curse of the law - gal 3.13

7/31/2019 Curse of the Law - Gal 3.13

1/23

JSNT29 (2006) 55-76 Copyright 2006 SAGE Publications

(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and NewDelhi)http://JSNT.sagepub.com

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X06068383

The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13):

Crucifixion, Persecution, and Deuteronomy21.22-23*

Kelli S. O'Brien

Theology/Religious Studies Department, UniversityofScrantonScranton, PA 18510, [email protected]

Abstract

It is widelyaccepted that Christians were persecuted forpreaching a crucified

messiah because, according to Deut. 21.22-23, one who is crucified is also

accursed. However, the arguments in favor ofthat position are weak. Alarger

examination of Jewish texts on Deut. 21.22-23 and crucifixion per se demonstratethat attitudes toward crucifixion and its victimswere generallyverydifferent. The

articleconcludes thatDeut. 21.22-23 is an unlikelybasis for earlyJewish rejection

and persecution ofChristianityand that othercauses should be sought.

Key Words

curse, persecution, crucifixion, hang, tree, crucified messiah, Paul

There was once a consensus that Paul persecuted Christians because they

no longer kept the law. This is what Paul himselfstates as the cause of

currentpersecutioninGal.5.11 and. 12.He associates his own persecution

of the church with his former zeal for the traditions in Gal. 1.13-14, and in

a self-description in Phil. 3.6, persecution is followed by law: he was 'as

to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law,

blameless '. While some scholars still hold the view that Jewish persecution

of Christians was due to Christian laxity toward the law,1 a large number

* This paper was originally written for the Early Jewish Christian Relations

section, at the 2003 meeting of the SBL.

Mmolforllie Siud} of the \e* Testament
http://jsnt.sagepub.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://jsnt.sagepub.com/


2/23

56 Journal for the Study of the New Testament29.1 (2006)

have rejected it. Arland Hultgren and more recently Paula Fredriksen have

argued that this theory does not square with the picture we have of theearliest church, which indicates that the earliest Christians were faithful

Jews,attentivetolawandTemple.2 Somehavepostulatedthat the Hellenists

had relaxed the laws, and Paul persecuted them? While that is possible, it

does not seem likely. First, Acts presents evidence that the persecution of

Christians was not limited to the Hellenists (4.3; 5.17-18).4

In addition,

Paul's letters and Acts create the impression that the long-term debate

over how Christians would respond to the law began afterPaul became a

Christian (Gal. 2.1-10; Acts 10; 15). Yet obviously Paul and other Jewshad strong objections to Christianity before this shift took place.5

What those objections were is not clear. The earliest Jewish response to

Christianity was complex. Some Jews accepted the Christian message, most

rejected it. Most of those who rejecteditdidsowithoutmuch acrimony. One

imagines much ofthe apostles' early Jewish audience simply shrugging its

shoulders and going on about its business. Josephus seems to have this

attitude toward Christianity: he could be shocked at Ananus's killing of

James, acknowledge without difficulty that Jesus was a wise man, perhaps

2. Arland J. Hultgren, 'Paul's Pre-Christian Persecutions ofthe Church: Their

Purpose, Locale, and Nature', JBL 95 (1976), pp. 97-111, esp. 98-99; Paula Fredriksen,

From Jesus to Christ(Yale Nota Bene; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2nd edn,

2000), pp. 142-56, esp. 146,152.

3. E.g., J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph ofGod in Life andThought(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 143; Claudia Setzer, Jewish Responsesto Early Christians: History andPolemics, 30-150 CE. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

1994), p. 173.4. Cf. Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest

Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 197.

5. It is also unclear whether not circumcising converts to Christianity would have

occasioned persecution from Jews. While Gal. 5.11 and 6.12 mention this (regarding

uncertain opponents), there is evidence that uncircumcised Gentiles were accepted in

Judaism, if not as full proselytes, certainly as friendly to Judaism both theologically

and sociologically. Cf. Shaye J.D. Cohen, 'Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew',

HTR 82 (1989), pp. 13-33. For a contrary view, see Peder Borgen ('The Early Church

and the Hellenistic Synagogue', ST31 [1983], esp. p. 71), who concludes from Philo,Migr. 86-93 that those who rejected circumcision faced hostility and charges. This


3/23

O'BRIEN The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13) 57

also that he was a healer, but still not accept Jesus as messiah.6 As Claudia

Setzernotes, such tolerant rejection of the Christian message was probablythe most common response, even though it does not get much space in

early Christian literature.7

Christian writers were more energized, for

various reasons, by more virulent rejection from a small minority ofJews,

Paul being the star example on both sides of the issue. That is what Christian

writers wrote about, cryptically, and that is what remains to puzzle through.

It is difficult to imagine why any Jew would have objected to Christianity

so passionately as to feel the need actually to persecute it. Arland Hultgren

argues plausibly that Gal. 1.23 indicates that Paul persecuted 'the faith',the teaching of the Christian message.

8That is, he writes, Paul persecuted

Christians because they proclaimed Jesus as the Christ. Yet this is a

problem, since proclaiming a messiah did not occasion persecution in

other cases.9

So Hultgren concludes that this messianic proclamation must

have been somehow more offensive and lists a number of possibilities.10

Oneofthose possibilities has gained wide currency: the church 'proclaimed

as Messiah one who had been crucifieda form of death considered to

bear the divine curse' by means of Deut. 21.23. A wide variety of

6. Josephus, Ant. 20.199-203 ; 18.64. On the possible historical validity of parts of

the Testimonium Flavianum, see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the

Historical Jesus: The Roots ofthe Problem andthe Person (AB Reference Library;

New York: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 59-68, and James Carleton Paget, 'Josephus and

Christianity', JTS52 NS (2001), pp. 539-624.

7. Setzer, Jewish Responses, pp. 166-67.

8. Hultgren, 'Paul's Pre-Christian Persecutions', p. 102. Setzer (Jewish Responses,

p. 11 ) warns that Paul may have reinterpreted his position after his call; so his language

of faith and church in Gal. 1.23 and Phil. 3.6 may notbe true indicators of his original

purpose. While she is correct to warn against a nave approach, these passages remain

our best indications of Paul's purposes in persecuting Jesus' early followers, though

now seen from a Christian point of view.

9. Hultgren, 'Paul's Pre-Christian Persecutions', p. 103.

10. Hultgren, 'Paul's Pre-Christian Persecutions', pp. 102-103. His list: 'It pro

claimed as Messiah one who had been crucifieda form of death considered to bear

the divine curse (Deut. 21.23)a Messiah who was now said to be seated at the right

hand of God; it proclaimed that a new age had been inaugurated, and thatfidelityto the

God of Israel and the Torah was tested positively or negatively in terms of beliefin Jesus;


4/23

5 8 Journal for the Study of the New Testament29.1 (2006)

scholars, including Gert Jeremas, Hans Dieter Betz and Luke Timothy

Johnson, agree that the divine curse of Deut. 21.23 is at least one of themain reasons for Jewish rejection, even persecution, of Christianity.

11

Yet despite the nearly universal acceptance of this thesis, its warrants

are rather weak. The following will examine the relevant ancient texts,

beginning with Christian texts and moving to Jewish ones. It will argue

that this view of crucifixion was not common in Jewish circles and is an

unlikely cause for Jewish persecution of Christians.

Christian Texts

Some of the scholars noted above mention the matter in passing, others

focus on it, but all ofthem consider it a fact that Jews understood crucifixion

to be a death cursed by God, with necessary consequences for a crucified

messiah. The arguments for this view are for the most part fairly similar.

Most simply refer to Gal. 3.13:

Christ redeemed usfromthe curse of the law by becoming a curse for us

for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree'.

Paul quotes a variation of the text of Deut. 21.22-23:

When someone is convicted ofa crime punishable by death and is executed,

11. GenJeremms,DerLehrerderGerechtigkeit(SUNT,2;Gttingen: Vandenhoeck

6 Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 132-35; Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul 's

Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979),

p. 152n. 136; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings ofthe New Testament(Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, rev. edn, 1999), pp. 117,335. Those who take this position also include

Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic:The Doctrinal Significance of the Old

Testament Quotations (London: SCM Press, 1961), pp. 76,228,232-37; Jrgen Roloff,

'Anfange der soteriologischen Deutung des Todes Jesus (Mk. X. 45 und Lk. .27)', NTS19 (1972), p. 41; Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the AncientWorld and theFolly ofthe Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 84-85; Beker,Paulthe Apostle, p. 182; F.F. Bruce, 'The Curse ofthe Law', in M.D. Hooker and S.G.Wilson (eds.), Paul andPaulinism (London: SPCK, 1982), p. 32; ArthurDroge,'Apologetics, New Testament', ABD, I, p. 302; Setzer, Jewish Responses, pp. 10,179;

DieterSnger, '"Verflucht ist jeder, der am Holze hngt" (Gal 3,13b): Zur Rezeptioneiner frhen antichristlichen Polemik', /85 (1994), pp. 279-85; Torleif Elgvin,


5/23


and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the

tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is a curse

of God. You must not defile the land that theLORD your God is giving you

for possession (NRSV modified).

The assumption is that since this verse is in the Torah, Paul the Pharisee

must have been concerned about it. A crucified messiah would be a mon

strosity. To claim that one whom God cursed is actually God's agent is to

revile God, and that is the reason for Paul's persecution of the church.

Some authors also support their position by noting that this is not simply

a Pauline peculiarity. Deuteronomy 21.23 is alluded to in speeches in Acts

5.30,10.39 and 13.29, also in 1 Pet. 2.24, and may influence the burial at

Jn 19.31. The argument is also bolstered by the fact that Justin refers to

this objection repeatedly in Dialoguewith Trypho (10.3; 32.1; 38.1; 89.2;

90.1). For example, at 89.2, Trypho says, 'we doubt whether the Christ

should be so shamefully crucified, for the Law declares that he who is

crucified is to be accursed'}1 Tertullian also mentions this in Adv. lud.

10.1.

However there are some weaknesses in this argument. First, while Deut.21.23 is frequently alluded to in the New Testament, the only passage to

use it in reference to a curse is Gal. 3.13.13

In addition, there are problems with the support from Justin. Two of the

five passages in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho said to refer to the curse of

crucifixion do not refer to a curse either, only to the shame of crucifixion

(10.3; 38.1). The other three are essentially parallel to each other, and they

do speak of crucifixion as accursed in the law (32.1 ; 89.2; 90.1). Trypho's

objection is emphasized, because, for some reason, Justin has Tryphorepeat the objection while the answer is delayed. Finally, in chs. 90-105,

Justin answers with the claim that Jesus died by crucifixion because that

was preordained in Scripture, foretoldby the prophets. Justin uses a number

of scriptural passages to do so, such as the bronze serpent of Num. 21.9

and Ps. 22. Importantly, ch. 95 appears to rely on Gal. 3.

12. Writings of Saint Justin Martyr (trans. Thomas B. Falls; rev. and newintroduction by Thomas P. Halton; Fathers of the Church,3; Washington, DC: Catholic


6/23

60 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament29.1 (2006)

Forindeed, the entire human race will be found to be under a curse. For in

the Law laid down byMoses it is written, Cursedbe everyone thatabidesnotin the words of the bookofthe Law so as to do them {Dial. 95.1).

Here Justin makes the unusual step of citing Deut. 27.26 in connection

with the curse of Deut. 21.22-23, just as Paul does in Gal. 3.10:14

Forall who relyon the words ofthe law are under a curse; forit is written,'Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obeyall the things written inthe bookofthe law'.

JustinrecapitulatesPaul's argument in Gal. 3.10-14, that Jesus' crucifixionis the curse that removes the curse. In addition, in ch. 92, Justin echoes

Paul's arguments of Gal. 3.6-8. Justin writes that 'Abraham, indeed, was

consideredjust, not byreason of his circumcision, but because of his faith.

For, before his circumcision it was said of him, Abraham believed God,

and it was reputed to him unto justice.' Because Abraham (as well as

Noah and Enoch) was justified without circumcision, Justin argues, so are

Christians. Thus Justin echoes three ofPaul's arguments in Gal. 3, in the

same order: the salvation of Gentiles without the law, the curse of the law,and the cross as the solution to that curse.

In addition, there is the correspondence of unusual wording for Deut.

21.23. Compare the following:

Cursed is everyone who hangs (paTOS ) upon atree (Gal. 3.13)Cursed is everyone who hangs ( ) upon atree (DM 96.1)

15

Cursed by God is everyone who hangs ( ) upon a tree (Deut. 21.23 LXX)

16

Acurse ofGod is one who hangs C^n rrrx rbp; Deut. 21.23 MT)17

14. David Rokah (Justin Martyr and the Jews [Jewish and Christian Perspectives,

5; Leiden: Brill, 2002], p. 43) indicates that these are the only texts he knows of which

connect these two passages in such a way. Cf. Charles H. Cosgrove, 'Justin Martyr and

the Emerging Christian Canon: Observations on the Purpose and Destination of the

Dialogue with Trypho', VC36 (1982), p. 225.

15. Miroslav Marcovich, Dialogus cum Tryphone (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997).16. Deuteronomium (ed. John William Wevers; vol. 3 pt 2 ofSeptuaginta: Vetus

T i S i i G i i di [G i V d


7/23


The LXX interprets the ambiguous DYI^KT\bbp (a curse ofGod) as 'cursed

by God';18 Paul likewise has 'cursed'. However while the LXX uses, Pauluses . In addition, Paul omits 'by God'.

Justin follows Paul exactly, using and omitting 'by God'.

Indeed, Justin makes a point ofthat omission, byfollowing the quotation

with the words 'not because the crucified one is cursed by God' (Dial.

96.1).

Clearly Justin has read and been influenced by Paul's argument in

Galatians.19

Therefore he cannot be considered an independent witness to

a Jewish accusation. Since Trypho is not to be taken at face value, but as

Justin's literary mouthpiece, what we have here may well be more a

reflection ofGal. 3 than of actual Jewish objections to Christianity.

Tertullian presents the same objection in Adv. lud. 10. His argument,

however, is dependent on that of Justin. Both answer the accusation that

the curse ofDeut. 21.22-23 disqualifies Jesus as messiah with the claim

that Jesus had to die in this particular manner because it was foretold by

the prophets, and they use many of the same Scripture texts to do so,

including Isa. 53.9 (Dial. 97.2; Adv. lud. 10.15); Moses' hands stretched

out(Exod. 17.9-12; Dial. 90.4-5; Adv. lud. 10.10); andPs. 22, beginning

that the fuller reading is found in no other Greek version. However, we must note that

it is found in 1 lQTemple 64.12; thus the words were most likelynot a LXX insertion

but rather reflect a Hebrew variant. The basis forPaul's text is uncertain.

18. See below forfurther discussion of this ambiguous phrase.

19. That Justin never cites Paul, has few solid allusions to Paul, and those allusions

are generally a correspondence of Old Testament references has occasioned debate on

Justin's use ofPaul. CK. Barrett (On Paul: Aspects ofhis Life, WorkandInfluence in

the Early Church [London: T&T Clark, 2003], p. 167; Paul: An Introduction to his

Thought[Louisville, KY: Westminster/John KnoxPress, 1994], p. 165)findsthat, while

Justin knew Paul, he was cautious about using him, because Paul was favored by

Marcion, indeed that forthis reason Justin mistrusted Paul. Cosgrove ('Justin Martyr',

pp. 225-26) agrees that Justin wouldfindciting Paul unhelpful because ofMarcion, but

concludes more favorablyon Justin's opinion ofPaul. According to Cosgrove, Justin

regards Paul highly, but not as Scripture. Oskar Skarsaune (The ProoffromProphecy:

A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, TheologicalProfile [NovTSup, 56; Leiden: Brill, 1987], pp. 92-99) also concludes that Paul is a


8/23

62 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament29.1 (2006)

with the same verse, v. 16 (Dial. 97-105; A/v. lud. 10.4). In addition, both

use some rather unusual arguments, such as the blessing on Joseph that

'his horns are like the horns ofa wild ox', where the horns are considered

to be the parts ofthe cross (Deut. 33.17; Dial. 91.2; Adv. lud. 10.7). Both

use the image ofthe serpent in the desert (Num. 21.4-9). This in itselfis

not striking (cf. Jn 3.14); yet it is striking that both connect this passage

with the sin of making a graven image, stating that there was no sin

because the image was a sign ofthe cross (Dial. 94.2; Adv. lud. 10.10).

Adversus Iudaeos 1-8 is based on Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, and

likewise BookIII ofAdversus Marcionem, on which Adv. lud. 9-14 is

based, uses the Dialogue as one of its main sources.20

The striking simi

larities between the texts indicate that not only isAdversus Iudaeos depen

dent on Justin in general, it is dependent in this specific passage.

Thus Tertullian is dependent on Justin, and Justin is dependent on Paul.

We do not have three independent witnesses. What these Christian texts

prove is unclear. While it is possible that all three speak about a genuine

Jewish objection to a messiah who was crucified because the law indicates

that he is therefore cursed, that is byno means certain. Paul, no less than

Justin and Tertullian, is likely pursuing his own rhetorical strategy in

bringing up the Deut. 21.22-23 passage.21

Mirror-reading is notoriously

dangerous. One maynot assume that because an authoruses a passage, it

must have been a passage used by opponents. That is but one of the

possibilities. Often we have nothing more than Paul's own letters by which

to reconstruct the ideas of his opponents, and we must take our chances.

In the case of crucifixion and the curse ofDeut. 21.23, however, we have

a great deal more literature with which to deal, and we must consider it in

our reconstruction of probable events. It is perhaps worth noting that we

are not even certain who Paul's opponents in Galatians were. Scholars

have tended to identify them as Jewish Christians orpossiblyGentile

20. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1962), , pp.268-29, 274.

21. Forexample, Wilcox('Upon the Tree', pp. 96-98) argues that Paul connectsDeut. 21.23 with Gen. 12.6,24.7 etc., because theyall mention inheritance orpromise


9/23

O'BRIEN The Curse ofthe Law (Galatians 3.13) 63

Judaizing Christians.22

IfPaul was using the rhetorical strategy of taking

up the arguments of his opponents and turning them on their heads, thenhe was upending the arguments Christians, whether Jewish orGentile.

To push the mirror-reading yet one step further and declare Gal. 3.13 evi

dence ofDeut. 21.23 as a main objection to Christianity by non-Christian

Jews is stretching an uncertain technique rather far.

It seems natural and clear that many Jews did object to a crucified

messiah. Ini Cor. 1.23,Paul says, 'weproclaimChristcrucified, a stumbling

block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles'. While this passage is some

times connected to the curse ofDeut. 21.23, there is no such connection in1 Cor. 1. Note the context: 'The message about the cross is foolishness to

those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of

God' (1 Cor. 1.18; cf. 1.25). Paul states Jewish objections rather clearly:

'Jews demand signs' (1 Cor. 1.22). One might ask, signs of what? Paul's

contrasting their request for signs to the concept of God's power in

weakness makes it appearlikelythat Jews are demanding signs ofGod's

power, probably signs that the Age to Come has come, since Paul claims

that the messiah has come. The problem with crucifixion in 1 Cor. 1 isclearly not a curse, but the weakness and seeming futility of Jesus' death.

Our question, however, is not whether a crucified messiah per se is a

problem for Jews. It is whetherthe crucified messiah is aproblem because

Deut. 21.23 indicates that those who are crucified are also cursed.

Jewish Texts

The arguments in favor ofthat position come mostly from Christian texts,and scholars have assumed that those texts reflected Jewish opinion. Yet it

does not appear inherently obvious that Jews would connect crucifixion

and divine curse. Would Jews see amethodof execution used bytheirover

lords, Persia and, even worse, Rome, as divinely sanctioned? Are those

Rome condemns also condemned byJews? Would the occupied Jews con

sider each ofthe 2000 crucified byVarus to be cursed byGod?23

Was this

expression ofhuman brutality seen as necessarily an expression of divine

wrath?Paula Fredriksen rejects this idea completely. She writes, 'in no Jewish


10/23

64 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament29.1 (2006)

to indicate a death cursed byGod orbythe Law'.24

Unfortunately, it is not

that simple. Her argument against Paul having this meaning is based on aliteralistic interpretation ofDeut. 21that Deut. 21.22 does not refer to

execution but to hanging a corpseand is thus unpersuasive. Despite the

original meaning ofthe text, Paul applies it to Jesus' crucifixion. Moreover

herdeclaration fails to acknowledge that some scholars who argue that

crucifixion was seen as cursed do in fact refer to Jewish texts in their

arguments. These texts must be examined.

Jewish Interpretations ofDeuteronomy 21.22-23The word order ofDeut. 21.22, 'he is killed and you hang him', clearly

indicates exposing the corpse afterthe condemned is executed.25

However,

the Temple Scrollandthe Peshitta reverse the word order so that the person

is hanged and then dies.26

TheNahum Pesherappears to allude to Deut.

21.22-23 and refers to hanging men alive on the tree.27

That is, these texts

interpret the verse to referto a mode of execution, eitherto crucifixion or

hanging. The same roots, bn in Hebrew and 2^s inAramaic, are used for

both types ofpunishment, and early texts using these words may refer toeithertype.

28Since the case I oppose is stronger when these terms are inter

preted to mean crucifixion, that is what I shall assume.

The wording ofthe curse in Deut. 21.23 is ambiguous. The verse states,

literally, 'anyone hanged is a curse ofGod' (^ nbbp). A curse of

God canbe takenas subjective genitive, that is, God curses the one hanged,

oritcanbe takenas objective genitive, that is, a hanged person curses God.

Most Jewish interpretations take the latter option (objective genitive,

the hanged one somehow curses God), and they take it in two ways. Thefirst is that the person who is hanged is hanged for the crime of

blasphemy: theperson is executed for cursing God. This interpretation is

24. Fredriksen, From Jesus, p. 146.25. in rr^m ricim (MT); (LXX).26. llQTemple 64.7-8.27. 4QpNahum frgs. 3-4, col. 1, lines 7-8.28. Joseph M. Baumgarten ('Hanging and Treason in Qumran and Roman Law',

Erets-Yisrael16 [1982], pp.7-8) argues that Jewish texts never consider crucifixion tobe a Jewish punishment; however, he admits that the words are used forboth hanging


11/23


foundinSymmachus,rargwmO^/o5andtheSyriac,aswellasinm. Sank

6.4, Sifre Deut. 221, and b. Sanh. 45b.

29

It may be found in Josephus, 4f.4.202.

30The second interpretation, still reading an objective genitive, is

that the act of leaving a corpse exposed is an affront to God. This is the

interpretation of R. Meir, who takes the passage to refer to hanging or

crucifixion as a mode of execution which also allows for the exposure of

the corpse after death. R. Meir states that such exposure is an affront to

God because people are made in the image ofGod. Theyare thus not to be

exposed in this way and must be buried promptly. This interpretation is

found in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, t. Sanh. 9.7 and b. Sanh. 46b.

31

The third alternative is the subjective genitive, that God curses the one

who is hanged.32

Paul uses this interpretation in Gal. 3.13. (It is perhaps

appropriate to note that Paul does not consider God to be the one who

curses, since 'byGod' is left out ofthe quotation. Onlythe law is said to

curse. Nevertheless, the one who is hanged is accursed in Gal. 3.13.) The

subjective genitive is also found in three Jewish texts: the LXX, Targum

Neofitiand 1 lQTemple. That the subjective genitive interpretation exists

in these three Jewish works indicates that this interpretation is reasonablein some Jewish circles.

This interpretation is, however, much less common, so much so that

Moshe Bernstein makes note ofan argument by A. Geigerthat the rabbis

29. I am indebted formanyofthese references to Moshe J. Bernstein, 'nbbpm2

-I'r. en1 (Deut. 21.23): AStudy in EarlyJewish Exegesis', JQR 74 NS (1983), pp.

26-28, and to Wilcox, 'Upon the Tree', pp. 87-88.Symmachus has , 'he was hanged because of

blasphemy ofGod'. This coincides with Targum Onqelos, 'he was impaled forhavingsinned before the Lord' (cf. Sifre Deut. 221). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan implies this

because the offender is sentenced to stoning and then hanged: 'it is a disgrace beforeGod to hang a man unless his guilt caused it' (Wilcox, 'Upon the Tree', p. 87; BernardGrossfield, The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy [ArBib, 9; Wilmington, DE: MichaelGlazier, 1988], pp. 64-65; Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy[ArBib, 5B; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998], p. 59).

30. In this passage, Josephus is actually interpreting Lev. 24.16, but interpolatesDeut. 21.22-23 (Bernstein, Study', p. 27).

31. Bernstein, Study', pp. 29-30.


12/23

66 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament29.1 (2006)

abandoned this interpretation in response to the use of Deut. 21 as a

testimonium byChristians. Bernstein objects only in part, stating that thesubjective genitive was never entirely abandoned.

33But the exchange

between Geiger and Bernstein is significant. Jewish scholars can discuss

the idea that this interpretation fell out of use bythe rabbis because it was

used as a Christianprooftext. Suchvoices should be heard! Ifthe subjective

genitive interpretationofDeut. 21.23 had been widespread and persuasive,

leading Jews to consider crucifixion victims accursed, it is highly unlikely

that the rabbis would have abandoned it. Pure exegesis ofDeut. 21.23

would have presented an excellent way to condemn Jesus and Christianminim. This interpretation, however, is non-existent in rabbinic materials

from antiquity. Texts which do condemn Jesus or Christians do so on

othergrounds.34

The subjective genitive is found in two translations and in 1 lQTemple.

In contrast, the objective genitive is found in four translations and at least

five early interpretations ofDeut. 21.22-23. As we will see below, yet a

sixth Jewish text, the ahum Pesher, alludes to Deut. 21.22-23 but con

demns those who do the crucifying, not those crucified.Furthermore, the case that the connectionbetween crucifixion and curse

was widespread among Jews is further weakened bythe fact that the two

translations which do contain the subjective genitive also retain the tra

ditional word order ('he is put to death, and you hang him'). That is, they

take Deut. 21.22 to refer, not to crucifixion, but to hanging a corpse. Of

the three texts with the subjective genitive interpretation, only1 lQTemple

64.10-11 also reverses the word orderand applies the passage to execution

('you shall hang him on a tree and he shall die'). That is, 1 lQTemple isthe only extant Jewish text from antiquityin which we find both necessary

elements: the subjective genitive (cursed) and Deut. 21.22-23 applied to a

means of execution. 1 lQTemple is the only Jewish text to interpret Deut.

21.22-23 to mean that one crucified is also accursed.

33. Bernstein, Study', pp.42-43. Y. YaamThe Temple Scroll [3 vols.; JerusalemThe Israel Exploration Society; The Institute ofArchaeology ofthe Hebrew University

of Jerusalem; the Shrine of the Book, 1983], I, p. 377) provides this example:Nachmanideswrites, 'forahangedmanisthemost accursed (bbipn) among men. There


13/23


11 QTemple is an interesting case, not uncomplicated, deserving of further

treatment. Itis not generally taken to bea work of the occupants of Qumran,but rather an external work reflecting the views of the Sadducees.35

In

addition, it connects crucifixion, divine and human cursing, and treason.

If a man slanders his people and delivers his people to a foreign nation and

does evil to his people, you shall hang him on a tree and he shall die. On the

testimony of two witnesses and on the testimony of three witnesses he shall

be put to death and they shall hang him on a tree. If a man is guilty of a

capital crime and flees (abroad) to the nations, and curses his people, the

children of Israel, you shall hang him also on the tree,and he shall die. But

his body shall not stay overnight on the tree. Indeed you shall bury him on

the same day. For he who is hanged on the tree is accursed of God andmen.

You shall not pollute the ground which I give you to inherit (1 lQTemple

64.6-13).36

It is possible to connect this text with the charges against Jesus and argue

that Jesus was condemned and crucified for treason, exactly the crime for

which crucifixion is indicated in the scroll. In this view, Jesus was handed

over by the Sadducees to the Romans to be crucified precisely in fulfillment

of this text, and therefore Sadducees would have seen Jesus as accursed.

The problem is that Jesus was not in fact condemned for treason, not by

the Sadducees. He was condemned by the Romans as 'king ofthe Jews',

which would be 'treasonous' against Rome, not against Israel. Neither

1 lQTemple nor, one hopes, even very prudential Sadducees considered it

treason to oppose an imperial power on behalf of Israel. Such an act is, of

course, the direct opposite ofthe definition of treason in the scroll: 'ifa

man...delivers his people to a foreign nation'.37

1 lQTemple does not

explain why the chief priests would have handed Jesus over to be crucified.

It is also interesting to note the context in which 1 lQTemple connects

crucifixion and cursing. It states that one who curses his own people is

cursed by God and men. That is, the curse stems from the type of crime,

less (one might argue) than from the type of execution. However, I do not

wanttopress this too far. Whatever contingencies mayapply in 1 lQTemple,

crucifixion and curse are connected.38

35. Baumgarten ('Hanging and Treason', pp. 9-12) believes this interpretation of


14/23

68 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament29.1 (2006)

Jewish Interpretations of Crucifixion

The next step in examining Jewish texts is to determine the attitude Jewshad to crucifixion per se. To my knowledge, this step has not been taken

by any author who argues that Jews associated crucifixion with God's

curse. Yet ifJews commonly applied the curse of Deut. 21.23 to crucifixion,

one would expect to find evidence of that in passages which deal with

crucifixion.

There are five such passages in Philo and fifteen to seventeen in

Josephus.39

There is no mention of a curse of any kind in any of these pas

sages. In many there is no comment on crucifixion, one way or another. Itis simply mentioned.40

Philo twice uses it as a metaphor of a living death

in reference to a materialistic life, but this does not indicate a particular

judgmentofGodwithregard to crucifixion.41 Philoonce uses the crucifixion

of a man he condemns as evil to prove that providence is at work;

however, even here no curse is mentioned.42 When Philo and Josephus do

comment on a crucifixion, it is often to condemn those who carry it out.

Philo speaks of innocent Jews who were crucified under the barbarous

governor Flaccus.

43

Josephus describes the crucifixion of almost 800 menby Alexander Janneaeus as 'one of the most barbarous actions in the

world'.44

Josephus speaks ofthe malice and brutality ofthe soldiers who

crucify refugees in various positions.45 Not one of these passages refers to

crucifixion victims as accursed. The tone is sometimes quite the opposite,

as when Josephus describes those crucified by Antiochus as 'the best men,

ofthe curse would occur in an area no longer preserved. However, this manuscript isshorter and would not have had room for the entire text. Florentino Garca Martnez

and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (The DeadSea Scrolls Study Edition [Leiden: Brill, 1998],

pp. 1050-51) reconstruct without the curse passage. If this is correct, it is significant.

One Temple Scroll manuscript views crucifixion as a curse. The other is silent.

39. Philo, Prov. 2.24-25; Post. 61; Somn. 2.213; Flacc. 72, 83. Josephus, Ant.

11.261,266; 12.255-56; 13.380-81; 17.295; 19.94; 20.129; War1.97,113; 2.75,253;

2.306-308; 3.215, 321; 5.289, 449-51; 7.202.

40. Josephus,^/. 17.295; 19.94 (perhaps subtly conveying barbarity); 20.129; War

1.113; 2.75, 253; 3.215; 7.202-203.41. Post. 61; Somn. 2.213.


15/23


and those ofthe noblest souls'.46

In Philo and Josephus, crucifixion is

frequently portrayed as barbaric. Those who suffer it are not automaticallycondemned, but often innocent and almost always to be pitied.

Two of the passages in Josephus are debatable, but both are highly

relevant to the issue at hand. One of those is Ant. 18.64, the Testimonium

Flavianum. It would appear that it mentioned Jesus' crucifixion without

mention ofthe curse.47

Another reference is to the execution ofHaman in

Ant. 11.261,266. Here is used forthe mode of execution proposed

for Mordecai and used on Haman. While this is sometimes translated as

'gallows', implying hanging and not crucifixion, such a use ofthe term isnot included in the entry for '' in LSJ, and it is probable that

such translations are influenced by the Hebrew.48

It is interesting to note

that LXX Est. 7.9 also uses forthe mode ofHaman's execution.

DavidHalperin argues thaithQTargums toEsther(.9)also referto Haman's

execution in terms implying crucifixion. While the targums are late, he

concludes that the tradition that Haman was crucified goes back to the

talmudic period, possiblythe second or third centuries CE.49

The use of

in the LXX and $ in Josephus implies a still earlier dateforthe tradition. There is no reference to cursing in any ofthe passages on

Haman, inJosephus or theversions, even thoughHaman presents an excel

lent candidate for such treatment. That is, we may have one early Jewish

text about Jesus without mention of the curse, and we almost certainly

have several Jewish texts about the crucifixion of an enemy ofthe Jewish

people without mention ofa curse. This is hard to ignore.

The Testament ofMoses mentions crucifixion twice. Testament ofMoses

6.9 refers to a king of the West who will burn the temple and crucifyJews. InT. Mos. 8.1, a 'king of kings ofthe earth.. .will crucify those who

confess their circumcision'.50

That is, faithful Jews will be crucified.

Naturally, neitherpassage considers those who are crucified to be cursed.

46. Ant. 12.255-56. Compare the braveryofthe Jewwho smiledwhenhewas crucified, as one ofthose who 'despised anypunishments that could be inflicted on them'(War3.321).

47. See n. 6 regarding the historicityofparts ofthe Testimonium Flavianum.

48. It is translated as 'gallows' in the translation by William Whiston, The Works ofJosephus: Complete andUnabridged(Peboy, MA: Hendrickson, rev. edn, 1987), but


16/23


The targums to Ruth 1.17 andNum. 25.4 also appear to speak of crucifixion

without reference to a curse.

51

Again, 1 lQTemple appears to be the onlyexception, prescribing crucifixion for the crime of treason and considering

the one so executed 'accursed by God and men' (64.11-12).

More difficult to interpret is 4QpNah.52

It almost certainly refers to the

event Josephus condemns in such strong language: the crucifixion of 800

people by Alexander. The text has a lacuna at the location which would

definitively determine how the author of this scroll viewed this act. Yigael

Yadin argues that the author of this scroll agrees with the author of

1 lQTemple: that crucifixion is called for in cases of treason, as occurredin this case, since those crucified had called on Demetrius for help. In

Yadin's view, the scroll should be restored to read:53

The Lion ofWrath.. .hangs the Seekers after Smooth Things.. .as live men

[on the tree, as it was thus done] in Israel from of old.

The problem with this interpretation, as Joseph Baumgarten points out, is

that it makes no sense of what comes next in the scroll:54

Behold I am against [you], say[s the Lord of Hosts, and I will burn in smokeyour abundance]; and the sword shall devour your young lions...

'The sword shall devour your young lions' indicates that this author

thinks that God condemns the Lion of Wrath (that is, Alexander Janneaus)

for his act of brutality. Thus, the more common reconstruction is:55

The Lion ofWrath.. .hangs the Seekers after Smooth Things.. .as live men

[on the tree, which was never done] before in Israel.

51. While these texts are later, the traditions they transmit may be much earlier.

Halperin considers the tradition in the Targum ofRuth to be early, because it indicates

a type of punishment different from those indicated in the Mishnah. The same argument

would apply to the targum of Num. 25.4. See Halperin, 'Crucifixion', p. 37.

52. 4Q169 frgs. 3-4, col. 1, lines 1-11, esp. 7-8.

53. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, I, p. 378. Joseph Fitzmyer agrees with him ('Cruci

fixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament', CBQ 40

[1978], pp. 501-503).54. Baumgarten, 'Hanging and Treason', p. 13. Note that the author ofthe Temple


17/23


The author of 4QpNah speaks of hanging a live person with disgust.56

The

victims are not condemned as accursed. Here, in fact, the author concludesthat God judges and punishes the perpetrator of this brutal act.

Perhaps it is not insignificant that in the Akedah, Isaac carries the wood

as a cross. 'And Abraham took the wood ofthe burnt offering and laid it

on Isaac, his son... It is like one who carries his own cross on his shoulder'

(Gen. Rab. 56.3).57

The Akedah is seen as having power for the welfare of

Israel (Gen. Rab. 56.5,10).58 Thus in this narrative, crucifixion is part of a

positive event for Israel.

What is the conclusion ofthis survey? A single Jewish text out of dozensconsiders the victims of crucifixion in a particular circumstance to be

accursed by God. A single later text sees crucifixion as part of God's plan

for good. Most view crucifixion as barbaric, carried out against every

sense of decency. This is, in fact, the view one would expect Jews, a subju

gated people, to hold regarding the method of punishment meted out by

their occupiers. (One might add that this is also the view one would expect

civilized people to hold regarding a brutal, barbaric form of execution.)

Many upright and patriotic Jews suffered this punishment at the hands ofthe Romans; itis unlikely thatupright Jews wouldfeel compelled to consider

them cursed by God simply because ofthe method Rome used to execute

them.

This argument does not prove that Jews never used Deut. 21.22-23 in

polemic against Christians. (That is impossible; what has been lost to history

is enormous.) It does prove, however, that the evidence for the claim that

crucifixion and curse were central is slim. The case is made by mirror-

reading Christian texts which argue that Jesus' crucifixion redeemedbelievers from the 'curse' ofthe law and by the correspondence of one

Jewish text which connects treason, crucifixion and divine curse. If those

were all the texts we had, then we would have to give the claim more

credit. However, when placed against the dozens of Jewish texts that see

56. Cf. Jeremas, DerLehrer, p. 133.

57. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Bookof Genesis: A New

American Translation (trans. Jacob Neusner; 3 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), ,

pp. 280-81. Whatever the original date ofthe tradition contained in the Akedah, it is


18/23


Deut. 21.22-23 or crucifixion differently, there is little reason to conclude

that Deut. 21.22-23 was the definitive word for interpreting crucifixionand that Jews would generally have seen Jesus to be cursed because he

was crucified.

Distinguishing Jewish and Christian Approaches

Why then all the New Testament allusions to Deut. 21.22-23? Max Wilcox

had it right when he determined that Deut. 21.22-23 had become a testi

monium, used to interpret the passion.59

At first glance, that seems utterly

improbable.60

Why would Christians take up this text as a testimonium?However, in part, use of this passage seems so unlikely because we tend

to think mainly ofthe curse when we think of Deut. 21.23. Yet the curse

plays no role in the references to it in the New Testament, with the sole

exception of Gal. 3.13.

Deuteronomy 21.22-23 is in fact a commandment to bury on the same

day the corpse ofone who has been executed. An executed, hanged and

unburied corpse is the 'curse of God' that pollutes the land. The necessity

of prompt burial plays an important role in most rabbinic texts on thepassage, as well as in 1 lQTemple. This meaning is the reason Jn 19.31

(which calls for prompt burial on a holy day) is associated with Deut.

21.22-23. Wilcox argues that traditions about Jesus ' burial drew attention

to this passage as a testimonium.61

If it is true that burial was rare after

Roman crucifixions, even in Palestine, then Jesus' burial would be some

thing extraordinary. If burial in Palestine were common in order to respect

the sentiments ofJews, then Deut. 21.22-23 is the cause of those sentiments.

In either case, whether it was unusual or standard, traditions on Jesus'burial would draw early Christians to the passage. It seems likely that

Deut. 21.22-23, because ofits applicability to the crucifixion and burial

traditions, was used to interpret the passion and finds its way into Acts,

1 Peter and possibly John. InDialogue with Trypho it has become a proof-

text, establishing that the messiah had to be crucified. If it was a

testimonium, Paul's use ofit in Gal. 3.13 may have had little or nothing to

do with its use by his opponents. Instead, he was in all probability picking

59. Wilcox, 'Upon the Tree', pp. 85-99.


19/23


up a prominent text in his larger argument against the Galatians' sub

mitting to the lawwhich clearly was the position argued by Paul'sopponents.

Rather than assuming that widespread Jewish rejection of Jesus as

messiah was based on a curse from Deut. 21.22-23, it appears much more

likely that the original objection was the fact of his crucifixion, plain and

simple. While some would argue that the expectation of a dying messiah

was not unknown by the time of Jesus, it was hardly a widespread or

dominant idea. For the messiah not only to die but to die in a shameful

manner would have appeared absurd to many. Indeed, this is the tone of1 Cor. 1.23. That idea also dominates Trypho's objections. For example,

in Dial. 32.1, Trypho asserts that Jesus was utterly 'without glory and

honor', even though the Scripture quotations offered by Justin 'prove that

we must look forward to that glorious and great Messiah who, as the Son

of Man, receives the everlasting kingdom from the Ancient ofdays'. The

shame of crucifixion is emphasized also in Trypho's objections in 89.2

('we doubt whether the Christ should be so shamefully crucified') and

90.1 (he doubts 'that he was to be crucified and subjected to so disgracefuland shameful a death'). That crucifixion is cursed by the law serves simply

to underscore its shame. It is possible that the disgrace ofthe cross was

the actual objection Justin encountered from Jews. The curse ofthe law,

found in a passage used as a Christian testimonium, adds literary punch to

that objection.

Why then Persecution?

The theory that most Jews objected to Jesus as messiah because one

crucified was also accursed is unlikely. The utility of the theory was to

explain not only Jewish rejection but also persecution of Christianity.

While Jewish persecution is now generally understood to be less violent

andless widespread than previouslythought,itdidoccasionallytakeplace.62

The loss of this explanatory theory leads one to ask why, then, did that

persecution occur? I have no wish to suggest a definitive answer but offer

here some possibilities.PaulaFredriksenprovidesaplausiblehypothesisinFromye^wi' to Christ.

Sh t th J fth Di li d i l til it ti d


20/23


the Gentiles with great passion. While the church did not mean a military

messiah, itused militaristic language which could easily be misinterpreted.Since Gentiles could not be expected to distinguish between Jews who

proclaimed Jesus and those who did not, this presented a danger to the

entire community.63

For self-preservation, some Jews felt it necessary to

suppress Christians, even with violence.64

Another possibility is also worth considering. Hultgren, with whose

argument we began, concludes that Paul persecuted 'the faith', that is the

teaching ofthe Christian message, based on Gal. 1.23. He interprets 'the

faith' to mean the proclamation of Jesus as the messiah, and he goes on totry to make sense of why this messianic proclamation was persecuted

when others were not. The evidence, however, allows for an entirely differ

ent approach. There is nothing in this or any other Pauline passage to indi

cate thatPaul'sprior objection to 'the faith' was specifically its proclamation

of Jesus as messiah. There are other possibilities, including worship of

Jesus. While scholars continue to debate the exact contours ofthe earliest

Christologies, for example, whether Christ was considered prexistent or

equal to God, there is extensive evidence to indicate that the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be, after his death and resurrection, exalted to

God's right hand and that they worshiped him as Lord.65 This in and of

itself would be a grave offence, worthy of persecution, to non-Christian

63. Jews were frequently expelled for civil unrest (cf. Ant. 18.81-82; Suetonius,

Tiberius 36; Claudius 25.4; Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist. 57.18.5a; Tacitus, Ann. 2.85;

Setzer, Jewish Responses, p. 171 ). See alsoIn Flaccum andLegatio ad Gaium; Josephus

Ant. 18.257-62; War2.457-60.64. Fredriksen, From Jesus, pp. 154-56.

65. Cf. Ralph P. Martin and Brian J. Dodd (eds.), 'Carmen Christi Revisited', in

Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John

Knox Press, 1998), p. 3.

See also the extended discussion ofthe issue in Hurtado, LordJesus Christ, esp. chs.

2-3. Hurtado (p. 77) agrees with the theory that Paul persecuted Christians because

Christ was cursed via Deut. 21.22-23; however, he also argues (pp. 175-76; cf. 'Pre-70

CE Jewish Opposition to Christ-Devotion', JTSNS 50 [1999], pp. 50-58) that Paul

persecuted Christians for their worship of Christ. Daniel Boyarn (Border Lines: ThePartition ofJudeo-Christianity [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004],


21/23


Jews. Moreover, it too would present a danger to the Jewish community.

Jews were exempted from much of public worship because they weremonotheists. They received no little hostilityfromtheir Gentile neighbors

on this account.66

If some Jews were worshiping a Galilean peasant who

was executed as a criminal, surely all Jews could participate in honoring

Augustus, 'the real savior of humanity'.67 This is a danger which faithful

and zealous Jews could be expected to deal with, as Paul said, 'to the

utmost'(Gal. 1.13).

Conclusions

This article, originally written for a seminar on Jewish-Christian relations,

has implications beyond that of rejecting a particular false start in the

reconstruction of Christian origins. It is important not to overlook the fact

that arguments for the theory I have opposed were drawn almost entirely

from Christian texts. Jewish texts were approached, if at all, not with full

scale analysis, but with a kind of proof-texting mentality: on the strength

of one significant parallel in 1 lQTemple and weaker parallels in twoversions, it was concluded that the curse of Deut. 21.22-23 was indeed a

widespread cause for Jewish persecution of Christians.

Yet one must be careful with Christian texts and the assumptions one

attaches to them. First, it is a mistake to assume that they are independent.

In this case, the testimonium theory takes care of most early Christian uses

of Deut. 21.22-23, including Gal. 3.13. The 'witness' of Justin is actually

dependent on Galatians, and Tertullian is dependent on Justin. Thus we

have a number of Christian texts alluding to Deut. 21.22-23, but no solidindication that these texts reflect anything more than internal Christian

rhetoric. One cannot assume that Christian authors speak accurately about

Jewish objections to Christianity. Particularly in controversial matters, one

must be attentive to Jewish texts. In this case, a large number of Jewish

texts are available both on interpretation of Deut. 21 and on crucifixion

per se. Nearly all of those texts paint a different picture.

Scholars have an important contribution to make to Jewish-Christian

66. See Krauss, Jewish-Christian Controversy, p. 21 ; and Menahem Stern, Greek


22/23


relations in our own day, and reconstruction of early Jewish responses to

Christianity is an important part of that contribution. It is essential thatthose reconstructions reflect all extant Jewish texts and that they seem

reasonable to Jews. Christians have found rather unflattering reasons for

Jewishrejection of Jesus and persecution of Christians. Modern Christians,

and I write as one, may sometimes suffer unconsciously from what Setzer

warns us about in early Christian writers: Christians see Jesus as the

fulfillment of God's promises to Israel, but Israel for the most part does

not agree. That is easier to take if Israel's reasons are poor.68

Scholars

have moved away from attributing Jewish rejection of Jesus to 'pride andlegalism' and shifted the cause to faithfulness to a particular ambiguous

verse in the Torah. That is an improvement, but it would hardly convince

a rabbi. What makes sense to rabbis as reasons to reject Jesus as messiah

are that the Age to Come has not arrived, still, 2000 years later, and Chris

tians worship a man as a god. These are profound reasons, and there is

evidence to indicate that they go back to the earliest period.


23/23

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions ofthe copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property ofthe AmericanTheological Library Association.

curse of the law - gal 3.13

Documents