7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

1/11

1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: A RETROSPECTIVEAFTER TWENTY-FIVE YEARS

WENDELL WILLIS

Abilene Christian University

It has been twenty-five years since Ifinishedmydoctoral dissertation dealing

with 1 Corinthians 8-10.1

Although little had been published on the topic of idol

meat in Corinth when I did my initial research, the last quarter century has

witnessed much greater attention to this passage (so much so, that it is not

manageable to review the subsequent publications even briefly in an article).

Although I have not published on this topic since the dissertation, I continue to

find it highly intriguing and thought a survey of the subsequent research might be

of some interest. I have two objectives in mind.

Thefirstis simply to summarize the discussion since 1981 to see what variedquestions and approaches have been applied to this section of 1 Corinthians.

Many of the subsequent studies of the passage have included some of this

Forschungsgeschichte, so I need not sketchthose developments fully. The second

is to see if there are areas of consensus that have developed. Often biblical

scholarship is criticized as being "always learning and yet never coming to a

knowledge of the truth." That is, some people accuse the discipline of being an

endless rehashing of largely obvious concerns. Thus I am curious whether

progress has been made in this small topic of Pauline study.

The Unity of1 Corinthians 8-10

One area in which a trend has developed is the unity of these chapters.

Johannes Weiss argued that the views expressed in chapters 8 and 10 were so

different that it was not conceivable they had come in the same letter (but not so

different that they had not both comefromPaul). Such a partition approach was

followed by Jean Hering and Walter Schmithals.2

However, in the last quarter

1Wendell Lee Willis, IdolMeat in Corinth (SBLDS 68; Scholars Press, 1985; repr.;

) S

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

2/11

104 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

century a consensus has developed that these chapters did come as one unit at the

same time. Two reasons are now proposed for this conclusion. Some have argued

that the ideas expressed are not in disagreement (there is ideological unity in the

chapters).3

Others, emphasizing rhetorical criticism, have affirmed a unity based

on form.4

Of course, many have argued for both evidences of unity.5

Regarding the tensions alleged between chapter 8 and 10:1-22, Gordon Fee and

Ben Witherington6

believe that Paul rejects the eating of sacrificial meat when it

is associated with a temple, but not when the meat is in another location (unless

someone objects that this is "holy sacrifice"). David Horrell sharpens this assess

ment saying that it is only when the act of eating is overtly tied to worship

whether in a temple or a home. (Thus it is conceivable that the meat could be

eaten in a temple dining hall if it was not a "religious occasion.")7

In some ways, the rise of rhetorical criticism has changed the focus of study.

There is less attention to the historical situation (including the church situation

in Corinth) and more on the arrangement of Paul's argument. This does not mean

the historical questions are resolved, but they are relegated to lesser emphasis.

Peter Gooch insists that 8:1-11:1 must be taken as a whole.8

He argues that

the tension alleged between Paul's argument in 8 (do not injure the weak Chris

tian) and 10:1-22 (do not participate in worship involving demons) is to be

solved as two sections of Paul's response to the problem. It is his persuasive

1962). Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971). Partition

is still maintained by some, Gerhard Seilin, "Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes,"

ANRW2.25A:2964-&6. Also Khiok-khing Yeo, RhetoricalInteraction in 1 Corinthians

8-10 (Biblnt 9; Leiden: Brill, 1995); Lamar Cope, "First Comthians 8-10: Continuity or

Contradiction?" ATR Supp 11 (1990): 114-23.3

Most exhaustively illustrated by Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of

Reconciliation (HUT 28; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991), who also strongly emphasizesthe rhetorical unity of the letter.

4H. Merklein, "Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes," ZNWTS (1984):

153-33. See also David G. Horrell, "Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?"

JSNT61 (1997): 83-114. Anders Erikksson, Traditions as Rhetorical Proof(ConBNT

39; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1998).5

For example, Mitchell, and also Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the

Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 607-9.6

Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerd

mans, 1987). Ben Witherington III, Conflict andCommunity in Corinth (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1995); also Witherington, "Not So Idle Thoughts about EIDOLOTHUTON,"

TynBul44 (1993): 237-54.

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

3/11

WILLIS/1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: A RETROSPECTIVE 105

strategy.9Joop Smit argues that 8:1-6 is a rhetoricalpartitio oftwo halves: 8:1-3

introduces the themes of 8:7-9:27 (e.g., accommodate one's own rights for

others), and 8:4-6 previews the second argument in 10:1-22 (there is real dangerbecause while idols are not gods, these "so-called gods" are actually demons).

10

Fee, in explaining why Paul begins arguing about the right understanding of true

Christian beliefs (chap. 8) only to proceed to forbid the eating of sacrificial meat

in pagan temples (10:18), says "he begins this way because this is how they [the

Corinthians who wrote him] began."11

The Function of1 Corinthians 9

Another topic involved in the question of compositional unity is the role of

chapter 9. Some scholars have seen in chapter 9 Paul's defense against certaincritics in Corinth. Others see the chapter as one of Paul's arguments to persuade

the Corinthians to follow the practice of conduct he outlines in chapter 8.

Eriksson terms it a digressio, but he means that Paul does present himself as an

example of one who forgoes hisrights.12(Digressio here does not mean detour

but, as in rhetorical analysis, a section that is used between refutatios.)

Horrell says that while there is defensiveness in how Paul describes his

ministiy and his renunciation of rights in chapter 9, "in the argument of the

passage as a whole, it clearly serves as an example."13

Fee holds a similar view,

although with perhaps more emphasis upon the apologetic role of Paul's argument. He thinks Paul makes too much of his apostolic status for it simply to

function as an example of foregoing one's legitimate rights.14

This is part of his

basic thesis: the letter represents a conflict between the church and its founder;

therefore, Paul must defend his apostolic authority.15

9Gooch,83f.10

Joop Smit, "1 Cor 8:1-6: A Rhetorical Partitio," in The Corinthian Correspon

dence (ed. R. Bieringer; BETL; Leuven: University Press, 1996), 577-91. More fullydeveloped in "About the Idol Offerings,"Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology ofPaul 's

Discourse in First Corinthians 8:111:1 (CBET 2; Leuven: Peeters, 2000). Seealso thecritical assessment by Piet Farla, "The Rhetorical Composition of1 Cor 8,111,1," ETL80(2004): 114-20.

11Fee, 390.1 made the same point, 268-74. Eriksson, 148-50, says that in chap. 8

Paul follows a rhetorical form called insinuation used when the speaker must accommodate to successful arguments used by opponents. Mitchell, 241,297f, rejects the viewthat the letter's composition reflects the impact of contacts from Corinth.

12

Eriksson, 152.13 Horrell, 92.14Fee,392f.

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

4/11

106 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

Quotations from the Corinthians

Another area of frequent discussion is whether in these two chapters Paul

actually quotes from a letter sent by the Corinthians. This is almost universallyagreed with respect to (10:23; cf. also 6:12). But there is also a

broad agreement about some phrases in chapter 8, although there is much

diversity regarding which phrases/sentences are quotations and which are not.

Fotopoulos, for example, accepts quotations in 8:1a, 4, 5 (with Pauline correc

tions), 6 and 8.16

Gooch agrees that in chapter 8 Paul has many quotations (he

appeals to the formula as a marker).17

However, Horrell, agreeing with Fee, says that if there are quotations in 8:1,

4, 6 and 8, nonetheless 'they are opinions which Paul basically shareseven

though he mayqualifythem sharply and differ as to their implications for conduct."

18(Thus in 8:1 Paul includes himself with those who "have knowledge.")

Fee does thinkverses 5 and 6 could represent the Corinthian position, but "it

makes much more sense as Paul's own construct in which he is basicallysetting

up the argument of verse 7 and anticipating the qualification of10:19-20."19

He

also suggests in verse 8 that "the Corinthians have picked up one ofPaul's own

words . . . and are pressing it to their own purposes."20

The Reality and Possible Identity ofSuggested "Parties" in Corinth Related to

the Topic of Eating Sacrificial Food

F. C. Baur21

argued that there were distinct factions in the Corinthian church

and that one decisive manifestation of their divisions was varied attitudes toward

eating sacrificial food (he thought it was a Jewish-Gentile division). Walter

Schmithals held a similar view, although he said that the factions (strong and

weak) were developed over the issue of"gnosis."22

Today a widespread agree

ment has developed in rejecting the probabilityof identifying distinct groups.

16John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth (WUNT 151;

Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2003), 209.17

Gooch, 61-63.18

Horrell, 86; he adds that "it makes little sense here to divide the opinions of the

Corinthiansfromthose of Paul" (88). Fee, 368,370 n. 6. Similarly, Peter J. Tomson, Paul

and theJewishLaw(CRINT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 193f., who is uncertain if they

are quotations from the Corinthians: "But it appears that basically Paul also shared it,

though not without qualification." Similarly, Thiselton, 628f.19

Fee, 372. He does note, 374, that v. 6 has "a creedal ring to it" but concludes,

"Most likely it is a Pauline construct, created ad hoc in the present argument, but makinguse of language that he has in common with his Hellenistic Jewish origins."

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

5/11

WILLIS/1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: ARETROSPECTIVE 107

One solution put forward by John Hurd23

and followed by his student Peter

Gooch denies that there were factions in Corinth concerning idol meat because

the "weak" are onlya hypothetical Pauline construct, not a real group. Thus, theyargue, Paul sets forth afictivereaction as one of his strategies in seeking to have

the church obey his clear instructions in chapter 10 not to partake of "idol meat."

Others have suggested that although there arefracturesin the Corinthian

church, these do not represent discrete factions but only disagreements over

several issues.24

In respect to the eating of sacrificial meat, there are Christians

who regard this as harmless (even advantageous) and others who are bothered by

the practice. But we know both groups are Gentile since the "weak" have been

previously accustomed to eating the sacrificial meat. Thosefindingtwo groups,

but not "parties," include C. K. Barrett,25

Jerome MurphyO'Connor, Peter Brunt,and David Horrell.

The Possible Occasions of Eating under Discussion

Corinth is one ofthe best excavated cities in Greece, with continuing archae

ological workfor over a hundred years (not counting a few years off for wars).

Among the finds of these excavations have been a number of dining rooms

adjacent or attached to temples. Several studies have reported on these archae

ologicalfinds(especiallybyJerome Murphy-O'Connor and John Fotopoulos).26

But while the realia illustrate the connections between temples and dining inantiquity(a factor that can also be documented in manyother excavations as well

as papyri invitations), it is less certain what they tell us about the situation in

Corinth when Paul wrote to them.

Fee and Witherington emphasize the significance oflocation in explaining

Paul's instructions on eating sacrificial meat. Fee says that Paul in 8 and 10:1-22

has in mind eating in the temple complex (which he forbids) and that in 10:23-30

Paul is thinking of food sold in the market place or eaten at a private residence.27

Witherington makes a similar distinction and adds that means

specificallymeat consumed in a temple or the presence of an idol. Thus all eating

23John Hurd, The Origin ofFirstCorinthians(London: SPCK, 1965). Also Gooch.

24Mitchell sees the letter's purpose as establishing unity. In respect to 8, she speaks

ofthe "strong" and the "weak" as factions ( 126-29). She says, "Myown suspicion is that,on more common-sensical grounds, at Corinth we probably do not have full-blownrepresentatives of any such clearly defined groups" (303).

25C. K. Barrett, "Christianity in Corinth," in Essayson Paul(Philadelphia: West

minster, 1982), 1-27, recognizes preferences among the Corinthians, but not factions.26

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Freedom or the Ghetto (1 Cor 8:1-13; 10:23-11:1 ),"RB 85 (1978) 543 74 d F t l ith th t t i t h l i l

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

6/11

108 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

in an is forbidden, but eating elsewhere is subject only to the con

science of others.28

Peter Tomson argues that Paul consistently opposes the eating of all sacrificial meat on the basis of the halakah of Torah, whether in a temple dining hall

or anywhere else. "Despite his dual world view, Paul allows only one conclusion:

idol food should not be eaten: 'You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and

of the table of demons' ( 10:21 )."29

He doesfindit noteworthythat Paul does not

prohibit improperlyslaughtered meat for Gentiles: "we may conclude that he did

not 'burden' the Gentiles with any dietary restrictions except food sacrificed to

idols."30

Horrell argues that the distinction of what is prohibited is not the meat

() but participation in actions that are construableas worship of the idols. But if one eats in temple dining halls on occasions that

are not specifically worship, that would not violate Paul's views.31

He recognizes

that Paul begins with the concern for the weak in chapter 8 (and his example in

chapter 9), but the second motivation is not the danger of other gods, but the

complacency that leads some to believe they can share other with

impunity. He adds, "the clear implication of 10:20,21 is that certain occasions

are idolatrous: cultic gatherings when things are sacrificed to what Paul calls

demons. A Christian cannot share in such occasions and also share

around Christ's table."32

For this reason verses 10:23-11:1 are not an aside, but summarize Paul's

main argument: their actions must be considerate of the impact on other believers

and maintain the unity and well-being of the community.33

In verse 25-28 Paul

is willing to allow Christians to accept invitations to dine in "various kinds of

social and celebratoryoccasions in the temple restaurants."34

The Nature of Pagan Religious Meals in the Greco-Roman World

Because I wish to reviewthese subsequent discussions, I have chosen seldom

to trace responses to my own work. Here I make an exception because the place

where myworkhas been most often, and most loudly, criticized is in regard to

my interpretation of the meaning of sacrificial meals in pagan religions.35

It is

obvious that I did not express myself carefully. Using a heuristic approach, I

28Witherington, 246-51.

2 9Tomson, 202f. Similarly, Alex Cheung, IdolFood in Corinth (JSNTS 176;

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999).30

Tomson, 206.

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

7/11

WILLIS/1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: ARETROSPECTIVE 109

presented schematically three understandings of pagan religious meals: sacra

mental, fellowship, and social. I criticized thefirsttwo strongly and opted for the

last one. In doing so, I seem to have left the impression that I did not thinkthese

meals were "religious" but "merely" social. I could not at all support such a view;clearly the meals were "religious."

36There is strong evidence that these cults (and

their worshippers) would not have acceptedeven understooda contrast

between "religious" and "social." But the question really should be, what does

"religious" mean in thefirst-centurypagan world? Their gods gave, as one of

their great gifts, occasions for conviviality and enjoyment as an essential aspect

ofsacrifice. This social enjoyment was a positive part ofreligious sacrifice.37(I

do wonder ifthis is not a case in which manyscholars, especially influenced by

some sacramental theologies, have not unwittingly imported later Christian

categories that were unknown to pagans in thefirstcentury).

The Norms and Warrants Expressed by Paul

in Response to the Situation in Corinth

Not all commentators have examined these chapters looking for ethical

categories, which was myprimaryfocus. Fee, commenting on 10:14-22, says that

the basis ofPaul's prohibition of eating sacrificial meat is twofold: "(1) His

understanding of the sacred meal as 'fellowship,' as the unique sharing of be

lievers in the worship of the deity, who was also considered to be present. (2) Hisunderstanding, based on the OT, of idolatry as a locus of the demonic."

38

Tomson argues that Paul opposes Gentile Christian eating practices based

on Jewish halakah, as he previously had done when instructing them.39

He goes

on to argue that in 10:23-29 Paul is creating ways to define what constitutes idol

food in doubtful cases. This definition is essentially the "consciousness" of the

other person and his "intention towards idolatry."40

Regardless ofcontext, the

meat is idolatrous if anyone eating does so in recognition of the pagan gods.

Similarly, Fisk, in his thorough review of Fee's presentations, argues that

does not have a specific association with eating in the templeprecincts, but refers to meat from sacrifice, whether that is eaten in homes,

purchased in the markets, shared in a basicallysocial gathering in a rented temple

dining hall, or in an occasion of worship. Against Fee (and Witherington) he

36Willis, 48.

37Dennis Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 12,

79f.38 Fee, 463.39

Tomson, 192; Cheung, 39-81, also surveys Jewish attitudes.

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

8/11

110 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

argues that location is not a decisive factor in identifying the meat or its

acceptability.41

Horrell42

says that

Paul cites and accepts the theological principles which the strong use to justifytheir to eat . Paul nowhere questions this exousia or the principlesupon which it is based, but what he does do is to maintain that Christian conductinvolves a Christ-like self-giving for others, a self-enslavement, a setting aside ofone's own rights for the sake of the gospel.

43

Thus Horrell (appealing to Fisk) concludes that

1 Cor. 10:1-22 does not, then contradict ch. 8, though it does state that certain

occasions on which would be eatennamely pagan cultic sacri

ficesare prohibited, whether participation offends other Christians or not.However, in view of arguments in chs. 8-9,10:122 does not contain the dominant

focus ofPaul's ethical instruction here."44

He concludes, "In essence Paul argues here that Christian ethics are founded not

upon theological principles but upon a Christological praxis."45

He sees the

prohibition to be part ofa koinonia of demons as well as also being christological

in that the believer is part of the bodyof Christ.

Conclusions

To conclude, I return to the second stated purpose of this review. Has the last

quarter century of study led to any consensus in interpreting the passage? I

believe so. Thus in summary, I would argue the following:

1. The question of the unity of8-10 is widely accepted as established, both

because most recent interpreters have seen Paul's view of eating sacrificial meat

in 8 and in 10:14-22 as the same and because the application of rhetorical

methodology has demonstrated the functional relationships between the parts of

these chapters.

2. The function of chapter 9 is now largely regarded as presenting an

exemplum (probatio) within the invention of the argument (although some still

find a defensive aspect to the chapter, suggesting a Pauline attitude of feeling

evaluated negatively, as seems indicated in chapters 3 and 4). At the least, the

chapter is seldom regarded as a digression or an aside.46

Mitchell summarizes

41Fisk, 55-59.

42Horrell, 94ff.

43Ibid., 101.

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

9/11

WILLIS/1 CORINTHIANS 8-10: A RETROSPECTIVE 111

correctly that "all attempts to analyze 1 Cor 9 as a true defense against actual

charges have failed."47

3. Quotations from the Corinthians' letter in chapter 8 are now often

accepted. Most scholarsfindsome quotations in verses 1,4, and 8, and many inverse 6. However, there is no uniformity on precisely which verses (and to what

extent in those verses) are actual quotations. Also some believe that the quota

tions, either in simple conception or even in actual words, go backto Paul himself

and his teaching in Corinth.

4. The existence of discrete factions in the Corinthian church is now almost

uniformly rejected. Unlike Baur (and later Schmithals), there is very seldom an

attempt to tie the debate over sacrificial meat to the "parties" in chapter 1. Almost

everyone sees the "weak" as simply those who are troubled by the eating of

sacrificial meat and whose unity is found only in that anxiety. Their designation

surely comesfromthose untroubled by eating the meat.

5. Possible occasions of eating sacrificial meat are generally agreed upon as

well, although with less consensus that the first four items. Because most recent

interpretations have taken note of the dining areas adjunct to many ancient

temples and the papyri invitations to dine at a temple [the Serapion], there has

developed a viewthat both in 8 and 10:18ff. these are the dining locations. For

some48

it is precisely the location that makes clear that the meat is prohibited.

Most agree that 10:23-29 have other situations in view(i.e., private homes).49

6. The nature of religious meals is one of the areas with less consensus. But

even here, the "sacramentalism" once found in the pagan meals, allegedlydrawn

from the mystery religions, has few advocates today. The meals have been seen

as (a) clearly idolatrous, (b) forming a worship community, (c) eating with aware

ness of the presence of the patron deity, or (d) primarily social gatherings

(although with a genuine gratitude and belief in the beneficent deity who provides

food from the sacrifice he receives).

7. Norms and warrants used by Paul to motivate the Corinthians to accept his

instructions are also widely agreed to now. Most agree that his primarynorm todiscourage eating in this context is consideration of other believers,50

and most

now grant that Paul also genuinely opposes this kind of eating because it is titular

idolatry (in recognizing the demons disguised as idols). This is not simply a

residual Jewish bias that he consciously or unconsciously carries over from his

past. He may agree with those in Corinth about the "one Lord and one God," but

he disagrees that this true theology negates reality of the pagan idols. (This is

47 Mitchell, Rhetoric, 244.48

Witherington, "Not So Idle Thoughts," 254. Gooch devotes two chapters to

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

10/11

112 RESTORATION QUARTERLY

contested by those such as Tomson, who thinks the primarynorm, drawn from

Judaism, is the avoidance of anything that is colored by recognition of pagan

deities).

This motivation is often connected with a higher ecclesiologyin Paul. Thus

his warning about the impact on others of eating is not simply about this or that

Christian who is bothered by eating, but that these people are part of the Christiancommunity. Thus to sin against them is to "sin against Christ" (= the church, cf.

the language in 10:16). This emphasis also finds support in the more

corporate understanding of"build up" in Pauline theology.

8. Another change in the last quarter century is the widespread agreement

that Paul uses imitation of his conduct as a norm for Christian behavior groundedin a belief that Christians should imitate Christ (11:1). The previous Protestant

anxiety about seeing Christ as a model (even mediated through Paul) has been

largely abandoned. Also largely abandoned as a motivation is a Pauline critique

ofa Corinthian "sacramentalism" (often argued as being to parallel the analogy

in 10:1-12).

In conclusion, what I regard as essential to a proper understanding, but

seldom directly addressed, is the motive for those Corinthian believers who

desired to partake in "idol meat." Schmithals's suggestion (theywere motivated

by a Gnostic bravado) has few supporters today. Fee, rejecting Schmithals, still

says, "The nature of this argument [in 10:1-22] stronglysuggests that those who'thinkthey stand" (v. 12) do so on the basis ofa somewhat magical view of the

sacraments."51

Some, such as Richard Horsley, have suggested it is a Hellenistic-

Jewish understanding ofspirituality andfreedom.Others have thought that some

believers were motivated by a Cynic-Stoic emphasis upon the freedom ofthe

wise. In all these cases, it seems that those desiring to eat the meat must be

assumed to have a view that actually minimizes the "religious" significance of

their prior eating. Since most were pagans before conversion, we should think

that people who are sufficiently motivated to change their religion (especiallyin

the radical way that Christianity proposed by denying the reality of the deitiesthey once worshipped and their larger community still does worship) are most

likely to have been active participants in their former religion. If they had

previously viewed those idols as "divine presence" at the temple banquets, could

they easily have then discounted their significance? More likely they had

experienced the cultic dining as predominately a convivial occasion with others

(although surely acknowledging the presence ofthe deityin appropriate ways and

with due piety). But there was little sense of the "numinous" (to import a later,

anachronistic category for its heuristic value) present in the meals, thus making

it understandable that they are very reluctant to give up "idol meat."

52

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8 - 10

11/11

^ 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.