[1] Note that the book of Revelation does not provide a parallel, for those who are referred to under the names of Balaam (2. 14) and Jezebel (2. 20) are not Jews but Judaizing Gentiles: they are people ‘who say that they are Jews and they are not (but they are lying)’ (2. 9; 3. 9).

[2] Faith and Fratricide (New York: Seabury, 1974), pp. 102 f., 134 f.Google Scholar

[3] Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: University Press, 1969).Google Scholar

[4] Note that there is a big difference between those who keep the law (‘uphold the Torah’) and may break certain commandments and those who conform to certain commandments but do not keep the law.

[5] Paul; The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), pp. 213–18.Google Scholar

[6] Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).Google Scholar

[7] ‘Paul and the Torah’, Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. Davies, A. T. (New York: Paulist, 1979), pp. 48–71Google Scholar; ‘Paul and the Law in Galatians Two and Three’, AntiJudaism in Early Christianity, ed. Granskou, D. and Richardson, P. (forthcoming).Google Scholar

[8] Ex. R. 5. 9; cf. also TSot 8. 6; Shab 88b; Midrash Tannaim (ed. D. Hoffman), pp. 190 f.; Lam. R. 3. 1;Deut. R. 2. 34;Pes. Rab. 21.

[9] I have used the following commentaries: Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1869)Google Scholar; Eadie, J., A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1883 ²)Google Scholar; Ramsay, W. M., A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900 ²)Google Scholar; Zahn, T., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Leipzig: Deichert, 1907)Google Scholar; Burton, E. de W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1921)Google Scholar; Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (Göttingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, 1951 ¹¹)Google Scholar; Bring, R., Commentary on Galatians (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961)Google Scholar; Oepke, A., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973 ³)Google Scholar; Mussner, F., Der Galaterbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 1974)Google Scholar; Betz, H. D., Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979)Google Scholar. Not available to me was McNamara, M., ‘“to de (Hagar) Sina oros estin en te Arabia” (Gal. 4:25a): Paul and Petra’, Mill Stud 2 (1978), 24–41.Google Scholar

[10] As cited in Zahn, p.298.

[11] Betz, p. 245.

[12] Betz, p. 251; Bring, pp. 221, 232.

[13] Betz, p. 243.

[14] Betz, p. 247.

[15] For example, W. M. Ramsay (pp. 431, 430) finds the passage ‘unnecessarily insulting and offensive to the Jews, weak as an argument, and not likely to advance his purpose’; indeed it ‘would probably outrage Jewish prejudice’. Betz (p. 246) calls it ‘one of Paul's sharpest attacks upon the Jews’, and Klein, G. (‘Römer 4 und die Idee der Heilsgeschichte’, Rekonstruktion und Interpretation [München: Kaiser, 1969], pp. 145–69, 168)Google Scholar says of it: ‘Eine brutalere Paganisierung vorgeblicher Heilsgeschichte lässt sich schwerlich noch vorstellen.’ It is unclear why Paul would want to make such an uncalled-for attack and even more unclear why some modern interpreters should rejoice in it.

[16] O'Neill, J. C., The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians (London: SPCK, 1972), pp. 62–4Google Scholar. Callaway, M. C., ‘The Mistress and the Maid: Midrashic Traditions Behind Galatians 4. 21–31’, Radical Religion 2 (1975), 94–101Google Scholar, is also tempted to omit Vs. 24–27 but wisely refrains. Her stimulating article is very sensitive to the problems these verses cause.

[17] ‘This is a part of the OT that Paul would have been unlikely to introduce of his own accord; its value from his point of view is anything but obvious, and the method of interpretation is unusual with him. It stands in the epistle because his opponents had used it and he could not escape it’, ‘The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians’, Rechtfertigung, ed. Friedrich, J., Pöhlmann, W., and Stuhlmacher, P. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1976), pp. 1–16, 10Google Scholar. Ramsay (p. 432) even suggests that Paul is replying to a letter from the Galatians asking about Isaac and Ishmael.

[18] Schoeps, p. 238.

[19] There is a good recent discussion in Hanson, A. T., Studies in Paul's Technique and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), esp. pp. 91–4.Google Scholar

[20] ‘A Problem of Interpretation’, Bulletin of the SNTS 2 (1951), 7–18, 11, 12.Google Scholar

[21] Burton, pp. 261 f.

[22] It is then quite incorrect to state, as does Stamm, R. T. (‘Galatians’, Interpreter's Bible [Nashville: Abingdon, 1953], Vol. 10, p. 541), ‘The verb συστοιχεί…is regularly used to draw comparisons and parallels.’Google Scholar

[23] Polybius, 10.23.7. The defmition in LSJ is a bit too static: ‘to stand in the same rank or line, of soldiers’. The passage is in fact much more lively: ‘They were to practice charging the enemy and retreating by every kind of movement, until they were able to advance at an alarming pace; provided only that they kept together, both line and column (⋯φ Оσον συξυγούντας κα⋯ συστοιχουντας διαμένειν), and preserved the proper intervals between squadrons’ (trans. Shuckburgh). A frequent movement involves the whole squadron swinging around 90° (⋯πιτροφ⋯) so that they keep in formation but the rider in front of or next to any individual constantly shifts. συστοιχείν is in no sense a technical term, even if ξυγείν (to stand in rank) and στοιχείυ (to stand in file) are ‘used by the tactical writers’ in a technical sense (Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967] Vol. 2, p. 226)Google Scholar. As the translation shows, the prefix has only to do with the riders keeping in formation moving together. This passage is of no help whatsoever in understanding Gal. 4. 25.

[24] ⋯πτεται, γειτνι⋯ξει (Chrysostom), coniunctus est (Vulg.). Only Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have something close to the modern definition (ίσοδυναμεί), cf. Lightfoot, p. 226.

[25] Lipsius, R. A., Briefe an die Galater, Römer, Philipper (Freiburg: Mohr, 1892 ²), p. 55.Google Scholar

[26] Thayer, Lexicon, ad voc.

[27] Metaphysics I, 5 = 986a, 23. On the Pythagorean tables of contraries, cf. Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy (Cambridge: University Press, 1962), Vol. 1, pp. 239–51.Google Scholar

[28] E.g. τ⋯ν ⋯ναντ⋯ων⋯ ⋯τ⋯ρα συστοιχ⋯α, 1004b,27.Cf. 1054b.35; 1058a.13; 1066a.15; 1072a.31; 1096b.6.

[29] Parts of Animals III, 7 = 670b.21.

[30] Lauterbach, Vol. II, pp. 234–5. Pseudo-Jonathan at Deut. 33. 2 reads: ‘The Lord was revealed at Sinai to give the law unto his people of Beth Israel, and the splendour of the glory of his Shekinah arose from Gebal to give itself to the sons of Esau; but they received it not. It shined forth in majesty and glory from mount Pharan, to give itself to the sons of Ishmael; but they received it not. It returned and revealed itself in holiness unto his people of Beth Israel, and with him 10,000 times 10,000 holy angels.’

[31] Cf. Moore, G. F., Judaism 1 (Cambridge: Harvard, 1927), p.277Google Scholar; Schoeps, H. J., ‘Haggadisches zur Auserwählung Israels’, Aus frühchristlicher Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr, 1950), pp. 184–200Google Scholar; Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: JPS, 1968 [1911]), III, pp. 80–2. Cf. LAB 11:2.Google Scholar

[32] ‘Paul and the Torah’.

[33] Ps. 83. 6, etc.; En. 89. 11, 13, 16 (wild asses); Jub. 17. 14 (Nabateans); 20. 12–13; Josephus, , Ant. 1, 215Google Scholar, 221 (Nabateans). Cf. Sandmel, S., Philo's Place in Judaism (New York: KTAV, 1971), pp. 44, 71Google Scholar; Schoeps, H. J., Aus frühchristlicher Zeit, pp. 26, 186Google Scholar. For other peoples said to be descended from Abraham, cf. Malchus, in Josephus, Ant. 1, 240–241Google Scholar (Assyria, Africa), and 1 Mac. 12. 21; 2 Mac. 5. 9 (Spartans). Cf. Mayer, G., ‘Aspecte des Abrahambildes in der hellenistischjüdischen Literatur’, EvT 32 (1972), 118–27Google Scholar, Die universale Vaterschaft, 121–3; Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), pp. 63–9.Google Scholar

[34] Principalities and Powers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

[35] Cf. le Déaut, R., ‘Traditions targumiques dans le Corpus Paulinum?’, Biblica 42 (1961), 28–48, 37–43.Google Scholar

[36] Cited from Bowker, J., The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: University Press, 1969), p. 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The version in Gen. r. 55. 4 is as follows: ‘Isaac and Ishmael were engaged in a controversy: the latter argued, “I am more beloved than thou, because I was circumcised at the age of 13”; while the other retorted, “I am more beloved than thou, because I was circumcised at 8 days.” Said Ishmael to him “I am more beloved, because I could have protested and did not.” At that moment Isaac exclaimed: “O that God would appear to me and bid me cut off one of my limbs! Then I would not refuse.” Said God: “Even if I bid thee sacrifice thyself, thou wilt not refuse.”’

[37] Cf. Stummer, F., ‘Beschneidung’, RAC 2, 159–69Google Scholar. Note that the descendants of Esau no longer (Jer. 9. 24 f.) practised circumcision, cf. Josephus, , Ant. 13, 257 f.Google Scholar

[38] As were the Arabs; cf. Josephus, , Ant. 1, 214.Google Scholar

[39] Out of this promise and the plural ‘sons’ in Gen. 21. 7 developed the interesting Agadah of Sarah suckling Gentile children, some of whom would be future proselytes, BM 87a; Gen. r. 53. 9.

[40] Eadie, p. 369; cf. the similar reconstruction of what Paul should have written in Mussner, p. 320.

[41] Betz, p. 246.

[42] Cf. Hurtado, L., ‘The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians’, JSNT 5 (1979), 46–62.Google Scholar

[43] A great deal is said about the heavenly or future Jerusalem in the literature of early Judaism (including Is. 54. 11–17) as a promise for the present Jerusalem (cf. the references in Betz, p. 246, n. 81). Paul stands in this line but adds that Gentiles now, before the eschaton, are citizens of this heavenly Jerusalem.

[44] Betz, p. 244. On the various meanings of this term, cf. Roetzel, C., ‘Diathekai in Romans 9.4’, Biblica 51 (1970), 377–90.Google Scholar

[45] ‘The two covenants of which Paul speaks are concurrent and can be identified in the original situation’, Richardson, Israel, p. 100Google Scholar; cf. also Luz, U., ‘Der alte und der neue Bund bei Paulus und im Hebräerbrief’, EvT 27 (1967), 318–36, 321 f.Google Scholar

[46] Cf. my ‘Angels and Gentiles in Early Judaism and in Paul’, forthcoming in Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses.

[47] Since Barrett, C. K., ‘The Allegory’, p. 12Google Scholar, says that Is. 54. I had never been associated with Sarah before Paul (although it clearly was in the later Jewish tradition), perhaps one ought to search for examples. The best I can come up with is Lightfoot's claim, perhaps a correct one (p. 196), that Philo has Sarah and Hagar in mind when he cites Is. 54. 1 in Praem 151.

[48] On this translation, cf. Richardson, P., Israel, pp. 74–84Google Scholar; Mussner, pp. 415–17; and Davies, W. D., ‘Paul and the People of Israel’, NTS 24 (1977), 4–39, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[49] Mussner, pp. 331–3. Rather than ‘shutting them out’ in turn, it would be sufficient to expel their false gospel, their gospel of slavery, their Ishmael attitudes.

[50] Le Déaut, ‘Traditions’, interprets this in the light of the Targum as ‘quarrelling’.

[51] The thorough discussions of Lightfoot, pp. 189–90, and Mussner, pp. 322–4 (his article in ThQ was not available to me), are very convincing. The longer reading is easily explained: To ΓΑΡ ΣΙΝΑ → ΤΟ ΑΓΑΡ ΣΙΝΑ → ΤΟ ΔΕ (or ΓΑΡ) ΑΓΑΡ ΣΙΝΑ.

[52] On the wild improbability of this desperate solution, still commonly held, cf. Gese, H., ‘τ⋯ δ⋯Άγ⋯ρ Σιν⋯ ⋯ρος ⋯στ⋯ν τ⋯ Άραβ⋯α (Gal 4,25)’, Vom Sinai zum Zion (München: Kaiser, 1974), pp. 49–62, 59Google Scholar. To connect the name Hagar with the city Hagra and to locate Sinai in that neighbourhood, as Gese does, is perhaps a bit more plausible but still only complete conjecture. If word play were involved, rather than to refer to Arabic which not even the Nabateans and certainly not the Galatians spoke, one could assume that Phio's Greek ‘translations’ were known: Hagar = παρο⋯κησις; Sarai = ⋯ρχ⋯; Sarah = ⋯ρχουσα. This would indeed fit Paul's point and also be in accordance with the later Rabbinic explanation that graphical = a princess to her own people and graphical = a princess for all mankind (Gen. r. 47. 1).

[53] Vs. 25a has often been considered a gloss; Vs. 25b would reflect a post 70 C.E. situation, as in the commentaries of Pelagius and Ephraem Syrus. It is then not correct to say that ‘only a completely anachronistic modern nationalism could see it as a reference to the political bondage Judea under the Romans’ (Hanson, , Studies, p. 96).Google Scholar

[54] An die Römer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971 ⁵), p. 91Google Scholar. I have also used the following commentaries: Sunday, W. and Headlem, A. C., A Critical and Exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1902 ⁵)Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932)Google Scholar; Nygren, A., Commentary on Romans (Philadejphia: Muhlenberg, 1949)Google Scholar; Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1957 ¹¹)Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Romans (New York: Harper, 1957)Google Scholar; Leenhardt, F. J., L'Epître de Saint Paul aux Romains (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1957)Google Scholar; Munk, J., Chirst and Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967)Google Scholar; Black, M., Romans (London: Oliphants, 1973)Google Scholar; Kuss, O., Der Römerbrief, dritte Lieferung (Regensburg: Pustet, 1978)Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1979)Google Scholar; Käsemann, E., Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980)Google Scholar; Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer, Vol. 2 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener verlag, 1980).Google Scholar

[55] Schoeps, , Paul, p. 238.Google Scholar

[56] Sanders, E. P., ‘The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism’, Jews, Greeks and Christains, ed. Hamerton-Kelly, R. and Scroggs, R. (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 11–44, 15.Google Scholar

[57] Barrett, p. 175. Cf.Käsemann (p. 261), ‘Vs 6a answers a difficulty and mentions indirectly the basis of the complaint in vv 1f. Israel, the bearer of the promise, has rejected in unbelief the message of Chirst which is the fulfilment of the promise’; Kuss(p. 715), ‘der Apostel zeiht die Folgerung formel nicht ausdrücklick’.

[58] Wilckens, p. 186; cf. p. 191, ‘Noch immer nicht nennt Pailus das Problem bei Namen, um das es geht: Hat Gott das im Unglauben verharrende Judentum trotz der ihm als ‘Israel’ gegebenen Heilssatzungen vom Heil Ausgeschlossen?’

[59] Sanday and Headlam, pp. 239, 238, 226.

[60] Dodd even argues with Paul in his exposition of 11.1 (p. 174): ‘The general tendency of the foregoing argument has been to suggest that God has repudiated His People, the Jews, as a corporate whole. But Paul cannot accept this suggestion without further consideration.’ Cf. also pp. 43, 63, 179, 182 f. for similar arguments with Paul for not being anti-Jewish enough.

[61] ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’, HTR 56 (1963), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[62] ‘The latter people (church) has snatched away the blessings of the former (the Jews), just as Jacob took away the blessings of this Esau’, adv. Haer. IV, 21, 2f. Cf. already Barn. 13. 2–3.

[63] Michel, p. 202. Much more cautious is Wilckens, p. 196.

[64] Munck, p. 49; cf. Cranfield, p. 481, Käsemann, p. 266. There is no basis to speak, as does Lietzmann, p. 91, and many others, of the ‘leibliche und geistliche Israel’.

[65] Cranfield, p. 485; cf. Barett, pp. 187, 1990; Nygren, p. 371(‘Like Pharaoh in his day, Israel is now a “vessel of wrath”.’); Munck, pp. 49, 59.

[66] Käsemann, p. 275.

[67] Michel, p. 210; cf. Dodd, p. 155.

[68] Sanday and Headlam, p. 257. Wilckens, p. 199, is wiser not so to identify his ‘konkrete Gegner’.

[69] Dodd, p. 155. Much better is Cranfield, p. 482.

[70] The only exception would be 16. 17 f. if this chapter was part of the letter to Rome. For the situation generally of the adderesses, cf. Schmithals, W., Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975).Google Scholar

[71] For example, Sanders, E. P. (‘Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: A Holistic Method of Comparison’, HTR 66 (1973), 455–78, 458)CrossRefGoogle Scholar begins his discussion of ‘the Tannaitic pattern of religio’ thus: ‘the beginning point is the election of Israel, which firmly and universally maintained by the Rabbis. It is best summed up in the one sentence, “All Israel has a share in the world to come” (Sanh 10:1)’; Paul agrees (Rom. 11. 26). Important to Rabbinic theology is the much misunderstood concept of ‘the meints of the fathers’; Paul agreees (Rom. 11. 28); cf. my article ‘Abraham and the Righteousness of God’, Horizons in Biblical Theology 2 (1980), 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[72] Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), p. 296.Google Scholar

[73] ‘Der ganze Abschnitt Röm 9–11 handelt von der Treue Gottes. Die Summe des Ganzen war schon in Röm 3,3 angedeutet’, Barth, M., ‘Das Volk Gottes. Juden und Christen in der Botschaft des Paulus’, Paulus - Apostat oder Apostel?, ed. Barth, M., et al. (Regensburg: Pustet, 1977), pp. 45–134, 75.Google Scholar

[74] ‘We shall misunderstand these chapters, if we fail to recognize that their key–word is mercy’, Cranfield, p. 448. Cf. Eichholz, , Theologie, p. 292Google Scholar, ‘χ⋯ρις Schlüsselworth von Röm 9–11’.

[75] we translate accoring to Barrett, pp. 180 f., and Black, p. 131, to achieve consistency in Paul's use of σπ⋯ρμα. But the meaning is the same even with the more natual translation.

[76] Michel, pp. 200 f.

[77] Klein, G. K., ‘Präliminarien zum Thema “Paulus und die Juden”’, Rechifertigung, pp. 229–43, 235.Google Scholar

[78] That Gentiles could be called ‘out of Israel’ has to do with the concept of Abraham's universal fatherhood referred to above, note 33.

[79] Cf. Volz, P., Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966 [1934], pp. 29, 83, 280, 380Google Scholar; Hengel, M., Die zeloten (Leiden: Brill, 1961), p. 309Google Scholar; Hunzinger, C. H., ‘Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrusbriefes’, Gottes Wort und Gottes Land, ed. Reventlow, H. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1965), pp. 67–77, 69–71Google Scholar. The latter two suggest that the identification took place by way of the ldumean Herod, but this is not certain.

[80] This is obscured by the strange mistransalation of Vs. 9a. RSV reads ‘What then?;. Are we Jews any better off?’ in the text and ‘at any disadvantage’ in the margin. We should not make wild guesses according to our understanding of the context but stick to the meaning of words, and then our understanding of the context any change. We should translate of course: ‘What then do we put up as a defence?’ (omitting ού π⋯ντως).

[81] That this is the sense of the word δ⋯ναμις here is argued by Cranfield, p. 487.

[82] Cf. Sanday, and Headlam, , pp. 267–9Google Scholar; Luz, U., Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (München: Kaiser, 1968), p. 79Google Scholar. The image of the potter in Ben Sira 33. 13 also seems to deal with Jews and Gentiles. Wisdom 15. 7, on the other hand, represents quite a different usage (contra Cranfield, p. 491).

[83] ‘It seems apparent that the ancient Egyptians and Canaanites merely served the author as symbols for the hated Alexandrians and Romans of his own day’, Winston, D., The Wisdom of Solomon (Garden City: Doubleday, 1979), p. 45.Google Scholar

[84] Gärtner, B., The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1955), pp. 239 f.Google Scholar

[85] That θ⋯λων must be understood in acasual and not concessive sense, cf. Lietzmann, p. 93, Michel, p. 212, Barrett, pp. 189 f., Käsemann, pp. 270 f., Cranfield, pp. 493 f.

[86] Cf. Berger, K., ‘Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen’, MTZ 17 (1966), 47–89, 77 f.Google Scholar

[87] Cf. the references in Zeller, D., Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973), pp. 128 f.Google Scholar, although he himself does not interpret Rom. 9. 27–29 positively. Better is Käsemann, p. 276.

[88] Cf. Munck, pp. 67 f.; Dodd, C. H., JTS 5 (1954), pp. 247 f.Google Scholar; and Hanson, A. T., The Wrath of the Lamb (London; SPCK, 1957, pp. 90–2Google Scholar, for tentative suggestions along these lines. Leenhardt, p. 146, believes that Paul his drawn his image of the potter from Is. 45. 9–13, where Cyrus is an instrument of mercy.

[89] Munck, pp. 49–.

[90] Cf. the very suggestive article by Borg, M., ‘A New Context for Romans Xiii’, NTS 19 (1973), 205–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[91] Barth, M., ‘Volk Gottes’, p. 88Google Scholar. On Rom. 10. 4 and the theme of the inclusion of the Gentiles cf. Howard, G., ‘Christ the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4ff’, JBL 88 (1969), 331–37Google Scholar; and Meyer, P. W., ‘Romans 10:4 and the “End” of the Law’, The Divine Helmsman: Lou H. Silberman Festschrift, ed. Crenshaw, J. L. and Sandmel, S. (New York, KTAV, 1980), pp. 59–78.Google Scholar