THE DAYS OF YAHWEH

A. JOSEPH EVERSON
LUTHER COLLEGE, DECORAH, IOWA 52101

HE concept of the Day of Yahweh has long been recognized as a central

theme in prophetic thought about the future. There has been widespread
disagreement, however, about the precise nature or character of the Day of
Yahweh. At the center of the controversy has been the question of the most
appropriate point of departure for understanding the tradition. From what
vantage point can this sacral tradition in Israel's history come into clearest perspective? In recent years most studies have centered on the question of the origin
of the tradition. These studies suggest that the prophetic texts which speak of
a Day of Yahweh will come into focus when the origin of the tradition is
properly understood. Thus, Sigmund Mowinckel maintains that the Day of
Yahweh h to be understood primarily from within the history of Israel's cult.
Within the world of myth and ritual, the Day of Yahweh was originally the
event of the enthronement of Yahweh, the time when Yahweh comes to guarantee victory over enemies, the time when Yahweh brings deliverance from distress and the realization of peace, good fortune, and favorable conditions. The
cultic Day of Yahweh is the time when these realities are reaffirmed for successive generations of people.1 Quite in contrast, Gerhard von Rad contends
that the Day of Yahweh should be understood not from within the cultic context but rather from the perspective of the historical traditions of holy war. The
Day of Yahweh, declares von Rad, is a pure event of war, an event involving the
appearance of Yahweh to annihilate his enemies.2 For Mowinckel, the Day of
Yahweh comes into perspective through the study of Israel's early cult; for von
Rad, the perspective is to be found in the study of the traditions of holy war.3
X

S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien (Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1961), 2. 229.

G. von Rad, "The Origin of the Day of Yahweh," JSS 4 (1959) 97-108. Von Rad
contends that the earliest text, Amos 5:18-20, is an improper point of departure for the
study of the tradition because it is not unequivocal in its mention of the Day of Yahweh.
He rather suggests that Isaiah 13, 34, Ezekiel 7, and Joel 2 provide a secure foundation
in that they are broad and unequivocal in their view of the Day of Yahweh and at the
same time are clearly self-contained units. The four texts are similar in their portrayal
of sacral war, characterized by the call to warriors to assemble for the levy of Yahweh,
sanctification of the army, panic among the enemy, changes in the natural order and the
result which is total destruction.
3
Von Rad's proposals concerning the question of origin may not, in fact, be directly
contradictory to those of Mowinckel. Cf. Frank Cross, "The Divine Warrior in Israel's
2

1974, by the Society of Biblical Literature

330

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

F. Charles Fensham has suggested another perspective. He maintains that

the Day of Yahweh should most properly be viewed against the background of
4
covenant traditions as the event of the execution of treaty curses. And Meir
Weiss has proposed yet another pre-prophetic perspective with his suggestion
that the Day of Yahweh has roots in the ancient motif-complex of the theophany
description, despite its being a "casual and incidental designation uttered by
5
Amos."
All of these origin studies of the tradition are confronted, however, by the
problematic fact that specific locutions of the Day of Yahweh are found only
in the writings of the classical prophets and in the book of Lamentations. Speci
fic references to the concept simply do not appear apart from the prophetic ma
terial to give textual verification to any of the origin theories.
In the prophetic literature there are eighteen texts in which specific reference
to the Day of Yahweh appear. These eighteen texts properly form the basic
field of evidence for the study of the tradition.6 In seven of the texts, prophetic
Early Cult," Biblical Motifs (ed. . Altmann; Cambridge: Harvard University, 1966)
11-30. Cross reviews at some length the strengths and weaknesses of the "heilsgeschicht
liche Schule" and the "Myth and Ritual" approach to the early cult and concludes that
the development of Israel's cultic themes and institutions is far more complex than
envisaged by either of these schools. It involves a tension between mythological material
and themes of historical memory even in the earliest corpus of ancient poetry, law, and
epic traditions. In the heilsgeschichtlich approach, the focus has been on the cult of the
tribal league; in the "myth and ritual" approach, on the cult in the time of the monarchy
largely through the influence of the ideology of holy war. This influence makes the
transition possible and leads ultimately to the ideology of apocalyptic. "The day of
Yahweh is the day of victory in holy warfare; it is also the Day of Yahweh's festival when
the ritual conquest was enacted in the procession of the Ark, the procession of the King
of Glory to the Temple when 'God went up with the festal blast, Yahweh with the sound
of the horn . . . for Yahweh is king of the whole earth'" (p. 3 0 ) .
4
F. C. Fensham, "A Possible Origin of the Concept of the Day of the Lord," Biblical
Essays (Bepeck, S. Africa: Potchefstroom Herald, 1966) 90-97.
5
M . Weiss, "The Origin of the 'Day of the Lord' Reconsidered," HUCA 37 (1966)
29-60.
6
The phrase m m Dl occurs 16 times in prophetic literature in seven prophetic col
lections (Isa 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11; 3:4; 4:14; Amos 5:18 [twice], 20;
Obadiah 15; Zeph 1:4, 14 [twice]; and Mai 3:23). In three additional texts, the phrase
has only the minor variation mm*? Dl (Isa 2:12; Ezek 30:3; Zech 1 4 : 1 ) . Beyond
these specific references there are a number of directly related phrases: m m fray 01,
which occurs twice (Ezek 7:19; Zeph 1:18); m m 01 , which occurs three times (Zeph
2:2, 3; Lam 2 : 2 2 ) ; ID 11 01 3, which occurs in Lam 1:12; and 1SK 01 3, in Lam 2:1.
Further variations are m m 3 01*3 (Zeph 1:8); HDpJ 01 (Jer 4 6 : 1 0 ) ; mm*? Dpi 01
(Isa 3 4 : 8 ) ; ^ Dpi Dl (Isa 6 1 : 2 ) ; 3*73 Dpi Di (Isa 6 3 : 4 ) ; and 01 Dl
H313D1 013D i (Isa 2 2 : 5 ) . Interpreting the Joel references as one portrayal and the
Zephaniah references as one, these eighteen texts constitute the field of evidence for this
study. There are other references to specific "days" in the prophetic writings, i.e., the
day of the whirlwind (Amos 1:4); the evil day (Amos 6 : 3 ) ; the day of trouble (Isa
37:3; Jer 51:2; Ezek 7:7; Nah 1:7); the day of visitation (Isa 1 0 : 3 ) ; the day of Midian
(Isa 9 : 3 ) ; the day of Jezreel (Hos 1:11); and the day of Egypt (Ezek 3 0 : 9 ) . Further,

EVERSON: THE DAYS OF YAHWEH

331

writers speak of future historical or cosmic events.7 In six other instances the
writers use the formula 1 Dl*1 Slip, "near is the day of Yahweh!" to empha
size the imminence of the anticipated event.8 In the other five texts where a
specific reference to the tradition is present, however, the Day of Yahweh con
cept is used by prophetic writers to describe and interpret past historical events.
These five texts which give interpretation to past events are the focus of
this study. Together, they constitute a helpful point of departure for the study
of the Day of Yahweh tradition. The texts are Lamentations, chs. 1 and 2 and
Ezek 13:1-9, which look back on the destruction of Judah and the fall of Jeru
salem in 588-87 B.CE., Jer 46:2-12, which describes the destruction of an Egyptian
army at the battle of Carchemish in 605, and Isa 22:1-14, which looks back on the
destruction in Judah and Jerusalem's narrow escape during the campaign of
Sennacherib in 701.
With this approach to the tradition, we can observe both the poetic freedom
of the prophetic writers and their intense involvement with their tradition and
with the social and political realities of their time. More than this, a funda
mental perspective comes into view when these five texts are used as a departure
point for the study of the Day of Yahweh tradition. The writers look back on
different historical events. In striking contrast to the thesis that the Day of
Yahweh is always set forth as a singular event in the future,9 these texts demon
strate that it is not only appropriate but extremely helpful to speak of a sequence
of historical days of Yahweh when speaking of the prophetic interpretation of
history.
The first three texts are vivid recollections of the great tragedy which marked
the beginning of the exilic era. From the perspective of captivity during the
there are also numerous general expressions such as "in the latter days," "behold, the days
are coming," and the declaration, "in that day," which alone occurs almost 200 times in
the prophetic writings. While it is clear that many of these expressions are related to
the Day of Yahweh tradition, it is methodologically difficult and dangerous to include
such references in the basic field of evidence. See further on sources, L. Cerny, The Day
of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems (Prague: Nakladem Filosoficke Fakulty Uni
versity Karlovy, 1948) 1-26.
7
Amos 5:18-20; Isa 2:12-17; 34:1-17; 61:1-3; 63:1-6; Mal 3:13-24; and Zech
14:1-21.
8
Zeph 1:1-9; Ezek 7:1-27; 30:1-9; Obad 1-21; Isa 13:1-22; and Joel 1-4.
9
Contra H. Gressmann (Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jdischen Eschatologie [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905] 144) : "Keine einzige Grosstat Jahwes in der
Vergangenheit oder damaligen Gegenwart hat den uns bekannten Schriftstellern Anlass
gegeben, von einem Tage Jahwes zu sprechen. berall, wo dieser Ausdruck begegnet,
bezieht er sich auf die Zukunft, d.h. er ist bereits in vorprophetischer Zeit zum eschatologischen Terminus geworden." Also G. B. Gray (Isaiah [ICC; New York: Scribner,
1912] 365-66) : "The 'Day of Yahweh' is always a future event to Hebrew writers. . . ."
and L. Cerny (The Day of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems, vii [quoting A. E.
Garvey]) : ". . . this term is always in our literary documents 'applied to the final and
universal judgment, and not to any less decisive intervention of God in the course of
human history.' " Cerny himself views only Lam 2:22 as a reference to a past event. He
declares, "In all other cases the Day is expected in the future" (p. 2 0 ) .

332

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

exile, the author of the first two chapters of Lamentations looks back on the
bewildering military tragedy that has befallen Judah and Jerusalem. Using
literary techniques of dramatic contrast and dramatic reversal, the writer con
trasts Jerusalem's previous state of well-being with her present state of intense
suffering the city that was full of people sits lonely, Zion that was great
among the nations has become like a widow; she was a princess but is now a
vassal (vs. 1); her former precious things are now gone and she knows only
affliction and bitterness (vs. 7). The drama of the first lament appears as the
woman Zion suddenly interrupts the sombre funeral dirge with the cry in vs. 9c:
Lord, behold my affliction for the enemy has triumphed." Again, in vs. lie,
she calls: "Look, O Lord, and behold, for I am despised!" In vs. 12, the woman
turns to "those who pass by the way," apparently a reference to surrounding
nations. She asks:
Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by the way?
Behold, and see if there is any pain like my pain
which was dealt out to me,
which Yahweh inflicted
in the day of his fierce anger (lot* j n n D ^ l )

In the second chapter lament, the Day of Yahweh terminology is used both
in the opening and closing sections of the acrostic. In the opening lines, the
writer declares:
Ah how, Yahweh in his anger has covered with a cloud the daughter Zion,
He has cast down from heaven to earth the splendor of Israel!
And he has not remembered his footstool in the days of his anger ( Dl ) . (vs. 1)

In vss. 20-22, Daughter Zion recalls the starvation and the horrors of the
past days. Addressing Yahweh, she declares:
Thou hast slain violently in the day of thine anger (1SK D i n )
Thou hast slaughtered without mercy.

In the concluding lines, the past events of the fall of Jerusalem are likened
to the time of an appointed feast when animals were slaughtered for sacrificial
rites. Zion declares:
Thou (Yahweh) didst invite as to the day of an appointed feast
my terrors on every side;
And on the day of the anger of Yahweh ( m m JH Dl O )
none escaped or survived.
Those whom I cared for and reared, my enemy destroyed.

In Ezek 13:5 a similar viewpoint is set out.10 Whatever the original form
of vss. 1-9 may have been, it is clear that vs. 5 functions as part of the basis or
10
Ezekiel 13 is a thematic collection of prophetic oracles directed against false prophets
(vss. 1-16) and false prophetesses (vss. 17-23). Vss. 1-16 have been subdivided in a
great variety of ways because of the irregularities in style, abrupt changes in address (particularly from 2nd to 3rd person), strange repetitions in the phraseology, and contradictions in thought. For the purpose of this paper it is necessary only to note the formal dis-

EVERSON: THE DAYS OF YAHWEH

333

statement of the indictment. By means of a metaphor, reasons for the divine

judgment are cited. Addressing the false prophets, the writer declares:
You have not gone up into the breaches (gaps),
nor have you built a wall for the house of Israel
to stand in battle in the day of Yahweh ( m m DIO Hunten io?'?).

In the oracle in ch. 7, Ezekiel specifically used the Day of Yahweh imagery to
anticipate the fall of Jerusalem. Now from the perspective of the exile, the
prophet looks back in ch. 13 on those frightening events in the nation's history.
The offense of the false prophet was that he did not set himself where the need
was greatest in the front line or in the breach that the people might be
protected by his word of truth. The false prophets remained silent or spoke
falsely and thereby made themselves responsible for the coming of that day of
Yahweh event.
In Jeremiah 46:2-12, the oracle against Egypt reflects on a battle fought
between Egypt and Babylon. The four tablets of the Babylonian Chronicle published in 1956 by the British Museum now demonstrate conclusively that decisive battle was fought between Egypt and Babylon at Carchemish in 605 as
the superscription to this oracle declares:11
About Egypt:
Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho,
king of Egypt, which was along the Euphrates River at Carchemish,
and which Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon,
defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah.

With the most skillful use of irony, the author addresses the proud forces of
Egypt as an army out to do "holy war" on Babylon. The Egyptian army is filled
with self confidence and pride. Crisp battle commands are given:
Make ready buckler and shield, advance for battle!
Harness the horses, mount up, horsemen!
Line up with helmets, polish spears, put on armor! (vss. 3-4)
tinction between vss. 1-9 and 10-16. Each of these units has a similar two-part structure
including a basis and an announcement united by p^, "therefore," and the messenger
formula, mn* 1DK fp, "thus says the Lord" (vss. 8, 13). In each oracle, the basis is an
indictment or statement of past guilt; the announcement is the declaration of the judgment
or punishment declared by Yahweh. See further W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966) 281-93. Zimmerli sees vss. 4, 6 and 7b as
later additions to the original text of vss. 1-9.
u
Cf. D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (London: Trustees of the
British Museum, 1961) 66-69. This oracle is the first of the thematic collection of
oracles of judgment directed against foreign nations in Jeremiah. As recently as 1955, A.
Weiser, following the lead of W. Rudolph, saw no evidence that Nebuchadrezzar had
come as far north as Carchemish in 605 and consequently viewed the superscription as a
telescoped reference to events at Carchemish in 609, with the following lines referring to
later encounters further south. See A. Weiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jerema (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955) 390.

334

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

According to the traditional pattern of holy war language, one is led to expect
that this army will, of course, go forth to be victorious in battle. But suddenly
the prophet exclaims:
But what do I see? They are dismayed and have turned back.
Their warriors are beaten down and fled in haste without looking back!
Terror is on every side. Word of Yahweh.
Egypt has been guilty of gross arrogance. She has thought of her own power as
being ultimate power in the world. In her boast she has declared:
I will rise up, I will cover the earth
I will destroy a city and the inhabitants in it. (vs. 8)
It was because of excessive pride and arrogance that Egypt was cut down at
Carchemish. Interpreting what has happened in the past, the prophet declares:
that day was the day of Yahweh of hosts (mm 'ru Kinn Dl 1 )
his day of vindication, to be vindicated of his foes. (vs. 10)
The entire oracle thus assumes the character of a taunt song, mocking proud
Egypt whose army is now destroyed. For the prophet the past event was not
simply a confrontation between Egypt and Babylon. It was a confrontation be
tween Egypt and Yahweh, whose sovereign position as Lord of all nations was
being challenged and usurped by Egypt. Because Egypt has violated the boun
daries prescribed for earthly nations, she has suffered the inevitable consequence
of judgment in history, her day of Yahweh.
Finally, there is strong evidence that Isa 22:1-14 should also be understood in
retrospect as the bitter reflection of the prophet on an earlier day of Yahweh
event, that being the tragic sequence of events in Judah and Jerusalem in 701.
If the reports in the Annals of Sennacherib12 and in 2 Kgs 18:13-16 witness
to the historical realities behind Isa 22:1-14, as seems most probable, then Isaiah's
use of Day of Yahweh imagery to interpret those past events can be readily under
stood.13 In the various sections of this oracle, the focus is consistently on past
events. Therefore, it seems logical that vs. 5 should be translated with a preterite
meaning:
For the Lord, Yahweh of hosts, has had a day
of tumult, trampling and confusion in the valley of vision
(mm 'ru naui maino DI O )
13

288.

Cf. the "Bull Inscription" (G. Smith, History of Sennacherib), quoted in ANET,

33
See J. Bright, "The Problem of Sennacherib's Campaigns in Palestine," A History of
Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959) 282-287. He sets forth the position that 2 Kgs
18:17-19:37 (// Isaiah 36-37) refers to a later campaign. For a review of recent criti
cism of this chapter, see B. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (London: SCM, 1967)
22-21. Childs refuses to relate this chapter to a known historical event, contending that
it simply does not provide the necessary information, but agrees that vs. 5 refers to a past
event.

335

EVERSON: THE DAYS OF YAHWEH

Behind this designation stands not just the memory of the siege against Jerusalem
and the payment of heavy tribute, but also the painful memories of the devastation of Judah which, according to Sennacherib's Annals, included the destruction
of 46 cities, various walled forts, and countless small villages. Soberly, the
prophet Isaiah writes in 22:8:
He (Yahweh) took away the covering of Judah!

The most frightening reality for Isaiah, however, is that as he looks around
he sees no sign that his contemporaries have understood the meaning of the past
events. Instead of serious reflection, he sees only frivolous conduct, feasting and
drinking (vss. 1, 2, 12b) all summarized in the attitude expressed in vs. 12:
"Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die!" By this irresponsible conduct the
people demonstrate and confirm their own utter disregard for Yahweh. What
this means is that by their present actions the people reveal their own calloused
and self-centered view of life. Presupposed throughout this oracle is the conviction that the catastrophe of 701 could have been avoided by wise and prudent
actions by the people and by their political leaders. Now because they refuse
even to reflect on the meaning of what has happened, the people seal their own
death:
Surely, this will not be forgiven you
until you die, says the Lord, Yahweh of hosts,

(vs. 14)

From this survey of the five texts three basic conclusions can be drawn.
First of all, because these five texts are interpretations of past events, they provide a secure point of departure for understanding this tradition. With this
methodological approach, the texts under consideration remain in their historical
situations. The danger of abstracting texts from their historical situations, a
danger that is particularly prevalent in the origin studies of Day of Yahweh and
often in other tradition-history studies, is here avoided.
Secondly, these five texts provide a basic perspective for understanding all
of the Day of Yahweh texts. The texts demonstrate that the Day of Yahweh
was not viewed in the pre-exilic and exilic eras of Israel's history as a singular,
universal, or exclusively future event of world judgment. Rather, the Day of
Yahweh was a powerful concept available to the prophets for their use in interpreting various momentous events past, future or imminent. Amos anticipated the fall of northern Israel and spoke of the coming events as the Day of
Yahweh for his own people, the inevitable time when the corrupt actions of his
contemporaries would bring their inevitable results.14 When Samaria fell in
722, the prophetic words of Amos received their confirmation as true and trustworthy prophetic speech. Isaiah anticipated similar judgment for Judah in the
oracle in Isa 2:12-17 and lived to see and speak in retrospect of his own earlier
words of warning (Isa 22:1-14). In the next generation Zephaniah and Ezekiel
M

Cf. Amos 5:18-20.

336

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

both used the specific language and imagery of the tradition to warn of the
consequences of new reckless and inhumane foreign and domestic policies. With
the fall of Jerusalem, the words of these prophets were likewise confirmed as true
prophetic speech.15
With the anticipation of the fall of Babylon in the last years of the exile, the
theme of hope receives prominent attention in connection with the Day of
Yahweh tradition. The recognition emerges that the fall of Babylon will bring
the realities of restoration, freedom, and new life for the exiles. This motif of
hope, which may have been part of the complex of thought associated with Day
of Yahweh from the beginning of the era of classical prophecy,16 is now emphasized because the anticipated event makes that hope realistic. The authors who
spoke of this hope presuppose that the exiles are not acting in an arrogant or
self-righteous manner. They can, therefore, count on this promise from Yahweh.
In the late post-exilic era the portrayals of the Day of Yahweh tend to become
more and more cataclysmic and universal in character under the influence of
apocalyptic thought. But this late development should not distort the basic
understanding of judgment in the prophetic view of history.17 In that understanding, judgment takes place in and through the events of history in sequence.
The perspective of a sequence of past days of Yahweh provides the context of
thought by which the prophets viewed the future. The future was seen as an
extension of the past. In various situations prophets saw actions by their political leaders which were not in the best interests of their people, actions which
were inconsistent with Torah. They could foresee, therefore, only a continuation of that which had happened in earlier times. As in the "cup of wrath"
tradition, which is quite parallel to the Day of Yahweh,18 they saw judgment
passing from one nation to the next. The nations "drink" in sequence. In the
same way, Days of Yahweh come in succession.
Finally, it is clear that the Day of Yahweh concept is used by the prophetic
writers primarily in connection with the realities of war the memories of war
or the anticipation of new occasions of war. The Day of Yahweh is a concept
that is used to interpret momentous events of war. It interprets events which
divide history into eras. The invasion of Judah by Sennacherib in 701 ended
an era; after 701 the realities of life in Judah were significantly changed. The
destruction of Egypt's army by Babylon at Carchemish in 605 significantly
changed the realities of life for Egypt. And, in a most catastrophic way, the
destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon in 588-87 altered the realities of life for
Judah.
15

Cf. Zeph 1:1-2:3; Ezek 7:1-27.

See the presuppositions implicit in Amos 5:18-20.
17
Cf. Joel 3-4 and Zech 14:1-21. On this theme, see further A. Joseph Everson,
The Day of Yahweh as Historical Event (Richmond, Va.: Unpublished dissertation, Union
Theol. Seminary, 1969) 288-92.
M
Cf. Isa 51:17-23; Jer 25:15-38; 49:12-13; Lam 4:21-22; Ezek 23:28-31, 32-35;
Obad 1-14; Hab 2:15-17.
16

EVERSON: THE DAYS OF YAHWEH

337

In Isa 2:6-22, the prophet appears to have in mind an earthquake or a storm;

in Joel, the first portrayal anticipates the coming of a locust plague; and in
Zechariah 14, the prophet anticipates a plague that will bring sickness and great
torment for the people. These portrayals, however, are not inconsistent. They
are simply alternative kinds of warfare available to Yahweh, who, as sovereign
Lord over nations and powers of the cosmos, can utilize human or natural forces
to bring eventual judgment on proud and arrogant peoples. Events such as war,
earthquakes or plagues, which mark the eras or turning points in the life of a
nation, are the kind of events which can be described as days of Yahweh. They
are events which have the potential for turning history in various directions.
This perspective undergirds prophetic thinking about both the past and the
future. In the decisive events, the prophetic mind discerns with particular
clarity the awesome presence of Yahweh in the world in his ongoing activity of
judgment or rescue. For this reason the prophets speak of the succession of
momentous events as Days of Yahweh.

^ 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.