LXX SYNTAX AND T H E I D E N T I T Y O F T H E N T VEIL by DANIEL M.

GURTNER
St Paul, Minnesota

Abstract This article argues in the N T (Mt. 27:51a, Mk. 15:38, Lk. 23:45, Hb. 6:19, 9:3, 10:20) is best identified as the inner veil () before the holy of holies based on syntactical evidence from their LXX sources.

In 2000, R. E. Gane convincingly argued that if the expression (Hb. 6:19) is based on the LXX, where "inner veil" (2) is the only possible meaning (Ex. 26:33; Lv. 16:2, 12, 15), it should also be "inner veil" in Hb. &A9.1 Gane's observa tion that the term is qualified by the term is important because it acknowledges a trend, recognized by N T authors, of the LXX translators with respect to the term . That is, while the Greek translators of the LXX are often inconsistent in what Hebrew term they translate as (it can itself refer to any of three curtains in the tabernacle), we will argue that the pres ence of contextual qualifiers, such as , have afforded the LXX translators such liberties, because their use of such contextual indica tors in general and locative genitives2 in particular served to convey

"Re-opening Katapetasma ('Veil') in Hebrews 6:19," AUSS 38 (2000) 5-8. He wrote in response to a previous article by George Rice ("Hebrews 6:19: An Analysis of Some Assumptions Concerning Katapetasma" AUSS 25 [1987] 65-71), who argues that the term is a metaphorical expression for the entirety of the heavenly sanctuary. 2 We prefer the term "locative" to describe this genitive rather than "partitive," for the latter indicates the head noun is a "part" of the noun in the genitive, whereas "locative" makes no such claim, only indicating its location. Gf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 84-85; Friedrich Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge, Chicago: University Press, 1961) 90-91, 164; Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956) 316, 1311 ("chronographic genitive"). Martha Lynn Wade calls these "appositional geni tive in which the second term more clearly identifies the first." {Consistency of Translation Techniques in the Tabernacle Accounts of Exodus in the Old Greek [SBL; SCSS 49; Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2005 Also available online - www.brill.nl Novum Testamentum XLVII, 4

LXX SYNTAX AND THE IDENTITY OF THE NT VEIL

3

345

precisely which "" was in view. Specifically, when a loca tive genitive is employed, without exception, the term or clause in the genitive case identifies a particular location within the tabernacle/tem ple complex (doorway of the tent of meeting, entrance of the court yard, entrance of the tabernacle), explicitly conveying that the in view is not the "inner veil," which occurs at none of these locations. This indicates that is the "default" term for the inner veil in the LXX, and where is used for a curtain other than the inner veil, the LXX translator indicates so by the use of a locative genitive. This syntactical feature of the LXX was recognized and employed by New Testament authors where likewise is used exclusively of the inner veil before the holy of holies, as it is not otherwise indicated by a locative genitive.

1. Word Choices and Translational Problems

Within the LXX occurs 38 times,4 34 of which have corresponding Hebrew texts.5 In 28 of the 34 occurrences there is a corresponding Hebrew word for the Greek use of , that Hebrew word is 3 (82.35% of the time).6 While this clearly leans in favor of corresponding to the Hebrew , it is far from conclusive. In fact there are three tabernacle curtains called : 28 times is used for the "inner veil" (2)

Brill, 2003] 171 n. 39). Yet this does not most accurately convey the relationship between the main noun and its genitive. 3 It does not, as Fearghas Fearghail ("Sir 50,5-21: Yom Kippur or the Daily Whole-Offering?," Bib 59 [1978] 309) suggests, "obliterate any distinction that may have existed in the Hebrew text." 4 Sir. 50:5; Ex. 26:31, 33 [3x], 34, 35, 37; 27:21; 30:6; 35:12; 37:3, 5, 16; 38:18; 39:4, 19; 40:3, 5, 21, 22, 26; Lv. 4:6, 17; 16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; 24:3; 1 Mace. 1:22; 4:51; Nu. 3:10, 26; 4:5, 32; 18:7; 2 Chr. 3:14; 1 Kgs. 6:36a. 5 Sir. 50:5; Ex. 26:31, 33 [3x], 34, 35, 37; 27:21; 30:6; 35:12; 37:3 (= M T 36:35), 5 (= M T 36:37), 16a (= M T 38:18a); 38:18 (= M T 36:35); 39:4 (= M T 38:27), 19b (= M T 40b); 40:3, 21, 22, 26; Lv. 4:6, 17; 16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; 24:3; Nu. 3:10, 26; 4:5, 32; 18:7; 2 Chr. 3:14. This assumes that the LXX translates from something reasonably similar to the Masoretic Text, an assumption challenged on syntactical grounds by Anneli Aejmelaeus, "Septuagintal Translation TechniquesA Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account" in G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolb and Cognate Writings (CS 33; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992) 381-402. Cf. Daniel M. Gurtner, "'Atonement Slate' or 'Veil'? Notes on a Textual Variant in Exod XXVI 34," F T 5 4 (2004) 396-8. 6 Sir. 50:5; Ex. 26:31, 33 [3x], 34, 35; 27:21; 30:6; 35:12; 37:3 (= M T 36:35); 38:18 (= M T 36:35?); 39:4 (= M T 38:27); 40:3, 21, 22, 26; Lv. 4:6, 17; 16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; 24:3; Nu. 3:10; 4:5; 18:7; 2 Chr. 3:14.

346

DANIEL M. GURTNER

before the holy of holies, twice for the "screen" ("[OD) in front of the 7 Holy Place, and four times for the "curtain at the entrance to the 8 courtyard" at the tabernacle. Since there are three (and only three) valid choices for the identity of one cannot try to settle the issue on the basis of preponderance of lexical evidence alone. It is unfortunate that most NT scholars seeking to identify which of the three curtains is in view in the six NT occurrences of the term (Mt. 27:51a; Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45; Hb. 6:19; 9:3; 10:20) abandon the LXX as a means of identifying which veil is in view because of inconclusive lexical evidence. For the LXX provides impor tant syntactical indicators that can help identify which of the three curtains translated in the LXX which NT authors had in mind. Specifically, when syntactical contexts use no qualifiers, such as , always refers to the inner veil (3). This indicates that when the LXX speaks of "the veil" or just "veil," it inevitably refers to this "inner" () veil; was the "default" term for 2.9 The difficulty comes when, as both Gane and Rice note, there are exceptions to the " = 3" for mula. 10 Yet we will see that such exceptions are attributed to the fact

LXX Ex. 26:37; 37:5 (= M T 36:37). LXX Ex. 37:16a (= M T 38:18a); 39:19b (= M T 40b); Nu. 3:26b; 4:32. 9 Ex. 26:31; 35:12; 40:26; Lv. 21:23. This point is recognized by Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 686 n. 243. Similarly Eta Linnemann, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 159 Pace . Celada ("El velo del Templo," CB 15 [1958] 111-12), who insists was not a technical term and therefore insists the exterior veil was in view for the evangelists. 10 Some scholars, notably Walter Grundmann (Das Evangelium nach Matthaus [Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968] 566 n. 9) and Ernst Lohmeyer (Evangelium des Matthaus [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 41967] 395) presume such a formula holds. That all of these exceptions, save Nu. 3:26b, are found in the troublesome tabernacle texts of the Greek of Exodus should advise us to approach it with caution. For dis cussion of the problems with the LXX of the tabernacle accounts, cf. David W. Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle (Cambridge: University Press, 1959) 3-7; A. H. Finn, "The Tabernacle Chapters," JTS 16 (1915) 449-82; Aejmelaeus, "Septuagintal Translation Techniques," 381-402; Wade, Consistency, 3. For a discussion of the ordering of the construction account in Exodus 35-40, cf. Ralph W. Klein, "Back to the Future: The Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus," Interp. 50 (1996) 264-76. Cf. also V. A. Hurowitz, "The Priesdy Account of Budding the Tabernacle," JAOS 105 (1985) 21-30; Richard E. Averbeck, "Tabernacle," D07P, 816. Tabernacle text translator(s) seems to have employed creative license more characteristic of a literary work in its own right than a strict translation. For this general point, cf. Emmanuel , The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor, 21997) 3-5; Karen H. Jobes and Moiss Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) 151-8; Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) 314-37. Moreover, it
8

LXX SYNTAX AND THE IDENTITY OF THE NT VEIL

347

that the LXX translators employed stylistic variation11 because they employed syntactical markers that provided the specificity required to determine which "curtain" was in mind. We will show further evi dence of apparent translational inconsistencies with respect to the veil in the Greek of Exodus, evaluate the potential confusion created by it, and demonstrate the contextual clarity provided by the LXX trans lator to positively identify the in view. While the translator of Leviticus mostly renders 3 with 12 and translates no other term, that of Exodus is far less consistent. For the 17 occurrences of in the M T of Exodus,13 only once (LXX Ex. 39:20b [= M T 39:34b]) does the Exodus translator use a term other than .14 Yet in Exodus also translates "[OD for the screen at the entrance to the tent (Ex. 26:37 [= M T 26:36]; 37:5 [36:37]), -JOD for the entrance to the courtyard (37:16a [= M T 38:18a]; 39:19b [= M T 39:40b]), or 03 -]0DH for the veil before the holy of holies (Ex. 35:12a; 40:21).15 Thus, though generally is the default term for the inner veil, there are a few notable exceptions worthy of consideration.

seems that in at least one instance the Vorlage for the LXX in these texts was not iden tical to the MT. Cf. Gurtner, "'Atonement Slate' or 'Veil'?," 396-8. 11 Andre Pelletier says LXX simply replaces with synonyms. ("Le 'Voile' du Temple de Jrusalem est-il devenu la 'Portire' du Temple d'Olympie," Syria 32 [1955] 297). Cf. R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 59. 12 There are two exceptions to this trend at Lv. 4:6 and 17, where a variant reading () offered by mss Mmq*ux (v. 6) and bgjns(txt)v(txt)wz(txt) and the Old Latin (Robert's edition; v. 17). Indeed, the majority of occurrences of in Leviticus (16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; 24:3) offer no alternative readings in any extant manu script tradition. 13 Eighteen, if one counts the variant reading found in Origen's Hebrew text at Ex. 26:34. 14 Here Exodus translates "|0 3 with . 15 Yet the problem is not generally to be attributed to the Exodus translator but to that of the second account (Exodus 35-40). Indeed, while the Greek of the first account, Exodus 25-30, largely resembles the Hebrew and is relatively consistent, neither could be said, at least to the same degree, of the second account in Exodus 35-41. Recognized as early as Origen (Epistula ad Africanum 4), this has led scholars to presume the two accounts are the work of more than a single translator. We tentatively follow the con clusion of Wade (Consistency, 13, 105-6) that there were two, with the second largely dependent on the first. Aejmelaeus ("Septuagintal Translation Techniques," 382) has dubbed the translation of these texts "one of the greatest textual problems in the Greek Pentateuch."

348

DANIEL M. GURTNER

2. Exceptions to the Rule: Contextual and Syntactical Solutions to Word-Choice Problems

The first significant exception to the " = " rule is found in Ex. 26:37, where we read that Moses is told to "make 17 18 gold hooks for the curtain" ("jOQ^, ). Clearly the issue is how the LXX could render "[OD as , when it so clearly favors for elsewhere. The "curtain" (Ex. 26:37) in question is the curtain "for the entrance of the tent of meet ing" (Ex. 26:36), which is rendered "[OD19 and in Ex. 26:36 is trans lated . Why translate "[OD with in Ex. 26:36 but with in Ex. 26:37? Gooding refers to this text among "examples of our translator's inaccuracy"20 which "obliterates an intended distinction" and due to the fact that "the translator was determined to have variety."21 While Gooding's observation is generally valid with respect to a one-to-one relationship (on the word level),22 LXX translators

16

16 There is a previous variant in Ex. 26:36, where Origen indicates an unknown source reading . However, because of its lack of any substantial manu script support beyond that single reference, it will not be addressed here. At another place (Ex. 26:34), appears to translate mSD ("atonement slate"), though it is more likely that the LXX translator was working from a different (erroneous) Hebrew Vorlage. Cf. Gurtner "'Atonement Slate' or 'Veil'?," 396-8. 17 There is no alternative reading in any extant Hebrew tradition. 18 Perhaps later scribes recognized an inconsistency, as there are witnesses to in place of in Codex Ambrosianus (VII) (corrections in cursive hands), and a significant number of cursives. Cf. A. E. Brooke and N. McLean (eds.), The Old Testament in Greek (1/2; Cambridge: University Press, 1909) 243; John William Wevers (ed.), Exodus (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 2/1; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 304. The reading is likewise found in some cursives. 19 Without exception in the Hebrew tradition. 20 Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle, 37. Though Gooding acknowledges the trans lator's desire for variety as a motive for his "inaccuracy," we prefer to consider them as stylistic variations rather than "inaccuracies." For it seems the translator was cog nizant of the fact that he was producing a significant piece of literature for a Greekreading audience while recognizing that such variation often leads to confusion. The inconsistencies Gooding indicates, though, are apparent in variant readings. , a curious word, is rendered by Codex X of Origen's Hexapla, by a marginal reading in Codex VII, and in the margin of Codex 128. Perhaps further to clarify (though actually confusing) the issue, another reading has , and by the cursive corrections to Codex Ambrosianus. Cf. Origen, et al., Orgenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt: sive veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (Oxonii, 1875) 1.128 n. 31. 21 Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle, 23. 22 It has also made a decisive contribution to scholarship's inability to determine which "" was meant by N T authors in the texts where the term occurs (Mt. 27:51; Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45; Hb. 6:19; 9:3; 10:20).

LXX SYNTAX AND THE IDENTITY OF THE NT VEIL

349

betray contextual or syntactical elements beyond the mere word-level of their translation that indicate which "" was intended, and therefore felt free to choose different terms for the veil. While the reading at Ex. 26:37 is quickly clarified by the preceding context to indicate it refers to the curtain "for the entrance of the tent of meeting" (Ex. 26:36), the apparent tension cre ated in LXX word choices is relieved in most cases when one recog nizes the translator's careful use of locative genitives. At Ex. 37:5 (LXX; = M T 36:37) the presence of locative genitives following makes it abundantly clear that the in view is the one located at "the entrance of the tent of meeting" ( ), where the M T reads "]DQ.23 Why translate "JOD with if is the "default" translation for 3? Wevers argues that this text "was consciously constructed as a paral lel to v. 3; in fact, except for designating the veil as it is an exact copy, in spite of the differences in M T where instead of v. 5 has "]0D and for D it has Cn 24 Dpi." If Wevers is correct, then rather than depending on its Vorlage, Exodus here copied its own work at v. 3 (= M T 36:35).25 That is, although Ex. 37:3 (= M T 36:35) does refer to the inner veil, appropriately designated in the Hebrew using 3, the Hebrew author made it clear that Ex. 37:5 (= M T 36:37) refers to a different veil. He did this by using "]0Q rather than , but the Greek translator seems to have erroneously followed his own translation in 37:3 (= M T 36:35) and thus translated both terms . Yet he does not leave the reader confused as to which is in view, for his use of the locative genitive construction ( ) clearly indicates that the 3 is not in mind, for the 3 is not located at "the entrance of the tent of meeting." At Ex. 37:16a (LXX; = M T 38:18a) we read of the curtain of the entrance of the courtyard ( ). Again,
There is no variation of this reading in extant Hebrew traditions. Origen agrees with the reading, but he notes Aquila has , and Codex X of the Hexapla reads in the text, with in the margin. In the Vaticanus tradition is seen in Codex Coislinianus, and x, whereas again appears in the cursives/(53) and i (56). Also attested are and ! 24 John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SCS 30; Adanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 612. 25 He adds, "That the translator intentionally modeled these two verses as parallels is clear from the addition of which has no basis in v. 5 at all; it has been taken over from v. 3."
23

350

DANIEL M. GURTNER

however, we find in the M T "[Du. Why the translator chose to use rather than the favored for this term is unclear. What is likely the case, however, is that because the term is specified by the (locative genitive) qualifying phrase , the translator likely felt that there would be no room for con fusion between this and the veil, for the latter is not located at the entrance of the courtyard. The most problematic text, at least from a text-critical standpoint, is found in Ex. 40:5, where the author describes "the curtain" which is placed "at the entrance to the tabernacle;" i.e., not necessarily the "curtain of the entrance to the tabernacle." Here the is itself the genitive: . Although the M T reads "]OQ,27 the term preferred for the hanging at the entrance to the tabernacle (Ex. 35:15; 37:5 [= MT 36:37]; 39:19b [= M T 39:40b]), it is translated in one other text (Ex. 39:19b [= M T 39:40b]). Perhaps the translator recognized that when the veil was "placed" somewhere, whether the -|0D (Ex. 36:37 = LXX 37:5) or the rOTS (Ex. 26:31; 36:35 = LXX 37:3; 2 Chr. 3:14), it was always translated with and the conscientious scribe was simply trying to be consistent. Or he thought the 3 veil was in view rather than the "|0Q because it was listed with the ark, or simply chose a word that elsewhere he has used for either "[OD or .28 A final text where "[OD is translated is Nu. 3:26b in reference again to the curtain at the entrance to the tabernacle. Yet

26

26 This is affirmed by the Samaritan Pentateuch and Hebrew tradition. We again, however, find broad disagreement in the Vaticanus tradition of the reading . is attested by Alexandrinus, Amborianus, and several later uncial codices and some cursives. (g), and (/) are also attested, while other mss omit it entirely. Cf. Wevers (ed.), Exodus, 415. In Ex. 39:34b (= LXX 39:20b) the M T reads " 3 and the Greek of Exodus again provides , lumping both "]OD and into a general category of the "remaining curtains." Cf. Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle, 97. 27 Likewise the Samaritan Pentateuch. 28 The reading finds similarity only at Ex. 40:21 ( , translating 2) where it is clearly used for the in ner veil. Origen reads likewise, while Codex 72 of his Hexapla has a marginal note with . The Syro-Hexaplar in Codex 72 reads rn\ .**\\ <} perhaps translated . In Origen's LXX excep tions to the reading are rare. Cf. Wevers (ed.), Exodus, 437-8. Wevers (Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, 648) comments that "Exod's more careful definition makes it assured that the wrong is avoided."

LXX SYNTAX AND THE IDENTITY OF THE NT VEIL

351

for the same hanging, the Hebrew is previously (Nu. 3:25b) translated 29 . Perhaps this is again accountable simply to stylistic variation, but nevertheless it is qualified in the Greek by an expres sion removing any ambiguity as to which "veil" was in view. For there, again, we find following the term the qualification , a locative genitive which clearly removes "13 from consideration.

3. Greek Expansions of the Hebrew

If it is reasonable to presume the Greek translator was working from texts similar to the M T in these locations. What the translator was doing with his use of the genitives with respect to the veil is easily recognizable. Twice he has used the genitive to render the Hebrew bmm (Ex. 27:21; 30:6), once for n i n K (Nu. 3:26b), and twice for the proclitic b (1? EX. 37:5 [= M T 36:37]; &> Ex. 39:19b [= M T 40b]), as one would expect. There are four instances, however, where the Greek has expanded upon the Hebrew for the sake of clarification. For the Greek uses expanded phrases beginning with a locative geni tive for each of the following readings:
\ Ex. 37:16a [= M T 38:18a] pocb -]0D-riR ) Ex. 40:5 VOnsh 3 DQTT Ex. 40:22 3 '33 mrr 'lb Lv. 4:17

Each of these serves to clarify which curtain is in view by means of an inserted locative genitive not clearly indicated by the Hebrew syntax. This suggests that the LXX translators employed locative genitives to clarify precisely which curtain was in view, particularly with respect to ambiguous Hebrew readings. This important observation underscores our thesis that is the favored and "default" term for the "inner veil" (5) and, where translators employed for a curtain other than that veil, they clearly indicated the distinction by means of locative genitives.

29 Though the reading at this location is attested at Nu. 3:26b, as oppans in the Old Latin codex 100, the Greek tradition otherwise only knows . Cf. John William Wevers, (ed.) Numeri (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 3/1; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) 79.

352
4. Conclusion

DANIEL M. GURTNER

The above discussion shows that scholars cannot presume that vari ances in word choices employed by LXX translators of veil language necessarily results in ambiguity regarding which curtain or veil was in view. Instead, LXX translators have consistently used as their "default" translation of 3 ("inner veil"). Where refers to another curtain in the tabernacle, the translator has taken care to provide contextual indications or, more commonly, syntactical qualifiers (locative genitives) to indicate precisely which "curtain" was in view. It is likely that in the six N T uses of , authors also recognized the term as referring to the inner, veil before the holy of holies. Where they use , synoptic authors employ a genitive similar to those employed by the LXX ( , Mt. 27:51a; Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45).30 The synoptic authors, recogniz ing its LXX origin and perhaps also its role in exclusively cultic con texts,31 employed a general locative genitive ( ) not to refer to a particular location within the temple (as in the LXX, because does not occur in any extant literature prior to the NT), but to bring the reader from the narrative location at Golgotha to the temple and simply presume the "inner veil" (3) is in mind. For even though is a cultic term, unlike in the LXX the synoptic authors employ it in a non-cultic context and may therefore have sensed the need to use such a genitive to "locate" the ^ rending in the temple (). The term also appears in Hebrews as ("within the veil"; Hb. 6:19), ("the second veil"; Hb. 9:3), and ' ("the veil that is his flesh"; Hb. 10:20), where the author has contextually and/or syntactically qualified 32 to indicate the inner veil is in view. That the N T authors have qualified which curtain is in view reflects the translation of the LXX. Yet that such qualification not only fails to indicate a curtain other than the inner veil but is best taken to affirm the inner veil is in view seems to underscore the "default" meaning of . Whether

30 Though this construction does not occur in the LXX or anywhere in extant Greek literature prior to the synoptic rending texts. The most similar LXX reading to which is found in Lv. 4:17 ( ), clearly translating "inner veil" (3). 31 Cf. Daniel M. Gurtner, ": Lexicographical and Etymological Con siderations to the Biblical 'Veil'," AUSS 42 (2004) 105-11. 32 So Gane, "Re-opening Katapetasma ('Veil') in Hebrews 6:19," 5-8.

LXX SYNTAX AND THE IDENTITY OF THE NT VEIL

353

NT authors are being simply redundant or perhaps emphatic in their qualifications, if they are looking to the LXX for their use of ,33 they most certainly have the inner veil before the holy of holies in mind. 34

33 This seems likely, for nearly all subsequent uses of the term occur in Jewish or Christian contexts subsequent to the LXX and seem to be dependent upon in. Cf. Gurtner, "," 105-11. 34 The author is grateful to Roy Gane, Roy Ciampa, and Ron Piper for their help ful suggestions on mis note.

^ 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 permission from 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 of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the 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 of the American Theological Library Association.