AN ANALYSIS OF ANTIOCHENE EXEGESIS

OF GALATIANS 4:24-26

ROBERT J. KEPPLE*

NE of the key passages in any examination of the Pauline

O use of the Old Testament is Galatians 4:21-31. Although
Paul frequently quotes and interprets the Old Testament in his
epistles, there are relatively few passages where Paul utilizes, or
appears to be utilizing, allegorical interpretation.1 Galatians
4:21-31 is one of the most crucial of these passages.
Two recent writers on the Pauline hermeneutic illustrate the
pivotal nature of this passage. Both Richard Longenecker and
A. T. Hanson write that there are only two passages in which
Paul could be charged with allegorical interpretation — Gala­
tians 4:21-31 and I Corinthians 9:8-10. 2 After examining the
passage, however, Longenecker concludes that Galatians 4:21-31
is "a highly allegorical representation of Old Testament his­
tory,"3 while A. T. Hanson concludes that in Galatians 4:21ff.
"Paul was in fact using typology, not allegory."4

*Mr. Kepple is presently a graduate student in the Division of Li-

brarianship at Emory University. This fall he will be resuming his doc­
toral studies in New Testament at Baylor University.
1
For the purposes of this paper, the distinction between typology and
allegory as methods of exegesis expressed by Woollcombe and quoted by
many is used. Typology is "the search for linkages between events, persons,
or things within the historical framework of revelation, whereas allegorism
is the search for secondary and hidden meanings underlying the primary
and obvious meaning of a narrative." (K. J. Woollcombe, "Biblical Origins
and Patristic Development of Typology," in Essays on Typology, ed.
G. W. H. Lampe and Κ. J. Woollcombe, [London: S.C.M. Press, 1957],
p. 40). The problem of the definition of these two terms complicates the
discussion of this passage as is indicated in the conclusion of this paper.
2
Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 126; Anthony T. Hanson, Studies
in Paul's Technique and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974),
pp. 160-61.
3
Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, p. 127. This, he believes, is the case
because Paul "definitely goes beyond the literal and primary sense of the
narrative to insist upon hidden and symbolic meanings in the words."
4
A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul, p. 161. He goes on to add that here

239
240 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

This issue — typology or allegory in Galatians 4:21-31 — was

also argued in the hermeneutical discussions of the early church.
In support of their extensive use of allegorical interpretation,
the Alexandrians appealed to Paul and particularly to this pas­
sage. The Antiochenes, violently opposed to Alexandrian alle­
gory, argued that Galatians 4:21-31 was not allegorical but typo­
logical. The Antiochenes were not prepared to argue that Paul's
exegesis was not normative for the church.5 Rather, they at­
tempted to argue that Paul had been misunderstood. An exam­
ination of these Antiochene arguments may contribute to our
understanding today of Paul's exegesis in Galatians 4:21-31.
The commentaries on Galatians by three major exegetes of the
Antiochene school have survived: those of Theodore of Mop-
suestia (c.350-428), John Chrysostom (c.347-407), and The-
odoret of Cyrrhus (c.393-c.466). Below, each of these com­
mentaries is examined on Galatians 4:24-26 with regard to
three questions of particular significance in understanding Paul's
exegesis. First, what do these men believe Paul means in verse
24 when he uses the term άλληγορούμενα? Does the word neces­
sarily mean that Paul is utilizing allegorical interpretation?
Second, what connection do these men believe that Paul is at­
tempting to make between the events of the Old Testament and
his current situatipn? Third, what link do the three exegetes
believe that Paul is making between Hagar, Sinai, and the
earthly Jerusalem in verse 25a ? This last question is important
in "clearing" Paul of allegorical methodology since the connec­
tion drawn is complex and could easily be taken as allegorical.6

1. Theodore of Mopsuestia
Theodore has been called "the most typical representative of

Paul's "typology becomes so complicated and uncontrolled that it is

beginning to verge into allegory." See also p. 203.
5
As Longenecker is prepared to do. See Longenecker, Biblical Exe­
gesis, pp. 214-20. If, however, it is argued that the Pauline exegetical
method is the norm for the church today, this issue would take on even
greater importance.
6
For example, the alleged use of gematria and onomatology. See the
summary and evaluation of this by E. Earle Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, pp. 52-53; and other works
cited there).
 ANTIOCHENE EXEGESIS 241

the Antiochene school of exegesis."7 His commentary on Gala-

tians survives only in some Greek fragments and in a fifth cen-
tury Latin translation which Swete evaluates as being of "sub-
stantial integrity."8 The quality of the commentary itself is rarely
questioned; for example, Lightfoot terms it inferior only to
Chrysostom and Jerome among extant patristic works.9
Theodore makes an extended comment on 4:24a (120 lines of
text in Swete), laboring the point that the practices of the "alle-
gorists" are quite different from those of Paul. He begins by
strongly denouncing those who "have great enthusiasm for
falsifying the sense of divine Scripture," and who make up "some
senseless fables [fabula] from their own understanding." Such
men, he argues, abuse this saying of Paul, taking it as authority
for destroying all meaning from Scripture. When they attempt to
follow the apostle's example, "they do not perceive the difference
in which the phrase is used by them and by Paul in this con-
text."10 The difference between what "they" mean by "allegory"
and what Paul means, he argues, is this: "The apostle did not
do away with history, nor did he strip away actions which had
occurred long ago."11 Rather, Paul used the account of past
events to elucidate his own words.
Theodore then argues at length to demonstrate that Paul did
not deny the historicity of the events, pointing out that Paul
refers to real geographical areas (v. 25) and real time intervals
(v. 29). They must be real, he argues, because "a comparison
cannot be made if the matters compared do not exist."12 Further,
"to deny the historical character of Ishmael's persecution of
Isaac and to say that its sole raison d'être was the allegorical
meaning here given it by Paul would lead, he says, to the ab-

7
Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. 3: The Golden Age of Greek
Patristic Literature (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1960), p. 402.
8
Henry B. Swete, Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in epístolas b. Pauli
commentarli: The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments, with an
Introduction, Notes, and Indices, 2 vols. (Cambridge: The University
Press, 1880), lrxxxv. The translator, however, does poor work at points.
See J. B. Lightfoot (St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 19th edn.
[London: Macmillan, 1896; reprint edn., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957],
p. 230). He terms it "marred by an indifferent translator."
9
Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 230.
10
Swete, Theodori 1:73.
ii Ibid. 1:73-74.
12/6^.1:74.
242 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

surdity of believing that the story was given by the author of

Genesis solely because at a much later date certain defenders of
circumcision were going to cause trouble to the Christians in
Galatia."18
Concluding his discussion of 4:24a, Theodore briefly asserts
what he thinks Paul means by άλληγοροΰμενα: "He terms 'alle­
gory' the comparison, by juxtaposition, of events which have
already occurred with present events."14 This is practically an
Antiochene definition of typology,15 and Theodore has clearly
arrived at this conclusion by analysis of the passage itself —
άλληγορέω is used in this specific sense neither by Antioch nor
Alexandria.
The above statement also summarizes the connection which
Theodore feels that Paul is drawing between the two sets of
events. Paul, as Theodore sees it, "is striving to corroborate his
assertion [made prior to 4:24] by basing it upon actual events.
. . . Namely, to reveal that the things of Christ are greater than
those concerning the law."16 How does Paul do this? "The
apostle therefore mentions Hagar and Sarah . . . so that from
such a comparison he may make his point."17 He then explains
how Hagar "stands for" justification by law, while Sarah
"stands for" justification by grace. Theodore then goes to some
length to justify and explain the appropriateness of the com­
parison which Paul is drawing.
It is in verse 25 that Theodore believes Paul is establishing
the legitimacy of linking Hagar with the Old Covenant. Paul
does this by pointing out that the place where the law was given

18
M. F. Wiles, "Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the
Antiochene School," in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1:
From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans
(Cambridge: The University Press, 1970), pp. 507-8.
1 4 Swete, Theodori 1:79. A Greek fragment (also in Swete) reads:
"άλληγορίαν έχάλεσεν την έκ παραθέσεως των ηδη γεγονότων προς τα
παρόντα συγκρισιν."
1δ
Greer cites this passage as Theodoren definition of typology, although
he argues that "one may question the legitimacy of including the Hagar
allegory under this definition." Rowan A. Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia:
Exegete and Theologian (Westminster, Md.: Faith Press, 1961), p. 108.
ie Swete, Theodori 1:76.
ITIbid. 1:78,
 ANTIOCHENE EXEGESIS 243

belonged to the nation which descended from Hagar. Theodore

makes this geographical connection by arguing that "in ancient
times the area which is now called Arabia was not the only area
to bear that name; the entire desert and the inhabited areas
surrounding the desert were also called Arabia. . . . Thus the
comparison of Hagar with the Old Testament is suitable, be­
cause in that place [Sinai] the law was given, and that place
18
belonged to the nation from which Hagar came." Hagar can
also be said to correspond to the present Jerusalem (Theodore
is taking Άγάρ as the subject of συστοιχεί) since the present
19
Jerusalem also signifies the first covenant.
In summary, Theodore is most concerned to see that the
historicity of the Old Testament events is not denied. His em­
phasis is on the appropriateness of the comparison which Paul
is drawing. While he does not explicitly term that comparison
"typology," that identification seems to underlie his analysis of
the passage.

2. John Chrysostom
Chrysostom was well-known not only for his oratorical ability
but also for his exegetical skill, especially when explaining Paul.
Indeed, Isidore of Pelusium wrote of him: "If the divine Paul
had interpreted himself, he would not have done it differently
from that famous master of the Attic language."20
In verse 24a, Chrysostom explains the Pauline usage of άλλη­
γοροΰμενα by asserting that Paul here "inexactly called the type
an allegory."21 The adverb with which Chrysostom qualifies this
statement (καταχρηστικώς) has been variously translated with
harsh or soft senses. Liddell and Scott understand it to mean "by

i*Ibid. 1:80-81.
is While it appears from the Latin translation that Theodore under­
stands the συστοιχεί to mean "is contiguous to," this is probably incorrect.
As Lightfoot (Galatians, p. 230) notes, both the context and the Greek
fragment (which has "ισοδυναμεί" — "is equivalent to") show that the
translator has erred.
20£¿. 5, 32.
21
"Καταχρηστικώς τόν τύπον άλληγορίαν έκάλεσεν." Frederick Field,
ed., 'Ιωάννου τον Χρυσοστόμου Ερμηνεία είς πάσας τας του άγιου
Παύλου έπιστολας, vol. 4: "Γπμομνηματα είς τας προς Γαλατάς και
Έφεσιους (Oxford: [Τ. Combe], 1846), p. 73.
244 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

22
a misuse of language" while Lampe understands it as meaning
28
"inexactly, loosely." In either case, Chrysostom believes that
Paul here could have spoken more exactly.
Chrysostom has made explicit what was implicit in Theodore
— that Paul means "type" although he did not use that word.
Further, Chrysostom has recognized the difficulty of understand­
ing άλληγορούμενα in this fashion, labeling the use unusual if
not incorrect.
From this statement of Chrysostom, it is also evident that he
understands Paul to be drawing a typological connection between
the old and the new events, and he uses the word "type" several
more times in his discussion of this passage. Following the above
statement, he explains what Paul is doing in this passage: "His
meaning is as follows: this history not only declares that which
appears on the face of it, but announces somewhat farther,
whence it is called an allegory. And what has it announced ? no
less than all the things now present."24 Chrysostom seems to be
arguing that this may loosely be termed allegory in the sense
that the events of history mean more than their simple face
value. But more correctly, it may be termed typology since it is
past historical events which have reference to present events.25
Chrysostom then goes on to explain how the present situation

22
H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., rev.
and augmented by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie (Oxford: The Univer­
sity Press, 1940), p. 921. The NPNF series translator understands the
term similarly, translating it "contrary to usage." NPNF, series I, 13:34.
23
G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1961), p. 729. So also Woollcombe ("Biblical Origins," p. 56)
who understands Chrysostom to mean that Paul uses the word "in an
unusual sense."
24 NPNF, series I, 13:34. "Ο δε λέγει, τουτό έστιν ή μεν ιστορία
αδτη· ου τοΰτο δε μόνον παραδηλοΐ, όπερ φαίνεται, άλλα και άλλα
τινά αναγορεύει· διό και αλληγορία κέκληται. Τι δέ άνηγόρευσεν ; Ουδέν
έτερον, ή τα παρόντα πάντα." Field, Ιωάννου 4:73-74.
25
Stoderl makes a similar analysis: "Nach der Wortbedeutung versteht
man unter Allegorie eine Redeform, die neben dem unmittelbaren Sinne
einen mittelbaren und eigentlich beabsichtigten besitzt. In dieser weiteren
Bedeutung passt das Wort Allegorie auch auf den Typus, das Vorbild."
Wenzel Stoderl, trans., Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 2nd series, vol. 15:
Johannes Chrysostomus: Kommentar zu den Briefen des hl. Paulus an
die Galater und Epheser (Munich: Josef Kösel & Friedrich Pustet, 1936),
p. 115.
 ANTIOCHENE EXEGESIS 245

(for Paul) had been prefigured or "announced" in the Old

Testament events. In short, Chrysostom sees Paul as confirming
his analysis of the events in Galatia by reference to these Old
Testament events which prefigured them.
This approach is somewhat different from that of Theodore.
While they both see Paul as employing typology rather than alle­
gory, their definitions of the "typology" at work in this passage
are different. Theodore stresses the idea of the two sets of events
being comparable, while Chrysostom concentrates more on
demonstrating how Paul's conclusions regarding the Old and
New Covenants necessarily follow because they were "an­
nounced" in the Old Testament events.
Chrysostom also handles the connection between Hagar, Sinai,
and the present Jerusalem in verse 25 differently. He sees Paul
as concerned with demonstrating that Hagar is a suitable type
for the present Jerusalem. This is accomplished in two steps.
First, the connection between Hagar and Sinai is lexical:
"The bondwoman is called Hagar, and 'Hagar* is the word for
Mount Sinai in the language of that country."26 Thus, "it is
necessary that all who are born of the Old Covenant should be
bondmen, for that mountain where the Old Covenant was de­
livered hath a name in common with the bondwoman."27 Second,
the connection between Sinai and Jerusalem is geographical.
"Συστοιχεί," according to Chrysostom, means "borders on, is
contiguous to" ; and the subject of the verb is Sinai, not Hagar.28
Thus, Sinai and Jerusalem are connected with the same event —
the giving of the Old Covenant — by geographical proximity.
Therefore, the mention of Sinai serves as an intermediate step to
link Hagar with the present Jerusalem. "Thus the type of the
Jerusalem below was Hagar, as is plain from the mountain
being so called."29
In summary, Chrysostom believes that Paul really means
"type" when he uses άλληγορούμενα in this passage. He presumes
that the historical and literal meaning of the Old Testament
events is true but sees Paul developing a further "typical mean-

26NPNF, series I, 13:34; Field, Ιωάννου 4:74.

27 Ibid.
28
Field, Ιωάννου 4:74. Chrysostom uses the verbs "γειτνιάζει" and
"δπτεται" to explain "συστοιχεί."
™NPNF, series I, 13:34; Field, Ιωάννου 4:74.
246 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

ing" as well — a meaning where the further things "announced"

by the Old Testament events truly are those with which Paul
wrestles. Paul's typology is therefore more than just a com­
parison ; it also serves as a proof of the doctrine about which he
is writing to the Galatians.

3. Theodoret of Cyrrhus
Theodoret, writing somewhat later than the above men, is
generally considered the last great theologian and exegete of
Antioch. Of his exegetical works, Quasten comments that they
"are among the finest specimens of the Antiochene school and
remarkable for their combination of terseness and lucidity."30
However, despite his commitment to the Antiochene position,
he moderated his exegetical procedure. Altaner notes that
"despite its fundamental grammatical-historical attitude his exe­
gesis is frequently typological and allegorical" ; 3 1 and Quasten
writes that "he adopts a middle course, avoiding the radicalism
of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his excessive literalness and
allows an allegorical and typological explanation, whenever this
appears preferable."32 But in the case of Galatians 4:24-26,
Theodoret stands firmly in the tradition of Theodore and
Chrysostom.
Theodoret joins Theodore and Chrysostom in defining Paul's
use of άλληγορούμενα in 4:24a. He writes: " 'Understanding
allegorically/ the holy Apostle said, rather than 'spiritually ap­
prehending a different meaning.' For he does not destroy the
history, but he teaches the things foreshadowed in the history."33
Thus, Theodoret along with Theodore and Chrysostom stresses
that (1) the historicity of the events is not destroyed and (2) the
"allegory" here is really typology. Theodoret expressly dis­
tinguishes Paul's "άλληγορούμενα" from "έτέρως νοούμενα," the
latter phrase reflecting exegetical terminology of the Alexandrian
school. The express distinction which he makes between the two

30 Quasten, Patrology 3:539.

31
Berthod Altaner, Patrology, trans. H. C. Graef (New York: Herder
& Herder, 1961), p. 398.
32
Quasten, Patrology 3:539.
33 " « Άλληγορούμενα' είπεν ô θείος 'Απόστολος, αντί του, Και έτέρως
νοούμενα. Οΰ γαρ τήν ίστσρίαν άνεΐλεν, άλλα τά εν τη ιστορία
προτυπωθέντα διδάσκει. MP G 82:489.
 ANTIOCHENE EXEGESIS 247

is the question of whether or not the historicity of the events is

accepted or rejected.
Theodoret then continues to describe the essential connection
which Paul is drawing between the old and the new events. After
commenting on vv. 24—26, he adds: "These things [i.e., the
events of the Old Testament story] are parallel to our own situa­
tion. For just as there was one father but two mothers and two
children then, thus there is also one God but two covenants and
two peoples now, But Hagar is the 'picture* of the first covenant,
and Sarah of the second."34 Theodoret thus finds the idea of
comparison of importance in this passage, but in the above
comments he has expanded the comparison to elements only
implicit in Paul — the one-father/one-God correspondence and
the two-children/two-peoples concept. In the remainder of his
comments on this passage, Theodoret continued to develop the
idea of comparison and refers, at several points, to this passage
as a "type" (τύπος).
In verse 25, Theodoret explains the connection between Hagar
and Sinai as being that "alongside that mountain the race of
Hagar has been dwelling."35 This he finds only fitting since the
old law was given from that mountain. Theodoret does not make
any more explicit the connection of the earthly Jerusalem with
Hagar and Sinai ; he simply repeats Paul's words.
In summary, Theodoret also finds typology in this passage
rather than allegory. Paul acknowledges the historical nature of
the passage but also draws a further significance from the events.
Theodoret is the clearest in expressing the comparison being
made by Paul, drawing out the one-father/two-mothers/two-
children versus one-God/two-covenants/two-peoples parallels.

Conclusion
What contribution these Antiochene exegetes can make to our
understanding of Galatians 4:24-26 still remains to be evaluated.
Were they correct in their analysis or did their anti-Alexandrian
zeal predetermine their conclusions ?
On the first question examined above, the Antiochene exe-

34 MPG ,82:492.
35 Ibid.
248 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

getes appear correct in emphasizing that the Pauline use of

άλληγορούμενα does not necessarily mean that allegorical inter­
pretation is employed in the passage. Rather, as particularly
Chrysostom and Theodoret emphasize, the word may have a
broader meaning.
A. T. Hanson notes at least five different possible translations
and after lexical investigation concludes that "we are safe in
giving the following as a provisional rendering of Paul's phrase
in Gal. 4.24: 'these things are intended to convey a deeper
meaning\"36 Certainly an English version of the New Testa­
ment should not prejudice the question with the "this is an
allegory" translation which is so common.37 Rather, a rendering
such as that adopted by the NIV is preferable: "These things
may be taken figuratively."38
On the second question, the value of the Antiochene answer
is more difficult to judge. To them, the essence of allegorical
interpretation is that it denies the historicity of the events being
interpreted allegorically, but to modern exegetes (and probably
to the Alexandrians) denial of historicity is not a necessary com­
ponent of allegorical interpretation. To the extent that the
Antiochene refutation of the allegorical interpretation depends
on the issue of historicity, it is weak. However, it does not
wholly depend on that point.
Another difficulty is the modern dispute as to the definitions of
allegory and typology. Are they logically distinct or opposite
ends of the same continuum ? Should they even be termed exe­
getical methods?39 Clearly the Antiochene arguments are a
strong defense of the typological understanding of Paul's exe­
gesis here, but they must also be balanced by careful study of
what appear to be allegorical elements.
On the third question, a large part of the interpretative prob-
36 A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul, pp. 91-94.
37 So NEB and RSV. Many other translations use similar wording:
AV, NASB, ASV, Jerusalem Bible, Berkeley, Williams, Goodspeed,
Moffatt, et al.
38 The TEV translates similarly: "This can be taken as a figure."
89
See, in contrast to Woollcombe (cited above), the discussions of
James D. Smart (The Interpretation of Scripture [Philadelphia: West­
minster, 1961], pp. 93-133) and Paul K. Jewett ("Concerning the Alle­
gorical Interpretation of Scripture," Westminster Theological Journal
17 [1954-55]: 1-20.
 ANTIOCHENE EXEGESIS 249

lem for the Antiochenes may be an incorrect text in verse 25a.

All three Antiochene exegetes are using a text which reads "το
γαρ Άγάρ Σινά," which is almost certainly incorrect. The UBS
and Nestle-Aland texts replace the γαρ with δε, a change which
usually will not substantially affect interpretation. Another vari­
ant which finds strong support is the omission of Άγάρ, a read­
ing that would significantly affect the understanding of the con­
40
nection drawn by Paul. The varying explanations of verse 25a
proposed by the three exegetes point to the difficulty of their
text. If the explanation of Chrysostom is excluded because of
his incorrect understanding of συστοιχεί, the explanation of
Theodore remains and merits consideration.
In conclusion, the Antiochene interpretation of Galatians 4:24-
26 is valuable for exegetes today. Their remarks, while made for
a tendentious purpose, point to an understanding of Paul's
hermeneutic which is accepted by some today and may well be
correct.41
Decatur, Georgia.

40
Certainly the inclusion or exclusion of Άγάρ in v. 25a must be care­
fully considered before asserting that Paul uses allegorical and/or rab­
binical techniques to connect Άγάρ and Σινά. While space does not
permit extensive discussion, it seems more probable that the original text
did not include Άγάρ. The omission is supported by p46, K, C, G, 1739,
it m s s , cop8«, the earliest patristic witnesses, and other significant external
evidence (see Westcott & Hort and Tischendorf for full information).
The balance of transcriptional probability also appears to favor the
omission (see Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 192-93; and John Eadie, Commen­
tary on The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians [Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark,
1894], p. 365), as does the intrinsic probability (see Lightfoot, Galatians,
pp. 192-93 ; Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches
of Galatia, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953], pp. 176-77; and
Franz Mussner, "Hagar, Sinai, Jerusalem: Zum Text von Gal 4,25a,"
Theologische Quartalschrift 135 [1955]: 56-60).
41
Besides those already cited above, see Ellis (Paul's Use, pp. 52-53,
130), and O. Michel (Paulus und seine Bibel [Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann,
1929], p. 110). Both men argue that Paul's technique is typological, not
allegorical. This view also has a respectable following in the commen-
taries on Galatians.
 ^ 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.