Psalm 22's Christological Interpretive Tradition in Light of Christian anti-Jewish Polemic

KOLTUN-FROMM/PSALM 22 37

Journal of Early Christian Studies 6:1, 37–57 © 1998 The Johns Hopkins University Press

Psalm 22’s ChristologicalInterpretive Tradition in Light ofChristian Anti-Jewish Polemic1

NAOMI KOLTUN-FROMM

Psalm 22 has been central to christological readings of the HebrewScriptures since the gospels were written, if not before. Allusions toPsalm 22 appear in all the gospels, but they are most prominent in John.For instance, while Jesus is on the cross, the soldiers divide his clothingamong themselves and cast lots for his tunic. This transpires, accordingto John, in order to fulfill the scripture of Psalm 22.19: “They will dividemy clothing among them and for the things that I wear they will throwlots” (John 19.23–4).2 In Mark, Matthew and Luke, the onlookers, bothcommoners and priests, mock Jesus and challenge him to save himselfperhaps reflecting the psalmist’s claim (Psalm 22.7–8) that “All who seeme mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads. Hecommitted his cause to the Lord; let him deliver him.”3 In addition, inthe Gospels of Mark and Matthew Jesus cries out the opening line ofPsalm 22: “My God, my God why have you forsaken me.”4 Psalm 22’stormented voice clearly speaks of the Passion to the gospel writers.5

Later Christian writers, specifically Justin Martyr, Tertullian andAphrahat, develop the gospels’ christological interpretation of this

1. I would like to dedicate this article to the memory of the late Prof. JonasGreenfield, l”z, who started me on this project but did not live to see it finished. Iwould also like to thank my colleagues who helped me through various stages ofresearch and writing: Paula Fredrickson, Marc Hirshman, Shraga Assif, ShlomoNaeh, Susan Mathews, Dennis Kehoe, Netta Berlin and Anne McGuire.

2. See also Matt 27.35; Mark 15.24; Luke 23.34. RSV translation.3. Mark 15.29; Matt 27.39; Luke 23.35.4. Matt 27.45; Mark 15.34.5. See John H. Reumann, “Psalm 22 at the Cross: Lament and Thanksgiving for

Jesus Christ,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 28 (1974): 40–42,who charts the other New Testament citations and allusions to Psalm 22.

38 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

psalm. Interestingly, these writers focus not on Psalm 22.1, 7–8 or 19, asthe gospels do, but on Psalm 22.17. The third part of this verse, which isoften translated as “They have pierced my hands and feet,” is fundamen-tal to these writers’ exegesis. This image of pierced limbs describes forthem Jesus’ exclusive experience on the cross. Why is this seeminglyappropriate image unknown to the gospel writers? Why do they dwell onthe divided clothing, the mocking spectators and the cry of despair butnot the pierced hands and feet? Finally, why do only several geographi-cally and linguistically diverse exegetes concentrate on the pierced handsand feet in the centuries beginning with Justin Martyr?

This paper will argue that Psalm 22.17’s exegetical developmentis intrinsically linked to early Jewish-Christian polemic and Christianself-identification. It is only with these three authors’6 apologetic andanti-Jewish polemical works that the image of pierced limbs appears. Itis my contention that this passage’s christological interpretation is anextra-New Testament evolution and dependent on early patristic under-standings of the Septuagint’s translation. It is an outcome of real, orperceived, early Jewish-Christian debates and most likely originates withJustin Martyr. This study helps illuminate the creation and disseminationof early standardized Christian exegesis for use in active and continuinganti-Jewish polemics throughout the first few centuries of the commonera.

In order to understand this progression it is necessary first to outlinethe translation problems Psalm 22.17 has caused scholars and exegetesover the years. I will then discuss Justin, Tertullian and Aphrahat’sshared exegesis of Psalm 22.17 and finally its place within early Jewish-Christian polemics.

TEXT AND TRANSLATION: PSALM 22:17–18 (19)

Massoretic Text:≥ylgrw ydy yrak ynwpyqh sy[rm tdx µyblk ynwbbws yk 17

yb wary wfyby hmh ytwmx[ lk rpsa 18lrwg wlypy yçwbl l[w µhl ydgb wqljy 19

6. While the same exegetical claim also appears in Cyprian, Novatian andLactantius, their dependence on Tertullian renders their writings superfluous to thisdiscussion. See note 47 below.


17. Because dogs are circling me; a group of evil ones surround me,[something] my hands and my feet.18. I take count of all my bones, while they look on and stare.19. They divide my clothes among themselves; casting lots for my garments.

Targum7:˜y[ygs ayblkl ˜ylytmd y[yçr yl[ wrzjad lwfm 17

ylgrw ydya ayrak ˚yh ˜ytkn ynwpqa ˜yçyabm tçynkyl ˜zwbm µylktsm ˜wna ymrg yçwçblh lk ywja 18

˜ydb[ ˜wmry ygtp ywl[w yçwbl ˜ygylpm 19

17. Because evil ones surrounded me, who are comparable to a great dogassembly closing me in, like a lion biting my hands and my feet.18. I show all my sore bones, they stare and mock me.19. They divide my clothing and they cast lots for them.

Septuagint:17 ˜ti §kÊklvsãn me kÊnew pollo‹ sunagvgØ ponhreuom°nvn peri°sxon meÖvrujan xe›rãw mou ka‹ pÒdaw18 §jhr¤ymhsa pãnta tå Ùstç mou aÈto‹ d¢ katenÒhsan ka‹ §pe›dÒn me19 diemer¤santo tå flmatiã mou •auto›w ka‹ §p‹ tÚn flmaismÒn mou ¶balonkl∞ron

17. Because many dogs surrounded me, an assembly of evil ones beset me,they dug/gouge [at] my hands and my feet.18. They counted all my bones and they stared and looked at me.19. They parted my clothing among them and for my vesture they cast lots.

Peshitta:

17. Because dogs surrounded me and an assembly of evil ones encircled me,they broke through/pierced my hands and my feet.18. All my bones cried out, they looked and stared at me.19. They divided my clothing among them and for my garments they castlots.

7. Relatively little is known about the Targum to Psalms; even dating it is difficult.There is no way of knowing whether this particular translation was composed inreaction to Christian readings of the text. See, for instance, Philip S. Alexander,“Jewish Aramaic Translation of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra: Text, Translation,Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and EarlyChristianity, ed. Martian Jan Mulder (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum and Philadel-phia: Fortress Press, 1988), 224.

17

18

19


Vetus Latina:17. Quoniam circumdederunt me canes multi, concilium malignantiumobsedit me foderunt8 manus meas et pedes meos.18. Dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea ipsi vero consideraverunt etinspexerunt me19. Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea et super vestem meam miserunt sortem.

17. Because a great many dogs surrounded me, and an evil council shut meup, they dug/pricked my hands and my feet.18. They counted all of my bones, indeed considering and inspecting me.19. They divided my clothing among them and upon my garments they castlots.

The difficulty of establishing accurate versions, translations andinterpretations of Psalm 22.17–19 have troubled biblical scholars andcommentators for centuries.9 The exact meaning of verse 17c in theMassoretic text is obscured by a probably corrupt root word, while theSeptuagint’s translation and understanding offers textual ground for thepassages’ later christological interpretations. The Peshitta, on the otherhand, while similar to the Greek in verse 17, changes the meaning ofverse 18 in its own unique way (see discussion below). A glance at thevarious English translations reveals their differences as a function of thediverging renditions. For instance, the RSV reads: (16) Yea, dogs areround about me, a company of evildoers encircle me, they have piercedmy hands and feet; (17) I can count all my bones, they stare and gloatover me; while the JPSV translation renders the passage: (17) Dogssurround me, a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions [they maul]my hands and feet; (18) I take the count of all my bones while they lookon and gloat. The Anchor Bible has: (17) For dogs have surrounded me,a pack of evil doers encircle me, piercing my hands and my feet; (18) Ican number all my bones, they glare, they stare at me; while the Soncinotranslates: (17) For dogs have encompassed me, a company of evil-doershave enclosed me, like a lion they are at my hands and feet. (18) I maycount all my bones, they look and gloat over me.10

8. Jerome, in the Vulgate, translates the word as vinxerunt, meaning “they bound.”9. For the most recent summary of the scholarship, see Gregory Vall, “Psalm

22:17b: ‘The Old Guess,’” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 45–56.10. A difference in the breakdown of verses in the psalm accounts for the variant

numbering of these two verses—sometimes appearing as verses 17 and 18, sometimesas 16 and 17. I will be following the former numeration.


To understand how these different translations emerged, one mustreturn to the Hebrew. Verse 17 in the Massoretic traditions reads:

ylgrw ydy yrak (C) ynwpyqh µy[rm td[ (B) µyblk ynwbbws yk (A)

(A) Because dogs are circling me, (B) a group of evil ones surround me (C)[something] my hands and my feet.

The language of Psalm 22.17 is unclear in part c. What does yrak mean?Is it a verb or a noun preceded by a preposition? The LXX translatorsobviously read yrak as wrak a variant spelling of the third person plural(simple perfect) of rwk, the verb meaning “to dig,” “bore,” or “hew,”11

translating it as Övruxan (the 1 aor. of ÙrÊssv, meaning “to dig”). ThePeshitta translators understood the verb in a similar way, choosing acorresponding Syriac verb, meaning “they have broken through” or“pierced.” Yet, the Aramaic Targum renders the word as a noun yra (alion) with a leading preposition k meaning “like a lion.” The Targumthen emends the text by adding a verb, ˜ytkn, (they bite—like a lion).Hence the JPSV and Soncino translations have respectively, “like lions[they maul] my hands and feet,” and “like a lion they are at my handsand feet,” after the Targum; while the RSV and Anchor Bible, followingone possible connotation of the Septuagint have, “they have pierced myhands and feet,” and “piercing my hands and feet.” While “digging” and“piercing” are not exact equivalents, it is clear from the earliesttranslations and interpretations (but not necessarily for the New Testa-ment authors as we shall see below) that the verb came to imply thepiercing of limbs in crucifixion.

Recent research into the origins and translations of this problematicverse has generated debates as to the passage’s exact derivation. Mostscholars would agree that the Hebrew is corrupt, but they differ on howit should be read.12 It is generally believed, following the ancienttranslations, that the y [yud] of yrak should be read as a w [vav] renderingthe corrupt yrak to wrak. The question remains what does wrak mean? Is itone word or can the k be read as a preposition? Mitchell Dahood, whenreferring to this problem in the Anchor Bible Psalms, first notes:

11. See BDB, 468.12. See, for instance, two notes in Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973). First, R. Tournay,

“Note sur le psaume XXII 17,” (111–112) who posits a new connotation, “to pickclean,” or “pluck” for the old variation, k’rw. Second, J. J. M. Roberts, “A New Rootfor an Old Crus, Ps. XXII 17c,” (247–252) who suggests another connotation, “to beshort,” which he claims would better fit the poetics of the psalm. In these two notesthe authors make numerous references to previous arguments and suggestions.


“Piercing my hands. Much contested k’ry is here tentatively analyzed asan infinitive absolute from kry, ‘to dig,’ with the archaic ending -i, as inGen xxx 8, xlix 11; Exod xv 6.”13 Dahood’s solution renders itunnecessary to change the last letter in order to preserve the LXX’stranslation. Some years later, however, Dahood emends his translation of22.17, 18 to: “Because they picked clean my hands and my feet, I cannumber all my bones,” reading 17c and the beginning of 18 as onethought. Dahood adds here that “consonantal k’ry is analyzed intocausal ki, ‘because,’ followed by ’ry, the third person perfect plural withthe final radical -y preserved, as in Ugaritic regularly and sporadically inPhoenician and Hebrew. The verb �a \ra\h, ‘to pick, pluck,’ occurs in Songof Sol. v 1 and in Ps. lxxx 13, �a\ru [ha\\, where it describes picking clean avineyard.”14 In this way the lettering does not need to be changed hereeither and the verb (with preposition) translated as “to pluck” better fitsthe poetic structure of the psalm, though it contests the LXX’s transla-tion. The picked-clean bones would allude back to the dogs who circledin the beginning of verse 17 (and who remain threatening in verse 21)and perhaps even to the raving lion in verse 14.15

More recently, Gregory Vall has suggested a return to what he termsthe “old guess” of Heinrich Graetz. In the late 19th century Graetzsuggested that the Hebrew y÷wrak was a corruption of wrsa “they havebound.” While typographically the corruption is harder to establish, thereading of the verse as “they have bound” makes more sense in thecontext of the psalm. In verse 15 the speaker describes his bones as “outof joint” which would fit the image of bound limbs in 17.16 Additionally,three ancient translations agree with this rendering: Aquila’s secondedition (§p°dhsan, “they have bound”), Symmachus (…w zhtoËntewd∞sai, “like those who seek to bind”), and Jerome’s translation based onthe Hebrew Psalms (vinxerunt, “they have bound” or “tied”).17 Al-though Jerome probably had a different Hebrew root in mind, thechristological connotations of the verse as a whole remain the same,

13. Mitchel Dahood, The Anchor Bible Psalms, I: 1–50 (New York: Double Day,1966), 141.

14. Mitchel Dahood, “The Verb ‘Arah,’ ‘To Pick Clean,’ in Ps. XXII 17,” VT 24(1974): 370–1; and in The Anchor Bible Psalms, III: 101–150 (New York: DoubleDay, 1970), xxx. Here Dahood agrees with Tournay footnote 12, above.

15. Dahood, Psalms III, xxx.16. Vall, “Psalm 22:17b,” 52.17. For more details about these various translations, see Vall, “Psalm 22:17b,” 47.


whether Jesus was nailed (hands pierced) or tied to the cross. Both formsof crucifixion were utilized in the Roman period.18

Yet the Peshitta, while following the LXX in verse 17, creates its ownproblematics by its unique reading of verse 18. Where other versionshave “I can count all my bones” (or sometimes “they count all mybones”) following the Hebrew, ytwmx[ lk rpsa the Syriac reads: “all mybones cry out,” . Where does this odd translationcome from? It is possible that the translator of the Peshitta read rps (tocount) as dps (to mourn), mixing up the r [resh] and d [dalet], not anuncommon phenomenon.19 It may also have made more poetic sense tothe translator. “They pierce my hands and feet, all my bones cry out (inpain)” is more cohesive than “they pierce my hands and feet, I can countall my bones.” The Syriac translator also places the verb in the thirdperson plural—similar to the LXX, which renders the “I will count” as“they count”—which coordinates with the third person conjugation ofthe rest of the verbs in verses 17 and 19.

This variant seems to have been a deliberate change on the part of thetranslator since the verb dps (to mourn) is never translated as (to cryout) in the Peshitta anywhere else, but as ’ (to mourn). The Syriac or is the usual translation for the Hebrew llyh or q[x (to cry out orshout). Why the translator chose this word in this particular referencecannot be stated for sure. Whether he had some other version—like aSyriac targum text—is unclear.20 Perhaps the translator, invoking poeticliberties, felt that bones do not mourn but rather cry out. For this couldbe a rendering of bones being pierced or broken. Perhaps the translatorattempted to align this verse with verse 15 in which the bones aredescribed as “out of joint” or “loose.”21 Since the bones are also thesubject of the clause in verse 15 (“all my bones are out of joint”), it mayhave made sense to the translator to render verse 18 in parallel syntax(“all my bones cry out”).

18. Both practices have been widely documented. See, for instance, Joseph A.Fitzmeyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature and the NewTestament,” CBQ 40 (1978).

19. This common mistake was pointed out to me by the late Prof. Jonas Greenfield,to whom I am most grateful for all of his advice. M. P. Weitzman, in his article, “ThePeshitta Psalter and Its Hebrew Vorlage,” VT 35 (1985): 343, also notes this problemwithout offering a viable solution.

20. For more discussion on the influences on the Peshitta, see Peter B. Dirksen,“The Old Testament Peshitta,” in Mikra, 255–97.

21. BDB, 825, translates drpth as “be loosened at the joint,” although it can alsomean “dispersed” as it is in Job 4.11 and Psalm 92.10.


Despite the differences in translation, early Christian writers, such asJustin, Tertullian and Aphrahat, capitalized on the same christologicalconnotations and images of pierced limbs that the variations afford. Butsince they were not dependent on the gospel passion narratives for thisimage there must be another explanation for the common exegesis. Isuggest that because of the need to strengthen the christological readingsof certain biblical texts due to the attractiveness of Jewish (and other)interpretive traditions, Justin, and later Tertullian and Aphrahat, wereinspired to dig deeper into the biblical corpus for more exactingprooftexts.

TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION

The gospel writers acknowledge the prophetic association betweenPsalm 22 and Jesus’ passion by incorporating verses 1, 7–8 and 19 intotheir narratives. Yet they do not employ verse 17c, which the LXXrenders as: Övrujan xe›rãw mou ka‹ pÒdaw, often translated as “theypierced my hands and my feet.” At first glance this seems to be a strangeomission. The image of pierced limbs would seem to fit the gospelwriters’ reading of Psalm 22. One can only conclude that whateverversion of the Psalms they or their source22 possessed this image did notimmediately appear to them. And indeed, if they based their theologicalwritings on the Hebrew or Aramaic Psalms this vision does not readilypresent itself. Even the LXX’s Övrujan does not necessarily mean“pierce,” but “dig,” as in a vineyard, and is so used in several other NewTestament passages.23 In addition, as other scholars have noted, Markand Matthew are not as interested in Jesus’ sufferings as they are inGod’s actions through Jesus.24 Hence the actual details of the crucifixionoccupied them less than the results of this torturous death.

While the passion narratives provide minimal details concerning thecrucifixion, stating only that Jesus was crucified,25 references to the nailsof the cross appear elsewhere. In John 20.25, when Thomas hears of

22. On the sources available to the gospel writers, see John Dominic Crossan, TheCross that Spoke: Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper and Row,1988). Crossan postulates the existence of a “Cross Gospel” which preceded thecomposition of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

23. Compare for instance Mark 12.1, Matthew 21.33, and 25.18.24. C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible Mark (New York: Doubleday, 1986), 644; W. F.

Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible Matthew (New York: Doubleday, 1971),353.

25. Mark 15.24, Matthew 27.35, Luke 23.33, John 19.18.


Jesus’ resurrection, but before he sees him, Thomas remarks: “Unless Isee in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark ofthe nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.” Thomas mustsee the effects of the nails in the resurrected Jesus’ hands before he canbelieve. From this description, John clearly assumes that Jesus was nailedto the cross. In addition, Col 2.14 implies that Jesus is nailed to the crossthrough the image of “the bond” with its “legal bindings” which arenailed to the cross along with Jesus.26

However, it is only with Barnabas, and only indirectly, that verse 17 isfirst applied to the passion narrative. This may be an indication of anoral tradition that preceded Barnabas, for Barnabas’ citations are notexact. Verse 17’s christological interpretation may simply be a develop-ment of later writers’ conceptualizations of the crucifixion inspired bythe gospel narratives and aided by other understandings of the LXXtranslation. One scholar has noted that later writers (and particularlyartists) focus on the blood and suffering of Jesus’ death as necessary forredemption.27

Here is Barnabas’ description of the crucifixion: “But this sufferingwas due to His own choice. It was ordained that He should suffer on atree, since the inspired writer attributes to Him the following words:‘Save me from the sword’ (Ps 22.21), and, ‘Pierce my flesh with nails’ (Ps119.120, LXX), ‘because bands of evildoers have risen against me’” (Ps22.17? John 20.25?).28 While “save me from the sword” seems like adirect quotation, “pierce my flesh with nails,” is more likely the LXX’sversion of Psalm 119.120. “Bands of evildoers have risen against me” isnot an exact citation, but its allusion to verse 17 is clear. Moreover, “theinspired writer,” is a certain reference to David, the presumed author ofthe Psalms. Later in the Epistle, Barnabas liberally embellishes as hecomments on these verses, stating “[a]nd again what does the Prophetsay? ‘A band of evildoers has encompassed me’ (Ps 22.17); ‘theyswarmed round me like bees around the honeycomb’ (Ps 118.12); and‘For my garments they cast lots’ (Ps 22.19). Since, then, He was tomanifest Himself and suffer in the flesh, the suffering was foretold.”29

26. Reumann, “Psalm 22 at the Cross,” 508.27. Joseph William Hewitt, “The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion,” HTR 25 (1937):

29–45.28. Barnabas 5.13. Translation according to James A. Kleist, The Didache, The

Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, the Fragmentsof Papias and The Epistle of Diognetus (New York: Newman Press, 1948), 44. Onthe combination of psalmic verses, see Crossan, Cross, 190, table 15.

29. Barnabas 6.6.


Barnabas’ intention to associate the imagery of Psalm 22 with thePassion is clear, but his citations are not. Nevertheless, by combiningverses from Psalm 22 and 119, Barnabas enhances the image of piercedflesh, that may have been absent from an untampered reading of Psalm22.17 in the Greek. It is easy to see how one could read Psalm 119’simage of pierced flesh back onto the dug or gouged out hands and feet of22.17.

A few decades later, Justin Martyr precisely associates these psalmicverses and more to the gospel passion narrative. Both in his FirstApology and again in his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin delineates indetail how these words relate to Jesus’ crucifixion.

And again in other words He says through another prophet: “They piercedmy hands and my feet, and cast lots for my clothing” (22.17c, 19b.) Andindeed David, the king and prophet, who said this, suffered none of thesethings; but Jesus Christ had His hands stretched out. . . . The expression,“They pierced my hands and my feet” was an announcement of the nailsthat were fastened in His hands and feet on the Cross. And after He wascrucified they cast lots for His clothing, and they that crucified Him dividedit among themselves.30

Justin, following the gospel narrative in the second part of his argument(“they cast lots for His clothing”), perhaps is inspired by Barnabas in thefirst part (“they pierced my hands and my feet”).31 In any case he is thefirst writer to associate Psalm 22.17c unambiguously with the crucifix-ion. The first two parts of the verse (“Yea, dogs are round about me, acompany of evildoers encircle me”) are neither cited nor interpreted.Justin clearly understands “They pierced my hands and my feet, and castlots for my clothing” to be one sequential quotation and not a patch-work citation. This and similar formulations, beginning with “Theypierced my hands and my feet,” appear again and again in Justin,Tertullian and Aphrahat.

Yet, this segment of verse 17, “They pierced my hands and feet,” ismore central to Justin’s argument than verse 19 (“and cast lots for myclothing”), since he repeats this passage for emphasis. Reasoning that

30. Justin Martyr, First Apology 35. Translation according to Leslie WilliamBarnard, St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies (New York, Paulist Press,1997), 47.

31. Oskar Skarsaune contends that Justin is probably not dependent on Barnabasin this instance, but rather on some intermediary source or common tradition. See hisProof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Prooftext Tradition: Text-Type,Provenance, Theological Profile (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987), 80–81, 110–111.


David did not suffer his limbs pierced, he need not refer to his ownexperiences, but to Jesus’. “Cast lots for my clothing” seems addedalmost as an afterthought; the “pierced hands and feet” is clearly ofweightier significance to Justin. In the Dialogue with Trypho, Justin re-states his argument from the Apology, again assuming that David’swords, composed under divine influence, clearly foreshadow the passionand crucifixion. While Justin cites verses 17c through 19, he omits thebeginning of 17 and starts with the now key phrase:

And again, David, in his twenty–first [twenty-second] Psalm, refers to HisPassion on the cross in mystical parable: “They have pierced My hands andMy feet. They have numbered all My bones. And they have looked andstared upon Me. They parted My garments amongst themselves, and uponMy vesture they cast lots.” For, when they nailed Him to the cross they didindeed pierce His hands and feet, and they who crucified him divided Hisgarments among themselves, each casting lots for the garment he chose.32

Once again Justin emphasizes the passion-scene typologies. As before,he stresses the nails of the cross, to which he believes the phrase “theypierced my hands and my feet” alludes. Verse 19, “they parted mygarments amongst them, etc.,” looks back to the gospel texts, but issubordinated to verse 17c, “they pierced my hands and my feet.” Justinconflates verses 17–19 into one testimony text, at the same time stressing17c. Although in Trypho Justin includes verse 18, he does not commenton it. The fact that verse 18 appears here may be an indication only thatin updating his texts in Trypho, Justin tended to cite fuller passages, evenas he maintained his original interpretation.33 In either case, verse 18meant little to Justin. As will be seen below, Aphrahat, because of thedifferences between the Greek and Syriac translations, finds verse 18pivotal to his argument.

Yet in Trypho Justin digresses for several chapters in order to presenta complete line by line commentary on the entire psalm. This excursus,according to Oskar Skarsaune, is probably original to Justin—whereasthe specific exegesis to verses 17 and 19 is not.34 This would makeJustin’s work the first extant Christian writing in which the whole psalm,not just a few select verses, is applied to the passion narrative. In thispiece, Justin concentrates on the minutiae of the passage. Every word,

32. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 97. Translation according to Thomas B. Falls, St.Justin Martyr (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1948),300–301.

33. Skarsaune, Prophecy, 80–82.34. Skarsaune, Prophecy, 220.


every line has some relevancy for the passion story. In Justin’s under-standing, the whole psalm portrays Jesus’ suffering as well as his faith inGod.35 The psalm’s opening words of pain, “Oh God, oh God, why haveyou forsaken me,” the typology of the various animals (the bulls [verse12] are the Pharisees, the lion [verse 13] is Herod), and the central wordsof praise, “I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of thecongregation I will praise thee,” all refer to Jesus and narratives of hispassion. While verses 17 and 19 have particular significance for hisargument, Justin sees the complete psalm as testimony to Jesus’ passion.Accordingly, David, in writing these divinely inspired words, must havehad a premonition of Jesus. Interestingly, Justin provides no specificexegesis for verse 18, but rather lumps it together with 16–19 in asummation of his earlier argument.

A few decades later, across the Mediterranean in Carthage, Tertullianreads Psalm 22 much like Justin. His exegesis appears several times, firstin his Answer to the Jews, and again in his writings against Marcion.One section appears almost word for word in both—and was probablytaken from Against Marcion and added to Jews at a later point.36 Thispassage could be a summary of, or simply inspired by Justin’s exegesis onthe entire psalm:

If you ask for further prophecy of our Lord’s Cross, you can find completesatisfaction in the twenty-first [twenty-second] psalm, which comprises thewhole passion of Christ, who was even at that date foretelling of his ownglory. “They pierced,” he says, “my hands and my feet” (Ps 22.17), whichis the particular outrage of the cross. And again, while appealing for hisFather’s help, he says “Save me from the lion’s mouth,” meaning death:“and [my] lowliness from the horns of unicorn”37 (Ps 22.21), the points of

35. Crossan, Cross, 66.36. Johannes Quasten, Patrology, 2: The Ante Nicene Literature after Irenaeus

(Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Press, 1953), 268–69, claims that chapters 9–14 of Tertullian’s An Answer to the Jews are spurious and were added by the sameperson who attempted to finish Against Marcion. The need to repeat the sameapologetic in Against Marcion and in Jews is apparently due to the fact that theMarcionites rejected not only the Hebrew Scriptures, but both the infancy andpassion narratives as well. According to Marcion, the messianic prophecies in theHebrew Scriptures foretold of a messiah who was yet to come, but who would redeemthe Jews alone. Jesus, on the other hand, was seen by the Marcionites as a universalmessiah who could not have taken on human form because of his pure, divine nature.

37. Unicorns: the Hebrew reads: µymr ynrq which is translated in both the JPSV andthe RSV as “horns of wild oxen.” For some reason this is translated as monoker≈tvn(“unicorn”) in the LXX. This image is then utilized by Christian exegetes tosymbolize the cross.


the cross, as I have already pointed out. Now since neither David nor anyking of the Jews had to suffer that cross, you cannot think this a prophecyof the passion of anyone else, but only of him who alone was so notablycrucified by that people.38

Like Justin, Tertullian emphasizes that the psalmic verses have to refer toJesus, because no other king of Israel, not even David, suffers the crueltyof the cross and is “saved from the lion’s mouth” (v. 21). In addition, hestates that the whole psalm is a testimony to the passion, not just selectedverses. While the verses quoted by Tertullian in this passage do notparallel those in Justin’s shorter exposés, they can all be found in Justin’slonger one concerning the entire psalm. Note that here, at least,Tertullian does not refer to the divided garments of verse 19. Tertulliansupports his case without reference to the gospel narratives or prooftexts,while at the same time sustaining the psalm’s christological interpreta-tion. As with Justin, the pierced hands and feet exemplify this under-standing for Tertullian.

Paralleling Justin and Tertullian before him, Aphrahat assumes Davidicauthorship for the Psalms. Similarly, he begins his exegesis with verse17c. In contrast to his predecessors, however, Aphrahat concentrates hisenergies on verse 18, while citing verses 19–21 in support. Verse 18,which is ignored by the other authors, becomes central to Aphrahat’sargument because the Peshitta emends the verse in its translation. Asnoted above, where the Greek and Latin read “I can count all mybones,” the Peshitta has “all my bones cry out.” Aphrahat relates quitea different narrative:

38. Against Marcion 3.19.5. According to the translation by Ernest Evans,Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 229. Tertullianalso cites Psalm 22.17, with an odd translation (“exterminate” instead of “pierce”),in reference to Jesus—using Justin’s original argument in his Answer to the Jews:“And in the Psalms, David says: “they exterminated [exterminauerunt] my hands andfeet, they counted all my bones, they themselves moreover contemplated and saw me,and in my thirst slaked me with vinegar” (Ps 22.17, 18; 69.21). These things Daviddid not suffer, so as to seem justly to have spoken of himself, but the Christ who wascrucified. Moreover, the ‘hands and feet’ are not ‘exterminated’ except his who issuspended on a tree” (Adv. jud. 13.10.) Neither the Hebrew text, the LXX nor theVetus Latina have “exterminate” my hands and my feet. Where does this translationcome from? Did he have a variant text, Latin or Greek? Is this unique interpretationof his own creation? Perhaps. Could he have read the Hebrew and translated it, unlikethe other versions, as exterminauerunt, i.e., “destroy”—like a lion—providing themissing verb? This possibility was suggested to me by Dr. Oded Irshai, and wouldcomplement the targumic tradition on this verse. Whether it fits with Tertullian’sknown style and text, I cannot say.


Concerning the passion of the Messiah David said, “They pierced my handsand my feet, and all my bones cried out, they gloated and looked at me,dividing my clothes among themselves and for my vesture they cast lots”(Ps 22.17c–19). . . .

David was not killed, for he died in old age and was buried in BethLehem. And if concerning Saul these words were said: rather Saul died onMt. Gilboa in battle against the Philistines. And if they were said when theypierced his hands and feet as they fastened his body on the gates of BethShean, these words are not fulfilled in Saul.

When they pierced Saul’s limbs, his bones shook, but could not feelbecause he was already dead. And after he was already dead they hungSaul’s body and his sons’ on the gates of Beth Shean. And when David said:“They pierced my hands and my feet and all my bones cried out,” he saidat the end of the verse: “Oh God, for my help remain, and deliver my soulfrom the sword” (Ps 22.20–21.) The Messiah, therefore, was delivered fromthe sword, and ascended from inside Sheol and lived and rose after threedays. And God remained to help him.

When Saul called to the Lord he did not answer. And he asked of theprophet, but they would not give him even a word. Then he concealedhimself (his identity) and asked of the witches and he learned that he wouldbe worsted by the Philistines. So he killed himself by his own sword whenhe saw that the battle overcame him.39

From the first part of verse 18, “All my bones cry out,” Aphrahatbuilds his argument. His first defense, like Justin’s and Tertullian’s, is thatno one else but Jesus fits the description of someone whose hands andfeet were pierced. Developing his argument, based on the Peshitta text,Aphrahat notes that no one else’s bones could have cried out either. First,David died peacefully in his old age—so the words cannot refer to him.Second, Saul killed himself by his own sword and was therefore alreadydead when his hands and feet were pierced as he was hung on the wallsof Beth Shean. Hence his bones could not cry out, for a dead man feelsno pain. Therefore, only Jesus could have cried out as the verse claims—because in crucifixion his hands and feet were pierced while he was stillliving. Moreover, Aphrahat points out that verses 21–22 show that thepsalm’s speaker asks to be spared from the sword, which indeed Sauldoes (but being denied by God, he actually dies on his own sword). God,however, delivers Jesus from the sword (by crucifixion) and from death(through resurrection). Consequently, the verses apply more convinc-ingly to Jesus than to Saul or David.

Aphrahat supports his christological argument without depending onthe verses cited in the gospel stories (verses 1, 7–8 and 19). While verse

39. Aphrahat, Demonstrations 17.10. All translations of Aphrahat are my own.


17c is important to his argument, Aphrahat’s exegesis centers on thecrying bones of verse 18. This unique commentary nevertheless clearlydefends the christological understanding that David composed the entirepsalm as a prophecy of the passion.

Aphrahat’s exegesis, while certainly his own, corresponds to theinterpretations found in Justin and Tertullian. All three assume David’sauthorship, but claim that somehow God granted the king visions of thefuture, including Jesus’ passion. All three cite psalm 22.17c as prooftextfor their christological readings, while at the same time claiming orindicating that the entire psalm has fuller significance. Could these threeexegetes be dependent on each other or even on a common source?Could these interpretations have been independently inspired by thegospel texts’ psalmic association?

As mentioned earlier, while one can easily trace this argument fromJustin to Tertullian into the African tradition, it is harder to track thistradition to Aphrahat. It appears that Tertullian bases parts of hisAnswer to the Jews, chapters 1–8, on Justin’s Trypho.40 Oskar Skarsaunesuggests that Justin, in turn, makes use of testimony sources whenwriting his apologies and Trypho. Skarsaune concludes that “Justin’sshort, non-LXX quotations are not ‘free’ quotations from memory, norare they ad hoc by Justin himself, modifying the standard LXX text. Norare they taken from deviant Biblical manuscripts. They are taken fromwritten, Christian sources, and in these sources we find the main sourcesof exegetical argument in Justin.”41 In other words, Justin follows analready established Christian hermeneutical tradition—possibly one thathe learned from some sort of “testimony” literature.42 This analysisapplies to Justin’s short interpretations of verses 17–19, particularly inthe First Apology where he combines pieces of 17 and 19 as one verse. Itis therefore possible that if Justin has some other testimony source, thenperhaps Tertullian and Aphrahat do as well. Nevertheless, Skarsaunepostulates that Justin’s exegesis of the whole psalm is original. So, whatis the origin of Justin’s idea that the whole psalm could be so interpreted?Is this an idea of his own creation, or a tradition he has learned but is thefirst to write down?

C. H. Dodd has noted that whole passages of the Hebrew bible (apsalm or a chapter of Isaiah, for instance) were considered as onetestimony. Hence a citation of one verse could be, in effect, a citation of

40. Quasten, Patrology, 2:269.41. Skarsaune, Prophecy, 8.42. Skarsaune, Prophecy, 234.


a whole passage.43 Concerning Isaiah 53, another large passage oftenquoted in pieces by these authors, Barnabas Lindars has noted that,“Although actual quotations from this famous chapter are not specifi-cally numerous in the New Testament, allusions to it are embedded sodeeply in the work of all the principal writers that it is certain that itbelongs to the earliest thought of the primitive Church.”44 Hence, Psalm22’s christological interpretation could predate the gospels, thoughprobably not in written form. Skarsaune notes that Justin parallelsBarnabas in half of his biblical citations, suggesting that Barnabas, orone of his sources, may have been Justin’s as well.45 It is equally possible,however, that Justin is the source of Psalm 22’s full testimonial value. Itmay have been the case that several verses, 17 and 19 for instance, hadalready inspired written commentary, but only Justin manages to bringthe whole psalm into the literary discussion. While we do not know thecontents of Aphrahat’s library, it is possible that he was acquainted withJustin’s writings, if not Justin’s testimony sources. Aphrahat does notappear to follow Justin as closely as Tertullian does, yet his exegesiscontains several elements in common with Justin’s that cannot merely becoincidental.

The most interesting of these elements we have yet to examine: Justin,Tertullian and Aphrahat contextualize their arguments within theirlarger anti-Jewish polemics. Psalm 22, as a christological prooftext,appears most often within these authors’ Adversus Judaeos writings.This indicates that while certain verses may have been included in thepassion narratives, the whole psalm’s wider christological affirmationonly comes to the fore in later Jewish-Christian debates. Barnabas mayhave been the first to look deeper into this psalm for christologicalprooftexts, but it is Justin who first crystallizes verse 17 in his apologetics,and later expounds the psalm’s full worth in his debate with Trypho.This suggestion confirms Skarsaune’s assessment that Justin’s interpreta-tion of verses 17 and 19 in his First Apology may not have been original,but that his full psalmic discussion in Trypho is.46 My hunch is that itwas not necessary to dissect the whole psalm except in the heat of thedebate with the Jews. So while the christological interpretation of the

43. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1953), 57–59, 96–98.

44. Barnabas Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: Doctrinal Significance of theOld Testament Quotations (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 77.

45. Skarsaune, Prophecy, 110.46. See note 34 above.


Greek text may have existed before Justin, it is the developing anti-Jewish polemics that bring this interpretation forward. Although it is notabsolute that the fuller exegesis of Psalm 22 actually developed withinJewish-Christian debate, nonetheless, it becomes regular ammunition forAdversus Judaeos literature in later centuries.

This contextualization within anti-Jewish polemics may also explainwhy this particular exegesis on Psalm 22 does not appear universally inother ante-Nicene writings, for neither Clement, Ignatius, nor Tatianinterpret it thus. While Origen notes in his De Principiis that the entirepsalm speaks of Jesus, in his commentary on Psalm 22, he makes noremarks concerning verses 17 nor 18.47

ANTI-JEWISH POLEMICS

In their writings, Justin, Tertullian and Aphrahat counter a real orperceived Jewish “misinterpretation” of the psalmic text. Each writeremphasizes that the psalm’s true speaker can only be Jesus, even whilethe voice is King David’s; the actions described do not happen to anyking of Israel, neither David nor Saul. Why the need to distance David inorder to promote Jesus? Are there voices from within their communities,or from without, who claim otherwise? Justin’s aim in Trypho, is torecord a Jewish-Christian discussion with his Jewish opponent. Inreference to Psalm 22, Justin comments,

You are indeed blind when you deny that the above-quoted Psalm wasspoken of Christ, for you fail to see that no one among your people whowas ever called King ever had his hands and feet pierced while alive, anddied by this mystery (that is, of the cross), except this Jesus only.48

Justin’s Jewish opponent refuses to accept that David could havepredicted the suffering of Jesus in his psalms. The pained voice can onlybelong to the author, King David. While Justin utilizes the sameargument concerning David and Jesus in his First Apology, it is

47. Origen (de Principiis 2.8.1) refers to the psalm as a whole as a passionnarrative, and quotes verses 20–21. In his Commentary on the Psalms (PG 12:1253–59) Origen comments on a selection of verses—excluding 17 and 18, but including 2,4, 7, 10–13, 15–16, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28–29, and 31–32. Irenaeus, in the Armenianversion of his Proof of the Apostolic Teachings (79–80), quotes 17–19 but makes nopolemical connection to David (PO 12.5: 717–18). While similar interpretations doappear in Latin authors such as Cyprian, Novatian and Lactanius, their almostcomplete dependence on Tertullian does not add anything to the discussion.

48. Trypho 97.


concretely contextualized within a Jewish-Christian debate in Trypho.Moreover, in order to strengthen his argument Justin adds one moreelement: the fact that the person in question suffers while still alive. Noother Israelite king suffers such an outrage as Jesus does throughcrucifixion. Hence this verse applies more accurately to Jesus than toDavid. Aphrahat picks up on this theme by explaining that the versecannot apply to Saul either, though his limbs are pierced when he is hungfrom the gates of Beth Shean. For at that moment Saul is already deadand his limbs cannot cry out as the Peshitta verse describes.

Interpretations are often motivated by perceived threats (or misinter-pretations), and in this case, the threat could be an alternate reading thatfocuses primarily on David’s personal experiences. I want to emphasizethat an argument for one reading is also often an argument againstanother. A christological interpretation of Psalm 22 is also a polemicagainst any other interpretation, particularly a Jewish one. It is notdifficult to imagine how Jewish “blindness” could provoke Christian“insight.”

Although neither Aphrahat nor Tertullian address their opponentsdirectly, their discussions fall within their own polemics against the Jews:Tertullian’s Answer to the Jews,49 on the one hand, and Aphrahat’sDemonstration on the Messiah, from within his collected demonstra-tions against the Jews, on the other. It is, of course, possible that byTertullian’s time (late second, early third century) and certainly Aphrahat’s(fourth century), this exegetical issue may have been more an internalChristian debate than an external Jewish-Christian one. Yet, the fact thatthese discussions are included within broader christological argumentsaimed at not always specified Jewish opponents indicates that the“Jewish” readings continued to be problematic for the church.

Yet, if the Christians were countering a specifically Jewish exegesis,can this biblical interpretation be found in the extant Jewish sources?There are few explicit remarks in the Jewish literature50 connectingPsalm 22 to a Jewish royal personage, whether David, Saul or anyoneelse. We do not know if this was a popular tradition that was either lostor simply never written down, or so well known it did not warrantdiscussion. Nevertheless, concerning the book of Psalms as a whole,

49. Again, it must be noted that the same David vs. Jesus argument appears inTertullian’s Against Marcion. See note 36 above.

50. In this case, the rabbinic literature. The dating of specific rabbinic passages,mishnaic or talmudic, while less accurate than for Justin (c. 100–165), Tertullian(c. 165–255) or Aphrahat (fl. 335–45), encompasses roughly the same time period.


there are Jewish traditions that presume Davidic authorship. For in-stance, the Babylonian Talmud notes that David wrote the book ofPsalms with the help of ten elders. The elders in question are Adam,Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Yedutan [Ethan], Asaf and thethree sons of Korah—all of whom have psalms dedicated to them or arementioned therein.51 Contrary to the Massoretic text, the LXX as well ascertain Qumran texts, the rabbinic and Christian sources, all claim thatall the psalms were written to, or by David.52 With David as theperceived author, it is but a short step to claim that all personal remarksbelong to David. This very claim is made in the rabbinic literature in thefollowing passage:

Our Rabbis taught: As for all the songs and praises to which David gaveutterance in the Book of Psalms, R. Eliezer said: He spoke them in referenceto himself; R. Joshua said: He spoke them with reference to the [Jewish]community; while the Sages maintain: some of them refer to thecommunity; while others refer to himself. [Thus] those which are couched inthe singular bear upon himself, while those which are couched in the pluralallude to the community. . . . to David, a Psalm, intimates that theShechinah rested upon him and then he uttered [that] song; a Psalm ofDavid, intimates that he [first] uttered [that particular] psalm and then theShechinah rested upon him.53

The assumption that David wrote all of the psalms, then, leaves open thequestion as to whom, or concerning whom he composed them. Despitesome preliminary disagreement, the rabbis decide that David referred tohimself when he wrote in the singular and to the Jewish community atlarge when in the plural. They also note that some psalms were inspiredby the Shechinah, God’s presence, while others were products of David’sown creativity. Psalm 22 opens with the superscript “to the leader,concerning Ayelet Hashahar, a psalm of David,” and it is written in thefirst person. According to the rabbis’ reasoning this psalm was written byDavid, about David but not divinely inspired—although divinely ap-proved after the fact—since the psalm opens with “a psalm of David,”instead of “to David, a psalm.” It was as clear to the rabbis that Psalm22 refers to David’s life as it was to Justin, Tertullian and Aphrahat thatit foreshadows the crucifixion of Jesus.54

51. b. B. Batra 14b. Soncino translation.52. Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, “The Book of Psalms,” Encyclopedia Judaica

13:1313, 1312.53. b. Pesah 117a. Soncino translation.54. Direct rabbinic references concerning Psalm 22.17 are scarce. The one rabbinic

passage that cites 22.17 directly (Mid. Shir. 3:22, fwhnyrg) does so in a completely


Note for example, this rabbinic reading of Psalm 22:

A certain saintly man was walking along the way, and saw two men havingsexual relations with a female dog. They said, “we know that he is a saintlyman, and he will go and testify against us and our master, David, will putus to death. But let us move first and give testimony against him. Theytestified [falsely] against him and he was tried and condemned to death.That is the meaning of that which David said, “Deliver my soul from thesword, my only-one from the power of the dog!” (Ps 22.21.) From thesword—from the sword of Uriah; from the dog—from the dog of a holyman.55

Putting aside the vulgarity of this passage and its context within ahalakhic discussion on false witnesses, the interest to us here is theexegetical use of Psalm 22.21. This text is cited to explain David’sremorseful words. According to this rabbinic passage, David sins twice:once by killing Uriah in order to steal Bathsheba and again by believingthe false witnesses and killing the saintly man unjustly. These sinsweighed so heavily on David’s soul that he begs for divine mercy withthis psalm. The rabbis clearly understand Psalm 22 as describing David’sexperiences. The talmudic narrative merely locates the precise contextfor Psalm 22.21 in David’s personal history.56

unconnected context. However, one can uncover other indirect allusions to this versein the rabbinic literature—for example, the following midrash which describesDavid’s death. On a Sabbath, David ceased for a moment to study Torah so that theAngel of Death could lure him away to the garden. Once in the garden he climbed upa ladder and from there fell to his death: “Then Solomon sent to the Beit Midrash: Myfather is dead and lying in the sun; and the dogs of my father’s house are hungry; whatshall I do? They sent back, cut up a carcass and place it before the dogs; and as foryour father, put a loaf of bread or a child upon him and carry him away” (b. Sabb30b). The allusion, vague as it may be, could refer to the hungry dogs of verse 17 thatsurround the speaker, waiting to pounce and tear him apart. Nothing more specificcan be built on this verse concerning David. There does not appear to be any rebuttalof the Christian claims either, or even anything that would allow a Christian to makea counter argument. Furthermore, the reference is to the first part of verse 17—apassage not discussed by the Christian authors.

55. y. Sanh. 6.3.56. One early text, however, relates this very verse to Abraham. In Sifre Deut.,

“Deliver my life from the sword, my only one from the power of the dog” is appliedto Abraham during the binding of Isaac. Not only was Abraham willing to sacrificehis son, but his hdyjy, his only one, which the rabbis understand as his çpn, soul. Thismight also be seen in light of the anti-Christian polemic, since according to Justin, the“only one” is Jesus, God’s only begotten son—but it would have to be a differentJewish-Christian discussion.


57. It is not known what sources Aphrahat had at his disposal, if any, nor in whatlanguage. Yet, the similarities to Justin suggest some relation between the two texts.Whether Aphrahat had a copy of Justin in Syriac, or simply acquired some of hisinterpretations from his teachers, perhaps orally, is hard to determine.

CONCLUSIONS

Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Aphrahat, separated by several centuriesand dispersed around the Mediterranean, compose similar argumentsconcerning Psalm 22’s christological interpretation, although they readfrom differing textual translations. While the variant translations allowthem to write unique exegetical passages, their “bottom-line” conclu-sions coincide: the Jews misunderstand the passage when they claim itrefers only to David (or Saul)’s life experiences, when it clearly foreshad-ows Jesus’.

Despite the differences in each author’s presentation, the similaritiesbetween the three indicate a similar source. I suggest that Tertullian andAphrahat (perhaps indirectly)57 are dependent on Justin. While some ofthe christological interpretations connected with several verses of Psalm22 appear older than Justin, his in-depth, verse by verse exegesis is thefirst of its kind. Furthermore, Justin contextualizes his interpretationwithin a Jewish-Christian debate. He is arguably propelled to thisexegesis by the intransigency of his opponents. In the following centu-ries, his patent argument, with supporting prooftexts, finds favor withother polemicists searching for ammunition in their on-going strugglewith the Jews. It is still uncertain whether the christological significanceof Psalm 22.17c pre-dates Justin, but it is evident that Justin ushers thisverse into the Jewish-Christian debate. Justin’s exegesis becomes themodel for later polemicists. Tertullian echoes Justin without muchemendation, while Aphrahat, starting perhaps with Justin, carries hisillustration one step (and verse) further. This exegetical structure, createdwithin the context of early Jewish-Christian debates, or simply withinearly Christian struggles for self-identification, becomes central for laterAdversus Judaeos writers.

Naomi Koltun-Fromm is an Assistant Professor in the Department ofReligion, Haverford College.

Psalm 22's Christological Interpretive Tradition in Light of Christian anti-Jewish Polemic

Documents

Transcript of Psalm 22's Christological Interpretive Tradition in Light of Christian anti-Jewish Polemic