26 (1972) 63–100Google Scholar, here 100: “Der Apostel führt aus dem Leben gegriffene Tatsachen an und zwingt auf diese Grundlage bestimmte Schlussfolgerungen herbei”; see also H.-J. Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15–4,7 (WUNT 86; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996) 176.

6 Cf. Selb, W., ‘Διαθήκη im Neuen Testament. Randbemerkungen eines Juristen zu einem Theologenstreit’, JJS 25 (1974) 183–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 190; S.R. Llewelyn in New Docs. 6, 42–3; Betz, H.D., Galatians. A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches of Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 155Google Scholar; Trick, Descent, 163.

7 Cf. D.F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians. A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of the Pauline Letter (WUNT II/190; Tübingen, 2005) 125.

8 Cf. Yiftach, U., ‘Deeds of Last Will in Graeco-Roman Egypt: A Case Study in Regionalism’, BASP 39 (2002) 149–64Google Scholar, here 149, n. 3. An important study on wills in the papyri remains, despite its age, Kreller, H., Erbrechtliche Untersuchungen auf Grund der gräko-ägyptischen Papyrusurkunden (Leipzig: Teubner, 1919)Google Scholar; a special chapter is dedicated to wills in Taubenschlag, R., The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri 332 B.C.–640 A.D. (2nd ed.; Warszawa: Państwowe Wyd. Naukowe, 1955) 190–204Google Scholar; see also Montevecchi, O., ‘Ricerche di sociologia nei documenti dell'Egitto greco-romano, I. I testamenti’, Aeg 15 (1935) 67–121Google Scholar. With reference to the legal term διαθήκη used by Paul in the Corinthian correspondence, cf. Papathomas, A., Juristische Begriffe im ersten Korintherbrief des Paulus. Eine semantisch-lexikalische Untersuchung auf der Basis der zeitgenössischen griechischen Papyri (Tyche. Supplementband 7; Wien: Holzhausen, 2009) 163–6Google Scholar.

9 Cf. P.Oxy. 50.3558.8–9 (2 Jul 133 ce); P.Ryl. 2.97.11–12 (2 Dec 139 ce).

10 On this topic, cf. M. Hässler, Die Bedeutung der Kyria-Klausel in den Papyrusurkunden (Berliner Juristische Abhandlungen 3; Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1960).

11 Cf. P.Oxy. 66.4533.3 (end I–beginning II ce); P.Sijp. 43.4 (119/120 ce); and P.Oxy. 3.491.3 (28 Aug 126 ce).

12 For more examples cf. J.H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1929) s.v. κληρονόμος and κληρονομία; and F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, mit Einschluß der griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw. aus Ägypten (2 vols.; Berlin, 1925, 1927) s.v. κληρονόμος and κληρονομία.

13 See also P.Oxy. 1.105.3 (118–138 ce); P.Oxy. 3.492.5 (22 Feb 130 ce); on this formula cf. Kreller, Untersuchungen, 346.

14 Cf. P.Wisc. 1.13.7 (early II ce); P.Oxy. 38.2857.6 (17 May 134 ce); outside of Egypt we find the term, for example, in ll. 7–8 of a very fragmentary marriage contract written in Greek discovered in the Judean desert in the caves from Murabba’ât, SB 10.10306 (II ce).

15 As part of the formula ὁμολογῶ χαρίζɛσθαι, the verb occurs often in deeds of gift, as in l. 11 of the first col. of P.Nekr. 10 (9–27 Sep 244 ce). The earliest document of the same type available so far is P.Monts.Roca 4.80 (161–168 ce) with a similar formula in line 6.

16 See the examples from and outside of Egypt compiled by Papathomas, Begriffe, 26–9; worth mentioning here would be the use of the verb ἀθɛτέω in divisions of property as in P.Mich. 3.186.21 (21 Feb 72 ce); 3.187.20 (25 Aug 75 ce); P.Oslo 2.31.21–2, 29, 32, 34–5 (138–161? ce) or on the recto of a deed of gift P.Dura 18.8, 27, 28 (28 Jul 87 ce). In a will, the verb is attested later in P.Oxy. 16.1901.43 (VI ce).

17 The verb προσδιατάσσω occurs also in P.Oxy. 3.495.15–16 (182–189 ce), in a formula largely completed according to P.Oxy. 3.494.25–7; of the numerous occurrences of μɛταδιατίθημι see only P.Ups.Frid 1.20 (24 Jul 48 ce); SB 18.13308.7 (82–96 ce); P.Oxy. 66.4533.3 (end I–beginning II ce); and P.Wisc. 1.13.3 (early II ce).

18 For an overview on wills in the Hellenistic period, cf. M. Nowak, ‘Dryton's Wills Reconsidered’, RIDA 59 (2012) 241–51, here 241–2; W. Clarysse, ‘Ptolemaic Wills’ in Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World: Papers from a Seminar Arranged by the Institute of Classical Studies, the Institute of Jewish Studies and the Warburg Institute, University of London, February to May 1986, (eds. M.J. Geller, H. Maehler; London: Warburg Institute, 1995) 88–105, here 89–92.

19 There are four texts issued between 164–126 bce, but P.Dryton 3, 4 are copies of one document; cf. K. Vandorpe in P.Dryton, p. 26-44; and Nowak, ‘Dryton's Wills’.

20 Cf. Taubenschlag, Law, 204; A.H.S. El-Mosallamy, ‘Revocation of Wills in Roman Egypt’, Aeg 50 (1970) 64–9, here 66.

21 Cf. Kreller, Untersuchungen, 339–40; W. Clarysse in P.Petr. 21, p. 40; Nowak, ‘Dryton's Wills’, 246–7.

22 This example is from P.Petr. 21.1.39–41 (238/237 bce); with variations, we can find such clauses of reservation also in: P.Petr. 21.3.16–17, 45, 72; 6.3; 13.4–5 etc.; P.Dryton 2.16–17 (4 Mar 150 bce); 4.2 (29 Jun 126 bce).

23 M. Nowak, Wills in the Roman Empire. A Documentary Approach (JJPSup 23; Warsaw, 2015) 127.

24 Cf. W. Clarysse in P.Petr. 21, p. 133.

25 Nowak, ‘Dryton's Wills’, 245.

26 Revocation clauses in the first century ce can be found also in: SB 18.13308.6–9 (62–96 ce); P.Oxy. 1.104.8–9 (26 Dec 96 ce); CPR 6.72.4–6 (I ce); P.Dura 16.6–7 (late I ce); P.Oxy. 66.4533.2–4 (end I–beginning II ce); further examples in Nowak, Wills, 127–8, n. 99.

27 Kreller, Untersuchungen, 389: ‘Die graeco-aegyptischen Testamente sind prinzipiell ebenso frei widerruflich wie die römischen’; L. Mitteis, Juristischer Teil, 1. Hälfte: Grundzüge, 2 vols; in L. Mitteis and U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912) 241.

28 On the various procedures for revocation of wills, cf. Kreller, Untersuchungen, 389–95; Mitteis, Grundzüge, 241; Taubenschlag, Law, 204; El-Mosallamy, ‘Revocation’, 63–4; P.J. Sijpesteijn, ‘New Light on the Revocation of Wills (P. bibl. univ. Giss. Inv. 311.)’, ChrEg 42 (1967) 360–8, here 362–4; N. Lewis, ‘Revocation of Wills in Roman Egypt’, SCI 24 (2005) 135–8; Nowak, Wills, 38–3, 57–8; 74–5.

29 Cf. Yiftach, ‘Deeds’, 161; see also El-Mosallamy, ‘Revocation’, 59–60.

30 See also P.Oxy. 36.2759 (19 Apr 116 ce); 1.107 (27 Feb 123 ce); SB 8.9766 (117–138 ce).

31 On the debate about the probable situation behind the papyrus cf. Sijpesteijn, ‘Revocation’; N. Lewis, ‘P. bibl. univ. Giss. Inv. 311 Reconsidered’, ChrEg 43 (1968) 375–9; El-Mosallamy, ‘Revocation’, 64–6.

32 Cf. R.P. Salomons, ‘Zwei erbrechtliche Urkunden aus der Wienerpapyrussammlung’, Aeg 58 (1978) 117–36.

33 The editor explains the circumstances as follows: ‘The testator (…) testifies that in making his second will he has nullified the first’; cf. V.B. Schuman in P.Wash.Univ. 1, p. 2; see on this also S.R. Llewelyn in New Docs. 6, p. 41–42.

34 See J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1966) 171–2; 187 (‘a transformation and development of the oldest tradition’); J.A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB 32; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008) 429–30.

35 Cf. O. Hofius, ‘Gesetz und Evangelium nach 2. Korinther 3’, in idem, Paulusstudien (WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr, 1989) 75–120, 78. G. Theissen and A. Merz, The Historical Jesus. A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 422–3; G. Dautzenberg, ‘Alter und neuer Bund nach 2Kor 3’, in „Nun steht aber diese Sache im Evangelium…“ Zur Frage nach den Anfängen des christlichen Antijudaismus (ed. R. Kampling; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 22003) 229–49, here 236; J. Schröter, ‘Schriftauslegung und Hermeneutik in 2 Korinther 3. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Schriftbenutzung des Paulus’, NovT 40 (1998) 231–75; here 250–5; on the prophetic text, cf. B.P. Robinson, ‘Jeremiah's New Covenant Jer 31,31–34’, SJOT 15 (2001) 181–204.

36 Cf. A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 21955) 247: ‘The covenant is “fresh” as distinct from the former covenant which is now obsolete’; P. Stuhlmacher, ‘Das neutestamentliche Zeugnis vom Herrenmahl’, ZThK 84 (1987) 1–35; here 9 (‘abgelöst und vollendet’).

37 R.P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986) 54.

38 This antithesis between the old and the new covenant is emphasised by many commentators, cf. e.g. Hofius, ‘Gesetz’, 78 ‘antithetische[s] Begriffspaar’ in Hofius in 35, Martin, 2 Corinthians, 54; M. E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994) 235; T. Schmeller, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, Teilband 1: 2Kor 1,1–7,4 (EKK 8/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn/Ostfildern: Neukirchener Theologie/Patmos, 2010) 187; B. Kuschnerus, Die Gemeinde als Brief Christi. Die kommunikative Funktion der Metapher bei Paulus am Beispiel von 2 Kor 2–5 (FRLANT 197; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002) 175–6; S. Grindheim, ‘The Law Kills but the Gospel Gives Life: The Letter-Spirit Dualism in 2 Corinthians 3.5-18’, JSNT 84 (2001) 97–115; here 106.

39 M.J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids/Milton Keynes: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 2005) 273; γράμμα can even be considered ‘a synonym for νόμος and more specifically the law with its commands and regulations’ (Harris, 2 Corinthians, 272); Hofius, ‘Gesetz’, 76 (‘Eben dieses Gesamtkorpus der Willenskundgebung Gottes – die “Tora vom Sinai” – ist mit der παλαιὰ διαθήκη gemeint’); see also Dautzenberg, ‘Alter und neuer Bund’, 238; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 235; E. Gräßer, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, Kap. 1,1-7,16 (ÖTNT 8/1; Gütersloh/Würzburg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Echter Verlag, 2002), 126; Kuschnerus, Gemeinde, 177.

40 Cf. Harris, 2 Corinthians, 302 (‘a pauline coinage’); Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 266. On the implied valuation in this verse, Harris, 2 Corinthians, 271 points out: ‘A καινὴ διαθήκη implies a παλαιὰ διαθήκη (3:14), and the new replace the old not because the earlier διαθήκη has been fulfilled or renewed but because the later διαθήκη is inherently superior’; Grindheim, ‘Law’, 108 speaks about the ‘abrogation of the Torah’; see also F. Hahn, ‘Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der urchristlichen Abendmahlsüberlieferung’, EvTh 27 (1967) 337–74; here 372 (‘der [vergehende] alte Bund’); Hofius, ‘Gesetz’, 80.

41 Cf. J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘Glory Reflected on the Face of Christ (2 Cor 3:7–4:6) and a Palestinian Jewish Motif’, TS 42 (1981) 630–44, here 637; P.B. Duff, Moses in Corinth. The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3 (NovTSup 159; Leiden: Brill, 2015) 181.

42 Cf. the lease of garden land P.Ross.Georg. 2.19 (7 Nov 141 ce): the tenant undertakes to keep the irrigation system in good condition; however, should it come to that ‘new machine or hammer or axle…’ (l. 19: καινῆς μηχανῆς ἢ ῥαιστῆρος ἢ ἄξονος κτλ) are required, he is obliged to replace them ‘with their equal and take the old ones’ (l. 20: ἀντὶ τούτων τὰ ἴσα, λαμβάνων τὰ παλαιά); see on this papyrus J.S. Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine (WUNT 195; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 516–21.

43 This is the case, for example, in the edict of a prefect concerning archives preserved in the first two columns on the verso of P.Oxy. 1.34 (2 Oct 127 ce). In the first column, we read that the ‘accounting scribes’ must make lists of the registered contracts for the central archives by ‘following the traditional custom’ (col1.8: κατὰ τὸ παλαι[ὸν] ἔθος).

44 See also Papathomas, Begriffe, 164; Deissmann, Light, 337: ‘[N]o one in the Mediterranean world in the first century A.D. would have thought of finding in the word διαθήκη the idea of “covenant”’; see also Moulton/Milligan, Vocabulary, 148: ‘In papyri and inscriptions the word means testament, will, with absolute unanimity, and such frequency that illustration is superfluous.’

45 Cf. Mitteis, Grundzüge, 238–9; Moulton/Milligan, Vocabulary, 148; cf. Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 247; Deissmann, Light, 337; P. Bonnard, L’ Épitre des Saint Paul aux Galates (2nd. ed.; CNT 9; Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1972) 71. The question is raised in reference to Jer 38:31LXX, whether the translation ‘covenant’ would not be more appropriate for the term συνθήκη than for διαθήκη; see also Papathomas, Begriffe, 163, or the comments of Gräßer, 2. Korinther, 125: ‘In diesem Sinne steht Diatheke vor allem zur Bezeichnung der göttlichen Willenskundgebung am Sinai’; cf. Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians, 444; S.W. Hahn, A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God's Saving Promises (ABRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) 257.

46 Thrall, Second Corinthians, 234.

47 As a comparison, Josephus always uses διαθήκη in the ordinary legal sense, but when he speaks of modifying wills, he takes the non-legal verb μɛταγράφω (cf. Ant 17.188 and B.J. 1.646).

48 See on this Hahn, Approach, 264: ‘Paul reads the Abrahamic narratives typologically.’

49 Cf. O. Eger, ‘Rechtswörter und Rechtsbilder in den paulinischen Briefen’, ZNW 18 (1918) 84–108, here 96.

50 Cf. Selb, ‘Διαθήκη’, 191; see also Bammel, ‘Gottes διαθήκη’, 316 (‘Niemand, auch der Erblasser nicht’); F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HThKNT; 3rd ed.; Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1977) 236, n. 124; R.N. Longenecker, Galatians (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 130; Eckstein, Verheißung 178 (‘auch der Verfügende selbst nicht’); or S.R. Llewelyn in New Docs. 6, p. 46: ‘The problem with this suggestion is that the illustration remains problematic, for (…) both the law and the promise are the dispositions of the same God.’ Cf. recently also Trick, Descent, 169: ‘Such explanations fail to give Paul's use of οὐδɛίς its due and create problems for the interpretation of 3:17–20.’

51 Cf. Bammel, ‘Gottes διαθήκη’; Eckstein, Verheißung 174–5; see the criticism of this hypothesis by S.R. Llewelyn in New Docs. 6, p. 43–6.

52 Cf. Eger, ‘Rechtswörter’, 85–6; Tolmie, Persuading, 127; Hahn, Approach, 259; see also the discussion by Trick, Descent, 169–70 and his conclusion on p. 170: ‘Paul therefore seems unlikely to have expected the gentile Galatians to recognize this peculiarly Jewish deed as his referent.’

53 S.R. Llewelyn in New Docs. 6, p. 47.

54 S.R. Llewelyn in New Docs. 6, p. 47; for διαθήκη as ‘deed of gift’ argues also Timothy H. Lim, ‘The Legal Nature of Papyrus Yadin 19 and Galatians 3:15’, in When Judaism & Christianity Began. Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini, vol. 1: Christianity in the Beginning (eds. A.J. Avery-Peck, D. Harrington and J. Neusner; JSJSup 85; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004) 361–76.

55 Trick, Descent, esp. 161–75

56 On the language of adoption in the documentary papyri and how Paul makes use of it, cf. R. Popa, ‘Inheriting God. Paul's Language of Guardianship and Adoption in Light of the Documentary Papyri (Gal 4:1–7)’, Bib 104 (2023) 274–293.

57 Cf. Gen 17:2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14; resp. Exod 24:7, 8.

58 See in this direction also Tolmie, Persuading, 128: ‘[H]e is in fact creating the illustration in such a way that it will suit his argument later.’

59 Cf. J.M.G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015) 401. See also Betz, Galatians, 159: ‘Paul polemically separates what Judaism tries to hold together’; G. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia. A Study in Early Christian Theology (2nd ed.; MSSNTS 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 64 (‘the law and the promise are opposites’); J. Louis Martyn, Galatians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1998) 345; G.W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians. Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTS 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 172 (‘antithetical, discontinuous relationship’); Tolmie, Persuading, 129.

60 Cf. J.D.G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTS; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1993) 182: ‘[T]he first covenant (with Abraham) had explicitly included circumcision’ as ‘a sign of the covenant’; Hansen, Abraham, 171. On Abraham as example of ‘perfect obedience to the law’, cf. B.H. Brinsmead, Galatians – Dialogical Response to the Opponents (SBLDS 65; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982) 110.

61 See already E. de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921) 504: ‘Paul is replaying to the arguments of his judaising opponents’.

62 Cf. J.M.G. Barclay, ‘Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT 31 (1987) 73–93, here 79: ‘[H]ere, if anywhere, Paul seems to be replying to his opponents’ arguments’; see also E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 18; Brinsmead, Galatians, 107; Hansen, Abraham, 171–2; Martyn, Galatians, 343–4.

63 See again Barclay, ‘Mirror-Reading’, 87, who considers with respect to the use of the scripture by Paul that ‘his convoluted use of certain texts may indicate that he is countering their persuasive biblical exegesis’; Hansen, Abraham, 174; Brinsmead, Galatians, 109.

64 Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Der Brief an die Gemeinden in Galatia (ThKNT 9; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019) 159, considers that the limited evidential value was also clear for Paul; Dunn, Galatians, 183, presumes with regard to the argument in Rom 4:9–12 that Paul ‘recognized the unsatisfactory character of the Galatians’ version’.

65 The evidence in Rom 9:4; 11:27 brings no new elements in terminology or content.

66 Lack of logical rigour and correctness has already been remarked upon at some other places in Paul's letters; see the treatment of this issue by M. Mayordomo, Argumentiert Paulus logisch? Eine Analyse auf dem Hintergrund antiker Logik (WUNT 188; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).

67 The topic of inheritance is taken up again by Paul in Gal 4.1-7; cf. on this is also from a papyrological perspective Popa, ‘Inheriting God’.

68 See with examples M. Thoma, ‘The law of succession in Roman Egypt: Siblings and non-siblings disputes over inheritance’, in Proceedings of the 28th Congress of Papyrology (Barcelona August 1st–6th, 2016) (ed. A. Nodar and S. Torallas Tovar; Scripta Orientalia 3; Barcelona: Publicacions de l'Abadia de Montserrat, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2019) 475–83, here 476–8; S.R. Huebner, ‘“It is a difficult matter to be wronged by strangers, but to be wronged by kin is worst of all”. Inheritance and Conflict in Greco-Roman Egypt’, in Inheritance, Law and Religions in the Ancient and Mediaeval Worlds (eds. B. Caseau and S.R. Huebner; Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance. Monographies 45; Paris: ACHCByz, 2014) 99–108.

69 See also BGU 1.226 (25 Feb 99 ce); P.Oxy. 42.3015 (after 117 ce); P.Stras. 8.709.5 (II ce) and SB 22.15831 (II ce).

70 See the result of the study by D.H. Samuel, ‘P.Berol.Inv. 8797 and P.Gen. 3: Two Versions of a Dispute over an Inheritance’, ZPE 37 (1980) 255–9.