Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
HANS BOERSMA
Hans Boersma
Religious Studies Department, Trinity Western University, 7600 Glover Road, Langley, BC
Canada V2Y 1Y1
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003 Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350
Main Street, Maiden, MA 02148, USA
164 Hans Boersma
Derrida does not dare claim some divine hospitable transcendent signifier
(as traditionally understood) that underwrites our human hospitality.16 The
result of such a claim would be, for Derrida, a fundamentalist absolutism
that cannot but lead to violence, as witnessed most poignantly in the war for
the "appropriation of Jerusalem".17
The final difference between Derrida and apophaticism has to do with the
possibility of the realization of the eschatological future: for apophatic
theology the future visio Dei will be realized; the messianic future is not
structurally "to come". For Eastern theology, God's people will, in the
eschatological future, ascend into the glory of God and so—in a real sense—
be deified. Mystical union is today's foretaste of our ultimate theosis or deifi-
cation. Regardless of the indeterminacy of the beatific vision, this state of
bliss will not forever remain à venir. Derrida, as we have seen, cannot grant
the possibility of hospitality ever leading to the consummation of commu-
nion within the historical and temporal conditions of existence: for him the
messianic future is ever still to come: its very realization—its determinacy—
would imply the continuation of violence and injustice.
Derrida's philosophy is apophatic—but it is an apophaticism of a particu-
lar brand: apophaticism without divine transcendence (or "superessential-
ity"), without divine hospitality (it is always our hospitality toward the
other), and without determinate future realization.18 The result is that
Derrida's hospitality turns out to have some restrictions of its own—not the
Kantian restrictions of universal hospitality but restrictions that may render
it no less vulnerable to the danger of unjustified violence. First, Derrida's
demand of pure hospitality means—in his own words—that I must be open
for even the devil to come in. Many will find such a radically unconditional
hospitality even less appealing than the restrictions imposed by Kant's uni-
versal hospitality.19 A Derridean unconditional hospitality in our universe
would lead to chaos and likely to more violence than a Kantian universal
hospitality. Attempts fully to embody unconditional hospitality will lead to
an increase of violence and will so restrict hospitality rather than encourage
it.
Second, Derrida's radicalization of apophaticism in the direction of a
closed universe has a dramatic consequence. His ideal of pure hospitality
cannot possibly lead to the situation of absolute or undeconstructible justice
that he envisages. Every situation in time and space is already characterized
by violence. The eschatological future always remains to come (à venir).
Derrida's awareness of the impossibility of pure hospitality means that he
makes some interesting Kantian concessions. "Just hospitality," says Derrida,
"breaks with hospitality by right; not that it condemns or is opposed to it, and it
can on the contrary set and maintain it in a perpetual progressive movement;
but it is as strangely heterogeneous to it as justice is heterogeneous to the law
to which it is yet so close, from which in truth it is indissociable."20 Here
Derrida makes the remarkable comment that "just hospitality" (his pure or
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
168 Hans Boersma
Other (tout autre) whom we know in Jesus Christ and through the pages of
the Scriptures. Furthermore, it is a hospitality that will be realized in the
eternal Kingdom of God. In other words, unlike Derrida's pure hospitality,
Irenaeus's eschatological hospitality is based on divine transcendence
and divine hospitality, and assumes a future point at which this absolute
eschatological hospitality will be realized.
were slain because of their love to God, in that they should be revived again;
and that in the creation in which they endured servitude, in that they should
reign".50 The millennial Kingdom is to be followed by the final judgement,
after which the millennial Kingdom of the Son will give way to the eternal
Kingdom of God.
The boundary between the Kingdom of the Son and the Kingdom of God
remains blurry. The growth toward incorruptibility and immortality starts
already during the millennial reign of Christ, and it simply continues into
the eternal Kingdom of God. The millennial Kingdom "is the commence-
ment of incorruption, by means of which Kingdom those who shall be
worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature (capere
Deum) "51 Once this state of perfection has been reached, the last judge-
ment will take place and the Son will "yield up His work to the Father" (cf.
1 Cor. 15:25-26).52 Christopher R. Smith rightly concludes: "The Irenaean
'millennium' ends with a decided whimper in terms of earthly events."53
The porous boundary between the millennium and the eternal life that
follows is indicative of the difficulty that Irenaeus experiences in attempting
to describe the reality of eternal life. On the one hand, he wants to insist on
the creaturely integrity of eternal life, with all the particularity of historicity
and temporality that this implies. Hence, Irenaeus sees the down-to-earth
character of the Kingdom of the Son stretch beyond the millennium into the
very Kingdom of God:
For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated
(for faithful and true is He who has established it), but "the fashion of
the world passetti away;" that is, those things among which transgres-
sion has occurred, since man has grown old in them But when this
[present] fashion [of things] passes away, and man has been renewed,
and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility
of becoming old, [then] there shall be the new heaven and the new earth,
in which the new man shall remain [continually], always holding fresh
converse with God And as the presbyters say, Then those who are
deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy
the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the
city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see
Him shall be worthy.54
Irenaeus insists on the continuation of the created order after the millennium
has given way to the Kingdom of God itself. This created order is seen in
the various "mansions" of the righteous—descending in levels of glory:
heaven itself, paradise, and the city of Jerusalem. This eternal glory shall
"ever continue without end".5D Immortality, for Irenaeus, is not entry into a
time-less eternity but is simply time without end.56
One of the consequences of this affirmation of an eternal continuation of
time and matter is that the linguistic structures of human existence will also
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
174 Hans Boersma
vision of God in the Old Testament and that leads to the eschatological vision
of that same God in the Kingdom of God. Irenaeus's transcendent signifier
(God) means the possibility of a future visio Dei that promises to satisfy the
human longing for hospitality. Derrida's lack of a divine transcendental sig-
nifier (his rejection of the "superessentiality" or "hyperousiology" of nega-
tive theology) means that no matter how affirmative he may want to be of
justice, democracy, and messianicity, his pure hospitality can never hope to
enjoy the arrival of that future. Hospitality is always and only our hospital-
ity to the other; it is never the hospitality of the other toward us, let alone
the hospitality of the divine other toward us. However well intentioned, it
means that Derrida's absolute hospitality always remains a far-off messianic
ideal that we cannot possibly hope will ever come to fruition.
The impossibility of Derrida's hospitality goes back to his radicalizing of
the apophatic tradition by insisting on an unconditional or pure hospitality
here and now. If we could only appropriately refer to a particular act as an
act of hospitality when it is an act of pure or unconditional hospitality, this
would indeed mean that hospitality would be unattainable in our world. It
is not clear to me, however, why it wouldn't be possible to refer to certain
acts in this world as acts of hospitality despite their creational limitations
and even the presence of some degree of violence.60 If God's eschatological
hospitality reaches into our world through concrete acts of hospitality,
they of course share in the restrictions and violence that accompany these
actions.61 But that does not make it impossible for us to refer to such acts as
acts of hospitality. As long as it is God's absolute or eschatological hospital-
ity that lies behind and sustains this-worldly acts of hospitality, we have
warrant to trust that his eschatological hospitality will deal with any injus-
tice or violence that still accompanies this-worldly imperfect and conditional
acts of hospitality.
Derrida's vision of hospitality would gain credibility if it included the
structural tension inherent in Irenaeus's vision of eschatological hospitality.
For Irenaeus, the apophatic strain always needs to be qualified by kataphatic
elements. Such qualification is necessary to shield the eschatological vision
from a Gnostic depreciation of the created particularity. To be sure, the
Irenaean tension is not entirely absent from Derrida. As we have seen, he
does affirm the need to engage in the practice of hospitality here and now,
despite the conviction that we will never truly attain it.62 But for Derrida this
practice will always be a concession to the "hyperousiology" of Eastern
Orthodoxy and ultimately to the particular messianic visions of kataphatic
theology. Our necessarily conditional acts of hospitality will therefore always
remain for him a betrayal of unconditional or pure hospitality.
Irenaeus, on the other hand, is capable of accepting the tension because
he is willing to live with the mystery involved in the dividing line between
the here and now and the eschaton. He acknowledges the mystery of the
hospitality of God: it is a future in which the Father will be "bestowing in a
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
176 Hans Boersma
paternal manner those things which neither the eye has seen, nor the ear has
heard, nor has [thought concerning them] arisen within the heart of man".
Even the angels "are not able to search out the wisdom of God, by means of
which His handiwork, confirmed and incorporated with His Son, is brought
to perfection "63 In the end, therefore, the mystery of the combination of
the physical and the ethical remains exactly that—a mystery, unresolved by
human predication. This acknowledgement of mystery is hardly an abdica-
tion of epistemic responsibility; rather, it is an admission of an epistemic
fissure between the conditions of our present existence and those of the
eschatological Kingdom of Peace.64
Irenaeus's struggle to live with the tension between the apophatic ten-
dencies of a physical redemption and the kataphatic tendencies of an ethical
redemption may well have its weaknesses, most notably the absence of a
comprehensive rationality that explains how the Eastern and Western lines
of thought might be combined or held in balance. On the other hand, it is
not at all clear that Derrida is able to overcome this difficulty: the tension is,
at least latently, present also in Derrida; he cannot escape the tension of
having to embody the practice of what he terms "hospitable narcissism". It
must be pursued, despite its narcissism, in the interest of absolute hospital-
ity and justice. Moreover, while Irenaeus's two approaches may be in
tension, they are not contradictory: eschatological hospitality is, after all,
divine hospitality. It is not at all evident that the limitations that our current
conditions impose on hospitality extend also to the divine reality of escha-
tological hospitality. The demand for a logically tight system of thought may
well be a remnant of a rationalist Enlightenment mindset that leaves little
room for the mysteries of faith. An Irenaean approach to hospitality would
be quite justified in appealing to the mystery of God and in positing not only
that God's eschatological hospitality is able to combine the apophatic and
the kataphatic, but also that it does so in a way that in the end overcomes
all violence. Our lack of comprehension encourages us to implement a
welcoming spirit of openness and grace within the particularities of our
time-space universe, in the awareness that when God implements his
eschatological hospitality it will infinitely transcend ours.
Irenaeus's genius is that he grounds human hospitality—our openness
toward an eschatological or messianic future to come—in God's own escha-
tological hospitality. An immanent foundation of hospitality (whether it be
Kant's universal hospitality or Derrida's pure hospitality) means that we
can hold out little hope of a hospitality by which God will actually "draw
all things to Himself".63 An anthropological grounding of pure hospitality
evokes little trust and hope for a better future. I conclude, therefore, that
Irenaeus's understanding of eschatological hospitality contains a transcen-
dent warrant that allows for the flourishing of a human hospitality, which,
unhindered by Derridean restrictions, acts today in the hope of the arrival
of the Kingdom of Peace.
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
Irenaeus, Derrida and Hospitality 177
NOTES
1 I want to express my appreciation to Dr. Robert E. Webber, Dr. Dennis L. Okholm and the
other members of the CCCU Faculty Development Workshop in Theology held at Wheaton
College (May 27-June 3,2001) for their interaction with some of the material that I am pre-
senting in this paper. I also thank Dr. James K. A. Smith, as well as the two peer reviewers
for Modern Theology, for their extensive and helpful comments.
2 Emmanuel Lévinas, Basic Philosophical Writings, ed. Adriaan T. Peperzak, Simon Critchley,
and Robert Bernasconi (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996), p. 11. Cf. Bruce
Ellis Benson, Graven Images: Nietzsche, Derrida, and Marion on Modern Idolatry (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 113.
3 Adriaan Peperzak, To the Other: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Emmanuel Lévinas (West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1993), p. 22.
4 Emmanuel Lévinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Interiority, trans. Alphonso Lingis
(Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1961), p. 194.
5 Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace, ed. Lewis White Beck (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill,
1957), pp. 20-21.
6 Jacques Derrida, "Hospitality, Justice and Responsibility: A Dialogue with Jacques
Derrida/' in Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, ed. Richard Kearney
and Mark Dooley (London: Routledge, 1999), p. 70; cf. John D. Caputo, The Prayers and
Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion (Bloomington, LN: Indiana University
Press, 1997), p. 145; Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle Invites Jacques
Derrida to Respond, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000),
p. 77.
7 Derrida also calls this pure hospitality the "hospitality of visitation,,/ which he contrasts
with the "hospitality of invitation", which we extend on our own terms and is conditional.
See Brian Russell, "Developing Derrida: Pointers to Faith, Hope and Prayer", Theology Vol.
104 no. 822 (November-December, 2001), p. 406.
8 Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New
International, trans. Peggy Kamuf (New York, NY: Routledge, 1994), p. 65.
9 John D. Caputo, Prayers and Tears, p. 74.
10 In the face of God's transcendence, apophatic theology only negates and denies: we can
only say what God is not. Kataphatic theology, on the other hand, positively or affirma-
tively states what God is like. Although apophatic theology has also influenced mystical
strands of Western theology, Western apophatic theologians have tended to be marginal.
In Eastern Orthodoxy, apophatic theology has always been central.
11 Cf. Harold Coward and Toby Foshy, ed., Derrida and Negative Theology (New York, NY:
State University of New York Press, 1992).
12 It remains of course a question of debate whether the Eastern notion of deification is ap-
propriate to describe this transformation or whether it compromises the integrity of the
Creator/creation distinction.
13 Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press, 1982), p. 6. Cf. Caputo, Prayers and Tears, p. 7.
14 Caputo, Prayers and Tears, p. 11.
15 Ibid., p. 56.
16 For Derrida, prayer is not addressed to a transcendent being but is an empty space (khôra)
of waiting, beyond all being and non-being. Cf. Russell, "Developing Derrida", pp. 403-411.
17 Derrida, Specters of Marx, p. 58.
18 These modifications may, in fact, move Derrida closer to Gnostic than to apophatic
theology. For Derrida, the material and the historical are inherently violent and as such
problematic. Fortunately, Derrida is hardly consistent in his disavowal of determinacy. See
James K. A. Smith, "Hope Without Hope?: A Phenomenological Critique of Derrida's
'Messianic' Expectation", forthcoming in Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments, eds.
Yvonne Sherwood and Kevin Hart (London: Routledge, 2003).
19 Derrida is aware that his notion of pure hospitality may itself lead to violence: "Why did
Kant insist on conditional hospitality? Because he knew that without these conditions hos-
pitality could turn into wild war, terrible aggression. Those are the risks involved in pure
hospitality, if there is such a thing and I am not sure that there is" ("Hospitality, Justice and
Responsibility", p. 71). For incisive criticism on this point, see Richard Kearney, "Desire
of God" in God, the Gift, and Postmodernism, ed. John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999), pp. 126-128.
20 Jacques Derrida, Of Hospitality, pp. 24-25 (emphasis added); cf. p. 79.
21 Jacques Derrida, Points . . . ; Interviews, 1974^-1994, ed. Elisabeth Weber, trans. Peggy Kamuf
et al. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), p. 199.
22 For an analysis of the presence of the various atonement motifs in Irenaeus, see my
"Redemptive Hospitality in Irenaeus: A Model for Ecumenicity in a Violent World", Pro
Ecclesia Vol. 11 no. 2 (2002), p. 207.
23 The common terminology of a "physical" understanding of redemption is somewhat
confusing and unfortunate. The term, coined by Harnack, describes the notion that the
physicality of the union of the two natures m the incarnation magically effects a redemption
that is described in the language of ontological transformation—deification. This "physi-
cal" redemption does not imply, however, a corresponding emphasis on the continuation
of materiality in eternal life. On the contrary, a "physical" understanding of redemption
tends to coincide with notions of mystical union and deification that tend to soft-pedal
physicality in eternal life.
24 For interpretations that more or less fall into this category, see Demetrios J. Constantelos,
"Irenaeos of Lyons and His Central Views on Human Nature", St Vladimir's Theological
Quarterly Vol. 33 no. 4 (1989), pp. 351-363; Gabriel Daly, "Theology of Redemption in
the Fathers" in Witness to the Spirit: Essays on Revelation, Spirit, Redemption, ed. Wilfrid
Harrington (Dublin: Irish Biblical Association; Manchester: Koinonia Press, 1979), pp.
137-139.
25 Cf. Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1994), p. 124; Michael C. D. McDaniel, "Salvation as Justification
and Theosis" in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and
Robert Tobias (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press, 1992), pp. 67-83,174-177.
26 Some interpretations see a contradiction between the physical and ethical lines of thought
in Irenaeus: Robert F. Brown, "On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus'
Adversus Haereses IV, 38", Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 28 no. 1 (1975), pp. 17-25; Adolph
von Harnack, History of Dogma, trans. Neu Buchanan, second edition (London: Williams &
Norgate, 1896), Vol. 2, pp. 267-275. Others are more sympathetic, attempting to show the
unity of Irenaeus's thought: Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three
Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, trans. A. G. Hebert (London: SPCK, 1970), pp. 16-35;
Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Chris-
tianity to Irenaeus, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1970), pp. 442-446;
Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, trans. Olive
Wyon (London: Lutterworth Press, 1934), pp. 249-264; Douglas Farrow, "St. Irenaeus of
Lyons: The Church and the World", Pro Ecclesia Vol. 4 no. 3 (1995), pp. 333-355; Trevor
A. Hart, "Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption" in Christ in Our Place: The
Humanity of God in Christ for the Reconciliation of the World, ed. Trevor A. Hart and Daniel P.
Thimell (Exeter: Paternoster; Allison Park: Pickwick, 1989), pp. 165-167; Gustaf Wingren,
Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus, trans. Ross Mackenzie
(Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1959), pp. 26-28.
27 To be sure, Eastern Orthodoxy understands deification to involve the transfigured resur-
rection body (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, new ed. [London: Penguin, 1997], pp.
232-235). Nonetheless, the question remains how union with God can go hand in hand with
a continuation of the material, especially considering the fact that the Eastern Church
has undergone the strong influence of a Neoplatonic devaluation of the body in mystical
theology.
28 For some notable exceptions, see Christopher R. Smith, "Chiliasm and Recapitulation
in the Theology of Ireneus", Vigiliae Christianae Vol. 48 (December, 1994), pp. 313-331;
Terranee Tiessen, "Irenaeus on Salvation and the Millennium," Didascalia Vol. 3 no. 1
(October, 1991), pp. 2-5.
29 Irenaeus against Heresies [henceforth AH\, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander
Roberts and James Donaldson (1885; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994),
V.36.1.
30 H. E. W. Turner's classic study puts it well: "The idea of deification is clearly present,
but it is almost as if a reverential glottal-stop prevents the use of the actual term" (The
Patristic Doctrine of Redemption: A Study of the Development of Doctrine during the First Five
Centuries [London: Mowbray; New York, NY: Morehouse!Gorham, 1952], pp. 76!77). Cf.
also Hart, "Irenaeus, Recapitulation and Physical Redemption", p. 153.
31 AH m.6.1!3;IV.48.4.
32 AH IV.38.4
33 AH IV.33.4.
34 See especially Mary Ann Donovan, "Alive to the Glory of God: A Key Insight in St.
Irenaeus", Theological Studies Vol. 49 (June, 1988), pp. 283!297.
35 AH IV.20.5!6.
36 AH ΠΙ.20.5; cf. IV.20.1; 20.7; cf. Terranee L. Tiessen, Irenaeus on the Salvation of the Unevan!
gelized (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993), pp. 84r!86.
37 Cf. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, pp. 133!134.
38 AH V.6.1; 9.1.
39 St. Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (henceforth Dem.), trans. Joseph P. Smith (New
York, NY: Paulist Press, 1952), pp. 11,15; cf. AH ΙΠ.20.2. Irenaeus appears to make a dis-
tinction also within the concept of the "likeness" of God, between homoiotes, which consists
of human freedom (and remains after the Fall) and homoiösis, which consists of the incor-
ruptibility of the Spirit (which is lost in the Fall). See Donovan, "Alive to the Glory of God",
pp. 293-296; John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000), pp. 89-90.
40 AH V.16.2.
41 Kataphatic or positive theology makes positive (or determinate) assertions about God
and about the eschatological future that he brings. Kataphatic theological statements may,
however, still be analogical or metaphorical in character, so that kataphatic theology does
not imply a theological positivism that in some idolatrous fashion claims to capture the
divine.
42 AH V.25.1-36.3.
43 AH V.31.1-2.
44 Cf. Douglas Farrow's comment about Gnosticism: "The temporal exists, insofar as it does
exist, only as a kind of defection from the eternal, the finite as a defection from the infinite,
the creaturely as a defection from the divine. In particular, everything that takes material
form and presents itself to the senses is fundamentally flawed" ("St. Irenaeus of Lyons",
p. 335).
45 AH 1.2.3.
46 Several authors argue that Irenaeus does not know of a millennial Kingdom (Smith,
"Chiliasm and Recapitulation", pp. 315-318; Wingren, Man and the Incarnation, pp. 188-
192). Denis Minns, however, using the Armenian version of Adversus Haereses, convincingly
captures Irenaeus's position as follows: "Humankind was created on the sixth day, and
the course of human history occupies the sixth of the thousand-year periods of creation.
The seventh thousand-year period will be occupied by the Kingdom of the Son" {Irenaeus
[Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994], p. 127).
47 AH V.32.2.
48 AH V.32.2; 33.1.3^; 34.4; 35.1-2.
49 AH V.36.1.
50 AH V.32.1.
51 AH V.32.1.
52 AH V.36.2.
53 Smith, "Chiliasm and Recapitulation", p. 319.
54 AH V.36.1.
55 AH V.36.1.
56 The tension in Irenaeus's theology at this point leads to the paradoxical affirmation in one
and the same paragraph of the disappearance of the world of "temporal things" as well as
of the continuation of "time without end" (AH V.36.1).
57 For a carefully argued defence of the continuation of temporality and language in eternal
life, see James K. A. Smith, The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational
Hermeneutic (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
58 ΑΗΠ.28.3.
59 This is not to say that I endorse Irenaeus's chiliast eschatological outlook.
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 design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.