Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 61-76 brill.

com/nt

“As long as the heir is a child”

The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1-2
and P.Ryl. 2.153

John K. Goodrich
Chicago, IL

Abstract
Although Gal 4:1-2 has historically been interpreted as an analogy taken from Greco-Roman
practices of guardianship and inheritance, an increasing number of scholars, following
the initial proposal of James M. Scott, have interpreted the passage as an allusion to the
exodus. Seeking to defend the conventional interpretation, this study identifijies a number
of signifijicant verbal and conceptual parallels between Gal 4:1-2 and P.Ryl. 2.153, the mid-
second-century C.E. will of a Hermopolite gentleman, thereby showing that Paul’s rhetoric
of inheritance in Gal 4:1-2 resonates best within the metaphorical fijield of Roman guardian-
ship and succession.

Keywords
Galatians; guardianship; inheritance; metaphor; papyrus; Roman law

In Galatians 3 Paul enters into a lengthy discourse in which he confronts

the Galatian believers for their susceptibility to a distorted gospel that
mandates both faith and works for justifijication. While many of the exeget-
ical details of 3:1-29 continue to be disputed, Paul’s response in the chapter
is relatively clear: justifijication is by faith, for the Mosaic Law served only a
temporary function which it ceases to have this side of the Christ-event.
Paul then summarizes in Gal 4:1-7 much of the preceding discourse in
chapter 3, reintroducing a number of key terms and themes, such as the
provisional nature of the law, Christ’s redemptive work, the receipt of the
Spirit, and participation in the inheritance which comes through the Abra-
hamic promise. In 4:1-7, then, Paul does not just recapitulate 3:23-29, as
some believe, but most of chapter 3.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/156853612X651489

62 J.K. Goodrich / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 61-76

As part of this summary section echoing the previous chapter, Paul fea-
tures an inheritance illustration in Gal 4:1-2. Just as Paul uses the παιδαγωγός
metaphor in 3:24-25 to illustrate the temporary imprisonment Israel expe-
rienced under the Mosaic Law, so in 4:1-2 Paul employs an analogy involv-
ing an infant heir placed under superintendents to exemplify the law’s
function as an interim yet enslaving power annulled through the work of
Christ. Unfortunately, interpretation of the analogy has been much dis-
puted in recent scholarship. Not only is the origin of the metaphor still
unsettled, but the extent to which its features are to be applied to the verses
which follow is also contested.

1. Galatians 4:1-2 in Recent Debate

Galatians 4:1-2 reads as follows: “Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he
is no diffferent from a slave though he is the owner of everything, but he is
under epitropoi and oikonomoi until the date set by the father” (λέγω δέ, ἐφ᾽
ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόµος νήπιός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου κύριος πάντων
ὤν, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόµους ἄχρι τῆς προθεσµίας τοῦ πατρός).
The passage has conventionally been understood to be an analogy drawing
on Greco-Roman practices of guardianship and succession.1 While com-
mentators dispute the precise origin of this legal custom, most nevertheless
agree that Paul employs the image of a minor heir under the supervision of
guardians and administrators for the purpose of illustrating once again the
provisional power of the Mosaic Law.2 Hans Dieter Betz explains the anal-
ogy from a Roman legal perspective:

1) For the law and practice of Greco-Roman guardianship, see Raphael Taubenschlag,
The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.-640 A.D. (Panstwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe) 157-181; Richard P. Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death in the
Roman Family (Cambridge Studies in Population, Economy and Society in Past Time; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 155-203; Jane F. Gardner, Family and Familia in
Roman Law and Life (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 241-252; Andrew Borkowski and Paul du Ples-
sis, Textbook on Roman Law (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 139-150.
2) The guardianship of minors was probably a very familiar legal practice to most people in
the Greco-Roman world, since the statistical likelihood of losing a father before reaching the
age of majority was quite high. Relying on the life course statistics generated by Richard
Saller (Patriarchy, Property and Death, 48-65),Walter Scheidel explains, “Depending on our
choice of demographic conditions [‘ordinary’ or ‘senatorial’], between 28 and 37 percent of
all individuals would have lost their fathers by age fijifteen, and between 49 and 61 percent by
age twenty-fijive. Thus, broadly speaking, about one-third of all Romans would have lost their
 The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1-2 and P.Ryl. 2.153 63

According to this institution the paterfamilias appoints one or more guardians for his
children who are entitled to inherit his property after his death. During the period of
time in which the heir (ὁ κληρονόµος) is a minor (νήπιος) he is potentially the legal
owner (ὁ κύριος) of the inheritance, but he is for the time being prevented from dispos-
ing of it. Although he is legally (potentially) the owner of it all, he appears not to be
diffferent from a slave (οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου). . . . As a minor, the heir is under the tute-
lage of “tutors . . . and administrators” (ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόµους), to whom
the inheritance is entrusted, and who conduct business afffairs for him. This situation
lasts to a point fijixed by the father in his testament, at which the guardianship is to be
terminated. At this time the heir is given free access to the inheritance, and the tutor is
to him like any other person.3

The vast majority of scholars have adopted some variation of the guardian-
ship interpretation. There remain some, however, who have observed
problems with it. First, certain aspects of the metaphor in 4:1-2 are incom-
patible with the particulars of its application in 4:3-7. Most notably, (a) the
father from 4:2 is presumed dead, while in 4:3-7 he (God) is required to be
alive to send and adopt sons; (b) the custom of guardianship in 4:1-2 is
replaced in 4:5 with adoption; and (c) the comparison of heirs to slaves in
4:1, 3, and 7 is considered to be hyperbole.4
Secondly, the analogy is said to lack sufffijicient technical terminology to
demand that it be interpreted as an illustration from Greco-Roman legal
custom. Although scholars agree that κληρονόµος, δοῦλος, κύριος, ἐπίτροπος,
and πατήρ have legal connotations, it is also observed that νήπιος, οἰκονόµος,

fathers before they attained maturity (for men) or were married (for women). Closer to four
in ten male Athenians became fatherless before they entered the ephēbeia, and over half of
Romans did so prior to the aetas perfecta of twenty-fijive, the age of legal majority at which
time one had complete freedom from curatorial oversight” (“The Demographic Background,”
in Growing up Fatherless in Antiquity [eds. Sabine R. Hübner and David M. Ratzan; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009] 31-40, at 32-33). Scheidel further demonstrates
that the mortality rate is greatly impacted if a father’s age at the time of his child’s birth is
also considered. He shows, on the one hand, that a child born to a twenty-fijive-year-old man
had about a 25% chance of losing his/her father before the child reached age fourteen (the
legal age of majority), and an almost 50% chance before the age of twenty-fijive. On the other
hand, a child born to a fijifty-year-old man had slightly over a 50% chance of losing his/her
father before the child reached age fourteen, and an almost 90% chance before the age of
twenty-fijive.
3) Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 202-203.
4) Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief: Auslegung (HTKNT; Herder, 1974) 267: “wie der Apostel
übertreibend sagt.” Cf. J.C. O’Neill, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London:
SPCK, 1972) 56.
64 J.K. Goodrich / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 61-76

and προθεσµία are not technical legal terms normally employed with refer-
ence to guardianship and succession. Thus, interpreters eventually began
to seek an alternative explanation.
The most influential revisionist reading of Gal 4:1-2 has been proposed
by James M. Scott in his 1992 monograph of Paul’s adoption metaphor.5 It
was Scott’s contention that the passage is an allusion not to legal custom,
but to the exodus. Scott constructed his case primarily by exposing the
following six “exegetical oversights”: (i) Jewish, not Greco-Roman, guard-
ianship may be a better context in which to interpret allusions to legal suc-
cession; (ii) ὁ κληρονόµος may refer to collective Israel, since τοῦ Ἀβραὰµ
σπέρµα appears in Gal 3:29, the verse immediately preceding 4:1;
(iii) νήπιος, as many have previously observed, is not a technical term for
a minor, and may refer to collective Israel, since it is used this way in LXX
Hos 11:1; (iv) κύριος πάντων is used in Hellenistic sources as an honorifijic
title and may therefore refer to Israel’s promise of universal sovereignty
(cf. “heir of the world,” Rom 4:13); (v) οἰκονόµος is not attested elsewhere as
the guardian of a minor and, used together with ἐπίτροπος, the two nor-
mally refer to state offfijicials; (vi) προθεσµία is not a technical term for the
termination of guardianship, but a generically predetermined date.6 Given
these insights, Scott rejects the conventional interpretation and proposes
instead that Paul’s analogy alludes to Israel’s infantile state during its period
of pre-exodus enslavement under Egyptian taskmasters.
While Scott has identifijied several interesting parallels between Gala-
tians 4 and the exodus tradition, and has thereby influenced a host of
recent scholars,7 his proposal has a number of signifijicant weaknesses. In

5) James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background
of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT 2/48; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],
1992).
6) Scott, Adoption, 126-145.
7) Clinton E. Arnold, “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: ‘Stoicheia’ as Evil Spirits
in Galatians 4:3,9,”NovT 38 (1996) 55-76, at 64-65; Scott J. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile
of Israel in Galatians 3-4,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed.
James M. Scott; JSJSUP 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 329-371, at 331-339; Sylvia C. Keesmaat,
“Paul and His Story: Exodus and Tradition in Galatians,” in Early Christian Interpretation
of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (eds. Craig A. Evans and James A.
Sanders; JSNTSup 148/SSEJC 5; Shefffijield: Shefffijield Academic Press, 1997) 300-333, at 302-303;
Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Paul and His Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition ( JSNTSup 181;
Shefffijield: Shefffijield Academic Press, 1999) 156-167; N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said:
Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 72; N.T.
Wright, Justifijication: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 137;
 The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1-2 and P.Ryl. 2.153 65

an earlier contribution to this debate I have exposed what I believe to be

many of the problems in Scott’s proposal (as well as respond to many of
the alleged shortcomings of the guardianship interpretation),8 so I will not
address them all here. It is sufffijicient now simply to say that Scott and pro-
ponents of his position repeatedly engage in special pleading. While they
are perhaps correct to maintain that certain words in 4:1-2 are not technical
terms commonly used in the legal realm for guardianship and succession
(though these words are more at home in this legal source domain than
critics often realize), neither is there adequate evidence to prove that all (or
even most) of the terms Paul employs in 4:1-2 would have been understood
to refer to the exodus.
One of the key weaknesses of Scott’s argument, for instance, concerns
the identifijication of the ἐπίτροποι and οἰκονόµοι as the Egyptian taskmasters.
Despite the fact that Scott and other proponents of his position believe
there to exist “good evidence to suggest that the terms ἐπίτροπος and
οἰκονόµος (4:2) stem from an exodus narrative,”9 no study has produced any
evidence showing that those terms were ever used to refer to Israel’s slave
drivers or to Pharaoh’s offfijicials.10 Scott believes to have found a few close
parallels when he cites texts pairing ἐπίτροποι with οἰκονόµοι as Hellenistic
state offfijicials (OGI 699; Vettius Valens, Anth. lib. 9.73.7). However, in addi-
tion to the fact that these titles are also used together elsewhere for private

William N. Wilder, Echoes of the Exodus Narrative in the Context and Background of
Galatians 5:18 (Studies in Biblical Literature 23; New York: Peter Lang, 2001) 75-77; John
Byron, Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A Traditio-Historical
and Exegetical Examination (WUNT 2/162; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 185-193; Todd A.
Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians,” NTS 50 (2004)
550-571, at 559-560; Justin K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis
of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter (WUNT 2/237; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2008) 136-138; Matthew S. Harmon, She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in
Galatians (BZNW 168; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010) 161; Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the
Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians (WUNT 2/282;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 114-119; Mark Forman, The Politics of Inheritance in Romans
(SNTSMS 148; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 177-181. Thomas R. Schreiner is
inconclusive: “Perhaps Paul interweaves exodus and Greco-Roman traditions here” (Gala-
tians [ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010] 265-267).
8) John K. Goodrich, “Guardians, not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul’s Meta-
phor in Galatians 4.1-2,”JSNT 32 (2010) 251-284.
9) Forman, Politics of Inheritance, 178.
10) Note also that κύριος (Gal 4:1) nowhere else refers to Israel, and προθεσµία (4:2) is nowhere
else used with reference to the receipt of Israel’s inheritance.
66 J.K. Goodrich / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 61-76

administrators (Aristotle, Pol. 1325b2; Lucian, Merc. cond. 12; Florentinus,

Geop. 2.44),11 who in fact were those ideally suited for entrusting one’s
patrimony,12 the examples cited by Scott have nothing to do with the
exodus.13 Still, Scott insists that the Greek titles used for Pharaoh’s offfijicials
were not fijixed by the fijirst century. But this is special pleading: why should
one dismiss the conventional reading mainly because οἰκονόµοι are not
attested elsewhere as guardians, but accept the exodus reading without
any evidence suggesting that ἐπίτροποι and οἰκονόµοι would have been
understood to be Israel’s Egyptian slave drivers?
The poor evidence Scott marshals for the identifijication of the ἐπίτροποι
and οἰκονόµοι, together with the scanty evidence he presents for other terms
in Gal 4:1-2, suggests therefore that the exodus reading is open to the same
charge that Scott raises against the guardianship position—namely, that
there remains a lack of explicit terminological connection between Paul’s
analogy and the proposed source domain. Thus, even Scott Hafemann, one
of James Scott’s earliest proponents, must concede that, aside from the
use of νήπιος, “Scott is able to apply the other terminology of 4.1-2 to the
Exodus from Egypt only by pointing to general conceptual parallels.”14
But while I remain convinced that the guardianship interpretation (par-
ticularly from a Roman perspective) is the best reading of Paul’s metaphor
in Gal 4:1-2, I admit that, in the attempt to make their cases, proponents of
both positions (myself included) have too often resorted to locating termi-
nological and conceptual parallels from entirely isolated and disconnected
sources. What I mean is that, for instance, the plausibility of Scott’s inter-
pretation primarily rests on his ability to link a number of words and
expressions to one another from discrete biblical and extra-biblical texts
(e.g., Hos 11:1, Rom 4:13, various Rabbinic passages, and more) in order to
demonstrate that the terms and ideas Paul employs in Galatians 4 were “in
the air” during early Judaism and thus could have been used collectively by
Paul to refer to the exodus. Of course biblical exegetes must bring to light
whatever evidence they discover that increases the plausibility of the case

11)  Cf. Goodrich, “Guardians, not Taskmasters,” 262-269.

12) Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death, 197; Richard P. Saller, “Roman Heirship Strategies
in Principle and in Practice,” in The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present, eds. David I.
Kertzer and Richard P. Saller (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991) 26-47, at 42-43.
13) Moreover, given the ratio of these known pairings, it is erroneous for Scott to assert that
“the collocation of ἐπίτροπος and οἰκονόµος normally refers to subordinate state offfijicials”
(Adoption, 137).
14) Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile,” 335.
 The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1-2 and P.Ryl. 2.153 67

they wish to construct. But the interpreter seeking to prove that a specifijic
collection of words alludes to a particular conceptual or metaphorical ref-
erent will signifijicantly increase the plausibility of his/her case if he/she can
demonstrate that the grouping of those very terms occurs elsewhere with
the same referent in view.15 In other words, the stronger position will prob-
ably be the one that relies not on a high volume of loosely analogous mate-
rial, but on a smaller sample of texts which, by virtue of their shared use of
numerous key terms and expressions, more obviously parallel Paul’s meta-
phorical fijield. Indeed, it is only by supporting one’s interpretation with evi-
dence corresponding at multiple points that the interpreter can successfully
and confijidently avoid the age old fallacy of parallelomania.16
To that end, this study seeks to demonstrate the plausibility of the guard-
ianship interpretation by showing how numerous verbal and conceptual
correspondences exist between Paul’s metaphor in Gal 4:1-2 and a single
yet striking parallel text, P.Ryl. 2.153—a Roman will that repeatedly draws
on Roman practices of guardianship and succession. The study will begin
by briefly describing the contents of the will and then proceed to identify

15) This is similar to what Nijay Gupta refers to as the metaphorical criterion of “analogy”
(“Towards a Set of Principles for Identifying and Interpreting Metaphors in Paul: Romans 5:2
[προσαγωγή] as a Test Case,”ResQ 51 [2009] 169-181, at 174). As Gupta asks, “Is the meta-
phorical term or phrase used in similar ways elsewhere? . . . It is essential . . . to locate a syn-
chronic analogy in order to satisfy the demands of semantic interpretation. In other words,
the parallel metaphor must appear in the same general historical context of the word or
phrase in question.” While Gupta’s criterion primarily has in view the identifijication of simi-
lar metaphors, it also serves to remind those seeking to identify a metaphor’s source domain
of the importance of fijinding a recurrence of the group of words in question within another
text. The criterion I am suggesting here is also similar to Richard Hays’ criterion of “volume”
in the fijield of intertextuality. According to Hays, “volume” seeks to observe “how insistently
the echo [or in our case, metaphorical fijield] presses itself upon the reader.” Thus, he main-
tains, “The primary factor is the degree of verbatim repetition of words and syntactical pat-
terns” (The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture [Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005] 35, original emphasis). While in our case we do not expect Paul’s
analogy to be repeated verbatim elsewhere, locating a reoccurrence of his precise words (or
near synonyms) will strengthen the possibility of successfully identifying the source domain
of Paul’s metaphor.
16) Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,”JBL 81 (1962) 1-13, at 7: “It would seem to me to follow
that, in dealing with similarities we can sometimes discover exact parallels, some with and
some devoid of signifijicance; seeming parallels which are so only imperfectly; and state-
ments which can be called parallels only by taking them out of context. I must go on to
allege that I encounter from time to time scholarly writings which go astray in this last
regard. It is the question of excerpt versus context.”
68 J.K. Goodrich / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 61-76

and analyze the many correspondences between the papyrus and Paul’s
analogy.

2. A Striking Parallel Text

P.Ryl. 2.153 is the partial and corrected copy of a mid-second century C.E.
Roman will from Hermopolis, Egypt. According to the editors, “The will
was drawn up in the reign of Antoninus (l. 26), but at the bottom is a signa-
ture in red ink, followed by a date in the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Verus
corresponding to March 27, A.D. 169.” Unfortunately, the beginning of the
will is missing, a middle section is heavily fragmented (lines 31-38), and
some occasional illegibility is present toward the end. But aside from these
imperfections, the remainder of the papyrus is relatively well preserved.
The will belonged to an unknown gentleman, almost certainly an athlete
of some means, who bequeathed all of his property to Hellanicus, his under-
age son. But until Hellanicus reached majority and relocated to Hermopolis
from Smyrna, where he was being raised, he was to be designated at least
two guardians, the testator’s friend Maximus and cousin Achilles. These
guardians were to use the heir’s patrimony to support not only the boy
himself, but a number of the testator’s dependents (lines 1-15). A certain
freedman, for instance, is to be given an annual food and monetary allow-
ance, as well as free use of the room he presently occupies within the testa-
tor’s home, for “as long as he lives” ([ἐφʼ] ὃν περίεστι χρόνον, line 7). Similarly,
the testator’s son, spouse (Claudia Leontis), friend (Maximus), sister
(Aline), and cousin (Achilles), together with the cousin’s family, were to be
granted free use of the home for the duration of their lives (ἐφʼ ὃν περίεστιν
χρόνον, line 14). Provisions are also made should Hellanicus himself die
intestate (lines 39-43). In such a case the testator’s spouse would become
heir to all his property (πάντων τ[ῶν] ἐ[µῶ]ν κληρονόµος, line 41); and if she
had not survived, then his sister would inherit the estate (πάντων κλ[η]
ρονόµος, line 42). Finally, the will closes with the testator’s statement of
ratifijication, the acknowledgement of a scribe, and a list of several witnesses
(lines 43-53).
The most relevant portion of the will for our purposes, however, con-
cerns the man’s bequest to Hellanicus and reads as follows:

I designate as heir to all my property (κλ[η]ρονόµον δὲ [τ]ῶν ἐµῶν πάντων) . . . my son

Hellanicus by my aforesaid wife Claudia Leontis, who is a minor (τὸν ἀφήλικα) and
 The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1-2 and P.Ryl. 2.153 69

whom I have left at Smyrna in Asia being yet a foster-child (lit.: being suckled by a
nurse; παρὰ τροφῷ θηλάζοντα). I appoint as his guardians until he attains the legal age
(ἐπιτρόπους [ἄχ]ρι οὗ γένη[ται τῆ]ς ἐννό[µο]υ [ἡ]λικίας), or17 until he thinks fijit to come
to Hermopolis after his attainment of the legal age, the aforesaid persons whom I know
to be suitable and worthy of the offfijice ([τ]ῆς ἐπιτροπῆ[ς]), my friend Maximus son of
Hermaeus and my cousin Achilles son of Sabourion, upon condition that they shall
provide my aforesaid son and heir (µου υἱὸν καὶ κληρονόµον) with food and clothing as
they think fijit, supplying and giving to the aforesaid persons what I desired to be given
to each of them as stated above, until (ἄχρι) my son attains the legal age or comes to
Hermopolis. When he attains the legal age or after attaining it comes to Hermopolis, he
himself shall supply to the said persons the said provisions as long as (ἐφʼ ὃν . . . χρόνον)
each of them survives as aforesaid. As long as the allowances shall be due to me (ὅσ[ο]
υ δὲ χρόνου [ἐν]οφίλεταί µοι ὀψώνια) from the property of Hermopolis on account of my
athletic crown . . . these shall be claimed by the aforesaid guardians of my son and heir
(οἱ προγεγραµµέ[νοι ἐπίτροποι τοῦ υἱοῦ] µου κα[ὶ κ]ληρονόµ[ου])18 and delivered to my
son. Until (ἄχρι) my said son and heir attains the legal age or after attaining it comes to
Hermopolis, my aforesaid wife, his mother, Claudia Leontis shall enjoy the service of all
my slaves, who shall be supplied by the aforesaid guardians with linen and clothing
from the account of my son and heir (ἐκ τ[ο]ῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ µου καὶ κληρονόµου λόγου) . . . When
he attains the legal age or after attaining it comes to Hermopolis, his aforesaid mother
Claudia Leontis shall retain for so long as she survives the services of the said slaves,
who shall then be supplied as aforesaid by my son alone ([χορηγουµένων ὡς προγέγραπται
ὑπ]ὸ µόνου το[ῦ] υἱοῦ µου). (Trans. adapted from P.Ryl. 2.153, lines 15-33)

3. Titular Parallels
There are a number of signifijicant parallels between this portion of the will
and Gal 4:1-2. First, many of the same terms and roles used in Paul’s meta-
phor are also present in the papyrus, including ὁ κληρονόµος, which here
stands for an individual minor heir (ἀφῆλιξ). The exodus reading has made
much of Paul’s use of ὁ κληρονόµος in Gal 4:1. It is often supposed that since
Paul uses the plural, anarthrous κληρονόµοι in 3:29 followed by the singular,
arthrous ὁ κληρονόµος in the next verse, the change in number and use of
the defijinite article must be intentional and of some signifijicance. However,
aside from the fact that the change in number and use of the defijinite article
are likely to be explained by Paul’s use of analogy, it is also clear from this

17) The copyist corrected ἤ to ὅταν. But ἤ should be retained, since the document elsewhere
distinguishes between the boy’s majority and his return to Hermopolis.
18) This reading has been corrected by the papyri.info database from [ἐπίτροποι] µου
κα[ὶ κ]ληρονόµ[οι] and makes far more sense of the sentence, since the ὀψώνια are to be
delivered to the son/heir.
70 J.K. Goodrich / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 61-76

document that Paul’s expression was used somewhat customarily (albeit in

various noun cases) within legal materials concerned with guardianship
and succession (cf. lines 13, 21, 27-28, 30, 34, 37, 39, 41).
The will also employs the plural noun ἐπίτροποι to refer to the boy’s mul-
tiple legal guardians, just as it appears in Gal 4:2 where, together with
οἰκονόµοι, the ἐπίτροποι are those who shall supervise the child until the
date set by the father. Furthermore, the papyrus shows that it was entirely
possible in Roman practice to appoint multiple guardians to a single heir,
as assumed in the guardianship interpretation of Paul’s analogy. Curiously,
some NT scholars have explicitly rejected the possibility that within Roman
law a father was permitted to appoint multiple guardians to oversee his
children and patrimony.19 But this papyrus, together with numerous other
texts involving the Roman law of inheritance, seems to prove the point
beyond doubt. As Richard Saller explains, “Juristic discussions, legal docu-
ments, and casual references to guardianship in Latin literature suggest
that multiple tutors (contutores) must have been the norm.”20
It is also signifijicant that late in the will the testator refers to himself as
owner of the patrimony through the term κύριος: “For being master of my
own property, I so choose to dispose of it” ([κ]ύριος γὰρ ὤν τῶν ἰδίων οὕτως
ᾕρηµαι διατέσθαι, line 43). And while the papyrus does not use the precise
expression “owner of everything” (κύριος πάντων, Gal 4:1), on three occa-
sions it does make use of the phrase “heir of everything/all my property,”
with the genitive, plural substantive πάντων referring to the boy’s patri-
mony (κληρονόµος [τ]ῶν ἐµῶν πάντων, line 15; πάντων τ[ῶν] ἐ[µῶ]ν κληρονόµος,
line 41; πάντων κλ[η]ρονόµος, line 42).21 The diffference here between the
two statements is negligible, since it is only a matter of timing, or potential.
For in the will the κληρονόµος, though he has not yet taken possession of the
patrimony, is entirely expected to do so, and thus to become κύριος at his

19) See, most recently, Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians (NTL; Louisville: WJK, 2011) 259:
“Threatening the verisimilitude of the analogy is the claim that a single child, even the heir,
would be placed under several guardians. The use of the plural can be explained as an antic-
ipation of the plural ta stoicheia tou kosmou, which is a relatively fijixed expression. But why,
then, the addition of oikonomoi, household managers? The combination appears to be with-
out linguistic parallel.” Cf. Martinus C. de Boer, “The Meaning of the Phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ
κόσµου in Galatians,”NTS 53 (2007) 204-224, at 210. Even this last assumption, though shared
by commentators (e.g., J. Louis Martyn, Galatians [AYB 33a; New York: Doubleday, 1997]
387) is entirely incorrect, since the two terms occur jointly in several texts, as shown above.
20) Saller, Patriarchy, Property and Death, 195.
21) For πάντα as referring to a patrimony, see P.Lips 9.32-33; P.Oxy. 3.489, line 9.
 The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1-2 and P.Ryl. 2.153 71

father’s death, notwithstanding the appointment of guardians.22 Indeed,

the heir’s would-be ownership of the patrimony, even prior to his reaching
the age of majority, is implied in the will when the testator indicates that
the provisions for his spouse’s slaves were to be provided “from the account
of my son and heir” (ἐκ τ[ο]ῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ µου καὶ κληρονόµου λόγου, line 30). The
testator thereby demonstrates that during the period in which the heir is
still under the supervision of guardians and thus not yet in full control of
his fijinances, he nevertheless remains the estate’s rightful owner.
While Hellanicus’ designation as “heir of everything” is somewhat com-
parable to his father’s designation as “owner,” there also appear to be strik-
ing similarities between Hellanicus’ limitations as a minor heir and those of
a slave, just as Paul observes in Gal 4:1 (ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόµος νήπιός
ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου). But the likening of minor heirs to slaves should
not be pressed too far, for Paul’s use of the expression οὐδὲν διαφέρει is a
fijigure of speech, implying limited similarity without complete equivalency.
The idiomatic nature of the phrase is apparent, for example, at two instances
in LXX Proverbs: “The threat of a king does not difffer (οὐ διαφέρει) from
the rage of a lion, and he who provokes him sins against his own life”
(20:2 NETS); “Whoever blesses a friend early in the morning with a loud
voice will seem not to be diffferent (οὐδὲν διαφέρειν δόξει) from one who is
cursing” (27:14 NETS).23 The LXX translators distinguished between kings
and lions, as well as blessings and curses. Therefore, while there remain
obvious similarities in the two sets of images (both kings and lions are dan-
gerous; both morning noise and curses are offfensive), the phrase οὐ(δὲν)
διαφέρειν should not be understood to suggest that the things being com-
pared are in fact identical in every way.24

22) The use of κληρονόµος πάντων, rather than κύριος πάντων, is in fact to be expected in a
document such as this, since at present the testator maintains ownership of the estate. Thus,
for a testator to refer in a will to a minor as κύριος πάντων—though attested elsewhere (e.g.,
P.Lips 9.32-33)—is not to be expected, for at the time of the document’s composition the
testator is still alive and in full possession of his property.
23) Paul also uses the phrase in Gal 2:6 as a way of relativizing the status of the Jerusalem
apostles (2:2, 9), explaining that “what they were makes no diffference to me” (ὁποῖοί ποτε
ἦσαν οὐδέν µοι διαφέρει). This also appears to be an idiomatic usage. Whatever the case, it is
quite diffferent from Paul’s use of the expression in Gal 4:1.
24) For this reason it is quite inappropriate for Scott and others to criticize the guardianship
position simply because it requires the interpreter to assume that Paul used some measure
of hyperbole. As Scott remarks, “[T]he idea that the heir is a ‘slave’ (δοῦλος) under his guard-
ians must be seen as an exaggeration to be taken only cum grano salis. Thus the prevailing
view fijinds discord within the ‘illustration’ itself!” (Adoption, 123). But Paul does not say that
72 J.K. Goodrich / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 61-76

With these insights in mind, it is instructive to observe how both

Hellanicus and the family slaves were to be cared for by the guardians, who
possessed responsibility for and authority over both kinds of subordinates.
As the papyrus reads, “I appoint as his [Hellanicus’] guardians . . . my friend
Maximus son of Hermaeus and my cousin Achilles son of Sabourion, upon
condition that they shall provide my aforesaid son and heir with food and
clothing as they think fijit” (lines 18-22). Likewise, Maximus and Achilles (the
guardians) are instructed to provide the same provisions for the family
slaves: “[M]y aforesaid wife . . . Claudia Leontis shall enjoy the service of all
my slaves, who shall be supplied by the aforesaid guardians with linen and
clothing” (lines 28-30). Sons and slaves in Roman antiquity, to be sure, did
not possess the same socio-legal status and would have certainly be treated
diffferently by the head of the household (paterfamilias).25 And once a
father was deceased and his son became an independent person (sui iuris),
many of those diffferences became even more pronounced. But while a
minor lived under the supervision of guardians—who not only supplied
him with food and clothing, but cared for his dependents, monitored his
expenses, and even assumed control of his investments—the child’s rights
and privileges remained quite restricted, being in many ways no diffferent
from those of a slave, and especially while the heir was an infant (νήπιος; cf.
Dig. 26.1.1.pr; 41.2.32.2).26

the heir “is” (ἐστι) a slave and thereby imply identifijication. Instead, Paul says that the heir
“does not difffer” (οὐδὲν διαφέρει) from a slave, a clear fijigure of speech suggesting the exis-
tence of partial similarity while allowing for plenty of diffferences. In fact, given the idiom-
atic nature of the expression, the exodus reading is to be faulted for forcing Paul’s statement
to function as a thoroughgoing analogy. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt (Exod 1:13-14; 6:5;
Deut 5:5; 6:21; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 22). Thus, had Paul sought to allude to Israel’s enslavement,
it would have been more appropriate for him to employ ἐστι in order to capture the literal
nature of their condition.
25) Richard Saller, “The Hierarchical Household in Roman Society: A Study of Domestic
Slavery,” in Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage (ed. M.L. Bush; New York: Long-
man, 1996) 112-129.
26) As Sabine R. Hübner and David M. Ratzan explain, “[T]he degree of a Roman guardian’s
involvement in his ward’s fijinancial transactions depended on the latter’s age. Fatherless
children under the age of seven did not have any say at all in property and business matters,
while those between the ages of seven and fourteen could make business decisions, but the
guardian had the last word” (“Fatherless Antiquity? Perspectives on ‘Fatherlessness’ in the
Ancient Mediterranean,” in Growing up Fatherless in Antiquity [eds. Sabine R. Hübner and
David M. Ratzan; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009] 3-28, at 16). Cf. Goodrich,
“Guardians, not Taskmasters,” 253.
 The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1-2 and P.Ryl. 2.153 73

4. Temporal Parallels
Aside from shared uses of key titular terms and concepts, the papyrus and
Paul both use the same temporal expressions. While I am by no means
implying that they are limited to employment in legal documents, it is
nonetheless signifijicant that the papyrus makes frequent use of the phrase
ἐφʼ ὃν χρόνον (“as long as,” lines 3-4, 7, 14, 24-25, 32; cf. ὅσου χρόνου, line 25),27
on three occasions uses the term ἄχρι (“until,” lines 19, 22, 27), and once
employs προθεσµία (“predetermined date,” line 37). We will spend some
time analyzing the use of these temporal markers in order to show that
Paul uses them similarly.
The papyrus employs ἐφʼ ὃν χρόνον with surprising consistency through-
out to refer to the duration of one’s life (cf. ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον, Rom 7:1; 1 Cor
7:39). On the other hand, the single occurrence of ὅσου χρόνου refers to the
duration of the testator’s receipt of “allowances” (ὀψώνια), apparently
awarded for his athletic accomplishments. Regardless of the slight varia-
tion between the phrases, they clearly refer to an indefijinite period of time,
as does ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον in Gal 4:1 (as well as Rom 7:1 and 1 Cor 7:39) where
the unknown duration of the child’s minority status is in view.28
There are also similarities between Paul’s use of ἄχρι in Gal 4:2 and the
testator’s use of the same term throughout the papyrus. The papyrus uses
ἄχρι without exception to mark the termination of the offfijice and responsi-
bilities of the guardians. In the same way, Paul uses ἄχρι in Gal 4:2 to refer
to the established point in time (τῆς προθεσµίας τοῦ πατρός) when the
ἐπίτροποι and οἰκονόµοι would cease to oversee the child (cf. τὸ πλήρωµα τοῦ
χρόνου, 4:4). This is even the case at the papyrus’ fijinal employment of ἄχρι
(line 27), when the testator addresses his wife’s right to enjoy the services of
the family slaves. For when Hellanicus reaches majority and relocates to
Hermopolis to take possession of the estate, what changes is not who
receives the slaves’ services,29 but who is responsible for supplying their

27) See also this and related expressions in other testamentary literature: ἐφ᾽ ὃν χρόνον
(P.Oxy. 3.489, lines 4-7, 14, 16; 3.490, line 3; 3.491, lines 4, 8-9; 3.494, lines 3-4; 3.495, line 2); ἐφ᾽
ὅλον τὸν χρόνον (P.Oxy. 3.492, line 15); ἐπὶ τὸν χρόνον (P.Oxy. 3.494, line 15).
28) Both Rom 7:1 and 1 Cor 7:39 (Paul’s only uses of ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον outside of Gal 4:1) employ
present and past tense verbs to refer to gnomic situations. This lends support to the conven-
tional reading’s understanding of Paul’s present tense verbs in Gal 4:1-2 as having a gnomic
rather historic sense (contra Scott, Adoption, 146).
29) “[H]is aforesaid mother Claudia Leontis shall retain for so long as she survives the ser-
vices of the said slaves” (lines 32-33).
74 J.K. Goodrich / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 61-76

needs. What was formerly the duty of his guardians has become the respon-
sibility of the boy ([χορηγουµένων ὡς προγέγραπται ὑπ]ὸ µόνου το[ῦ] υἱοῦ µου,
line 33). Similarly, in Paul’s analogy ἄχρι signals the arrival of the estab-
lished date when the authority and responsibilities of the ἐπίτροποι and
οἰκονόµοι are to be terminated (Gal 4:2), for at that time the child will have
come into his own.30
The noun προθεσµία is used just once in the papyrus, as it is in biblical
literature (LXX/NT) at Gal 4:2. Unfortunately, it occurs in the heavily frag-
mented section in the middle of the papyrus (lines 34-38), making its refer-
ent extremely difffijicult to discern. Still, what has been preserved offfers some
context for interpreting the term’s function. The section concerns an
arrangement made with a privileged slave called Myron, who previously
belonged to the testator’s mother (ὁ µητρικός µου δοῦλος, line 33) and would
at some forthcoming time be fijinancially indebted to Hellanicus ([ἐὰν δ]ὲ
ἀπιθῇ ὁ [Μύρων καὶ µὴ ἀπ]οδῶι ταύτας, line 37). It is impossible to be certain
about the circumstances of the debt. There is brief mention of a past pay-
ment of 320 drachmas of silver (φόρων τοῦ παρῳ̣ χηµένου χρόνου ἀργυρίου
δραχµὰς τριακοσίας εἴκο[σι], lines 35-36) and the text has been reconstructed
to contain the phrase ἀπε[λεύθερος ἔστω] (“let him be free,” lines 36-37).
Whatever else it may address, it seems plausible that the section concerns
Myron’s manumission. But even if this is so, it does not entirely explain
the circumstances of the debt. Assuming that Myron’s freedom is in view,
the payment would be due at some point after Myron’s release. But it
remains unclear whether the debt concerns the cost of manumission itself,
the repayment of a loan, or perhaps a regular tribute Myron might owe to
Hellanicus as his patron. Whatever the case may be, Myron clearly was, or
would be, indebted to Hellanicus. Thus, the will states, “But if Myron dis-
obeys and does not return these things at the time established beforehand
(ἐν τῇ προκειµένῃ προθεσµίᾳ), he will be seized by the heir . . . and if he [the
heir] desires, he [Myron] also will serve my aforementioned wife with my
other slaves” (lines 37-39).
Based on the foregoing reconstruction, it is unnecessary to restrict the
referent of προθεσµία to the time of Hellanicus’ attainment of majority;
there is simply too little information to draw this conclusion and it very

30) Although in Paul’s thought believers have yet to take full possession of the inheritance,
they have already received an initial endowment in their adoption through the Spirit (4:5-7;
cf. Rom 8:15-17, 23 [τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύµατος]).
 The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1-2 and P.Ryl. 2.153 75

well may be unlikely given that the freedman’s debt probably had little to
do with the boy’s coming of age. Nevertheless, this occurrence of προθεσµία
demonstrates that, while the term could be used for any number of prede-
termined deadlines, it could also be employed in and around contexts
involving guardianship and succession (cf. BGU 3.919; CPR 6.78).31 More-
over, since the papyrus uses ἐφʼ ὃν χρόνον, ὅσου χρόνου, and ἄχρι in ways
quite similar to Paul’s use of ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον and ἄχρι in Gal 4:1-2, Paul’s
analogy resonates quite well in the metaphorical fijield of Greco-Roman
inheritance.
One fijinal temporal parallel between the will and Paul’s analogy involves
the testator’s right to appoint a date for the heir’s acquisition of the patri-
mony and the dismissal of the boy’s guardians. Recent critics of the guard-
ianship interpretation of Paul’s analogy, especially of the Roman legal
perspective, have complained that in Roman law the father did not have
the right to appoint a date that diverted from those which had been estab-
lished by law. But this text demonstrates that, while there was a legal age at
which an heir would normally gain control of his estate, the father also had
the right to defer that date to a time more desirable either to himself or to
his heir. In the present case, Hellanicus had the right to take possession of
the estate at his coming of legal age (γένηται τῆς ἐννόµου ἡλικίας, lines 19, 23,
28, 31). But if he decided to remain in Smyrna (or perhaps elsewhere)
beyond that age, apparently he could continue to rely on his guardians to
superintend the patrimony until the point in time at which Hellanicus
decided to return to Hermopolis (lines 19, 23-24, 28, 31-32).32 Thus, this will
demonstrates that while certain age restrictions and age-related matters
were established by law, the testator retained the right to include addi-
tional stipulations in order to accommodate the circumstances of his heir.

31) Moreover, once it is realized that the word often refers to unspecifijied dates, known to
the reader either by custom or some other means (cf. P.Oxy. 8.1132; P.Tebt. 2.294; SB 20.14281;
NewDocs 4:20), Scott’s assertion that Paul’s use of προθεσµία must refer to a date specifijied in
the text and probably to the 430 years at Gal 3:17 seems quite baseless (Adoption, 141-142).
32) Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt, 167: “In local law guardianship ends with
the boy’s 14th year of age (ἔννοµος ἡλικία), or, in the case of a girl, with her marriage. By the
father’s disposition or by that of the authorities the guardianship may be extended even up
to the 25th year of age of the pupil”; Gal 4:1-2 is even listed as evidence for this extension
(n. 56). See also Goodrich, “Guardians, not Taskmasters,” 261 n. 14.
76 J.K. Goodrich / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 61-76

5. Conclusion
This article has sought to demonstrate the numerous points of contact
between P.Ryl. 2.153 and Paul’s inheritance analogy in Gal 4:1-2. By identify-
ing several signifijicant verbal and conceptual parallels between the two
texts—including their shared use of the arthrous κληρονόµος, κύριος, the
substantive πάντα, plural ἐπίτροποι, and various temporal expressions—
the study proposes that the guardianship position is the most plausible
interpretation of Paul’s analogy.
The exodus interpretation developed by James Scott continues to have a
signifijicant following in NT scholarship, due in part to the existence of
apparent difffijiculties in the conventional reading. Scott’s interpretation,
however, sufffers from many of the same weaknesses as alleged of the guard-
ianship interpretation. Not only does Scott’s case sufffer from a lack of
explicit terminological connection between Paul’s metaphor and the exo-
dus tradition (κύριος nowhere else refers to Israel; ἐπίτροποι and οἰκονόµοι
nowhere else refer to the Egyptian taskmasters; προθεσµία is nowhere else
used in connection with the receipt of Israel’s inheritance), but the thin
evidence that Scott advances derives from completely separate and unre-
lated sources, signifijicantly reducing the likelihood that the key terms
Paul employs in Gal 4:1-2 would have been understood together to refer to
Israel’s exodus from Egypt.
P.Ryl. 2.153, on the other hand, contains nearly every word, phrase, and
concept appearing in Paul’s analogy. Consequently, the guardianship inter-
pretation fijinds far greater support from this single papyrus than the increas-
ingly popular exodus reading can boast by advancing an array of only
loosely-related parallels. Due, then, to the evidence presented here, it
seems most reasonable to conclude that Paul’s analogy originated from the
metaphorical fijield of guardianship and succession, and not the exodus
tradition.