Who Were the " Super-Apostles" of 2 Corinthians 10—13?

DOYLE KEE Geneva Switzerland

Much of Paul's writing was polemic in nature. Much of the instruction to Christians and warnings against apostasy arose out of the need to respond to opponents of the Christian system. Such is the case in the Corinthian correspondence. An understanding of these opponents results in a better understanding of the message being presented in the letters. Both NT history and NT theology are heavily related to the question of the opponents of early Christianity. This opposition and criticism of Paul's work and message revolved around two poles: conservative Judaism and syncretic paganism. There is no question of the existence of these two destructive forces in early Christianity. The questions that are raised relate to the relationships between the two in terms of whether they worked in concert or in opposition.

Who were the adversaries of Paul and of his work in Corinth? To whom does he address the stinging rebukes of 2 Corinthians 10—13? What was the method of their attack and how did Paul respond to it? How did Paul characterize these opponents? These are some questions addressed. Finding responses to them will make more understandable what Paul is saying in chapters 10—13.

Palestinian Jews?

The evidence which gives a clear picture of these opponents is scarce. There are, however, enough indications which give some direction in arriving at a conclusion. Scholars such as Barrett con­clude that they were Judaizing Jerusalem Jews, who constituted a rival apostolate to Paul's, backed by all the prestige of the mother church.1

"C. K. Barrett, "Paul's Opponents in 2 Corinthians," NTS, 17 (1971), 233-54.

65

66 Restoration Quarterly

One who affirms this position can point to the clear evidence that the opponents were Jews and that it was their Jewishness that Paul singles out for mention: "Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I" (11:22). It is suggested that they knew Jesus after the flesh and that this would indicate that they came from Palestine, more particularly from Jerusalem.2 Käse­mann espouses the view that the description of "superlative Apostles" used by Paul in 11:5 and 12:11 is in fact a reference to the genuine and original apostles in Jerusalem.3 There are not many who follow him in this opinion. Another variation of this position is that the intruders in the church at Corinth were Judaizers, organized and fostered by implacable anti-Pauline emissaries from Palestine.4 These are identified as the ones who followed in the tracks of Paul in Achaia as they did in Galatia. It is valid to affirm that sometime between the writing of the 1st and 2nd canonical letters to Corinth intruders arrived in Corinth to instigate opposition to Paul and his teachings. Is it valid, though, to identify these adversaries with Palestinian Jews from Jerusalem?

It seems completely unwarranted to us to suppose that these opponents of Paul came from Jerusalem and that they bore credentials from any of the apostles. It is true that they were Jews, but there is no real evidence that they were Palestinian Jews. Even as we know in the case of Paul, one could be a "Hebrew" without being from Jerusalem (11:22). It is ¡important to point out that in this long denunciation of the adversaries, Paul at no time indicates that they had the support of the real apostles or the church in Jerusalem. In fact, in considering chapters 10—13 in the context of chapters 8—9, it would seem that they would not have been from Jerusalem, because they showed no interest in the welfare of the needy Christians there. If this lack of interest was simply because of disagreement with the theological motivation of the collection, it would seem logical that some suggestion of that opposition would have been a part of the criticism of Paul. If these had been authentic emissaries from Palestine, it would not be likely that Paul would describe them as ministers of Satan (11:15), especially at the moment when he was urging the Corinthians to contribute for relief of the poverty-stricken Jerusalem church.

Related to the question of whether these adversaries came from

'Philip Hughes, Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman's, 1971), p. 357.

»Ernst Kásemann, "Die Legitimität des Apostels,' ZNW (1942), 45 ff. 4Roy Bowen Ward, "The Opponents of Paul," RQ, 10 (1967), 189.

The "Super-Apostles" 67

Jerusalem is the problem posed by the existence of Paul's opponents in the Galatian letter. Are these underminers of Paul's teaching to be identified with the intruders at Corinth? If we affirm that they are, then we must give more credence to the supposition that they came from Jerusalem. The opponents in Galatia identify more realistically with those who tried to divide the work in Antioch (Acts 15:1). This identification, however, is problematic in Galatia. The apparent presence of libertinistic tendencies in the Galatian church is difficult to reconcile with the main argument of the letter directed against orthodox Judaism. Without going into detail about these Galatian opponents of the gospel that Paul preached we conclude with Robert Jewett5 that there were two groups against Paul in Galatia. One was a libertinistic group and the other a group of Jews claiming support from the Jerusalem pillars. The agitators were imported and the libertines were home grown (5:21; 3:2-5, 14 and 4:6). Setting aside the question of the libertines for the moment, we conclude that the opponents in Corinth were not the same as the Judaizers in Galatia. There is no reference in 2 Corinthians 10—13 to circumcision. It is inconceivable to us that the Judaizers of Galatia would have omitted this from their teaching. If they had demanded circumcision, why would Paul have ignored the issue when it dominated the direction of his attack in the Galatian letter?

Hellenistic Jews?

We are led to affirm that though the adversaries of Paul at Corinth were Jews, they were not Palestinian Jews. It is not too far afield to describe Christian Judaism in three categories. These are named by Barrett as conservative Judaism, liberal Judaism, and revolutionary Judaism.6 The first of these categories would be that which would be identified with the Judaizers who came from Jerusalem to Antioch and later to Galatia. They must be considered Christian Jews because they not only reverenced Jesus and taught in his name, but believed in his messiahship and in his resurrection. These affirmations, though, were made in the framework of classical Pharisaic Judaism. For example, though agreeing that God would accept the Gentiles, these Judaizers would not eat with them. Secondly, there would be those who would retain and perhaps even exaggerate certain aspects of fundamental

'Robert Jewett, "The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation/' TXS, 17 (1970-71), 198-212.

'Barrett, 253.

68 Restoration Quarterly

Judaism, but who at the same time desired to create some kind of syncretic relationship with pagan and Greek thought. These Hellenistic Jews would try to make a stronger impression in a non-Jewish context by adopting a gnostic framework of thought and by having the ecstatic accompaniments of pagan religion. They enforced their commendatory letters by visions, inspired speech, and other types of external behavior. The position they tried to maintain showed their hypocrisy. Paul saw them as the servants of Satan, pretending to be apostles and servants of righteousness, making the worst of both worlds. They were neither honest Jews nor honest Christians. The third category, revolutionary Judaism, would be the category of Paul. He no longer promoted the Law as the center of external practice, but Jesus as the base of an interior faith. This position of Paul comes out clearly in his reaction of these intruders at Corinth.

Having excluded above conservative Judaism, we are left with liberal Judaism as the category into which these adversaries at Corinth are placed. Alio concludes that, though Judaizers, they were not of Palestinian origin but that they came from a background of Greek culture and were thus probably Hellenistic Jews of the Diaspora.7 They must have been Greek-speaking Jews, or they could not have preached to Corinthian Christians (compare this idea with Acts 21:37, 40; 22:2). It is Allo's opinion that the doctrine they preached was a kind of syncretistic Jewish-pagan-Christian gnosticism. Barrett gives this state­ment as a final footnote on this question: "That Judaizing Christian Jews thus accommodated themselves to the Hellenistic criteria imposed by those who examined their claim to apostleship must have contributed to the development of Gnosticism. It is unlikely that it happened only in Corinth."8 This latter point is reasonable. There is basis to believe that the heresy Paul fought against at Corinth was related to the one that occasioned his concern (perhaps about the same time) at Colossae. This would be a type of Christian Gnosticism that adapted the Christian gospel of the risen Christ to the Gnostic myth of the "Redeemed-Redeemer" and took over the Gnostic views of the world and of man. The author of the article on Gnosticism in the Interpreter's

Έ . B. Alio, Saint Paul: Seconde epitre aux corinthiens (2nd ed., Paris, 1956), p. 241. More recently, a similar view has been supported by D. Georgi. In 1965 he published his Heidelberg dissertation, Die Gerner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief. (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1964). This is a large book, and its subtitle (Studien zur religiösen Propaganda in der Spatantike) shows the broad field in which Dr. Georgi sets the particular problems of 2 Cor.

•Barrett, 254.

The "Super-Apostles" 69

Bible concludes: "It is probable that Jewish Christian Gnostics were a third force very early in Christian history along with 'Judaizers' and 'Hellenists.'"9 Whether this was so in terms of Christian Gnosticism being a distinct force during the latter half of the first century is still a debatable point.

Not too distant from the above position is that of K. Lake, who considers that the opponents of Paul at Corinth were not Judaizers, but "spirituals."10 They accounted themselves as pneumatics and were inspired by a desire to go still further than Paul in the direction of freedom from the Law and to lay even greater stress on the spiritual nature of Christianity. We will see in the more detailed discussion concerning Gnosticism that this conclusion has validity. There was at least a type of Gnostic who exalted his own philosophy of knowledge (gnosis) against the knowledge of God (10:5) and who gloried in fleshly wisdom (1:12). These spiritualists sought proof that Christ spoke in Paul, and this they understood, recalling the old valuation of glossolalia to which 1 Corinthians bears witness, to mean the phenomenon of inspired speech. A natural accompaniment of this was an interest in visions as a validation of apostolic status.

Our conclusion, then, is that the adversaries of Paul in Corinth were Hellenistic Jews who were propagating what we call "spiritual gnosticism." This, though, can be misunderstood because of a con­fusion as to exactly the identification of the "Christian Gnostics" of the early church. For this reason it is worthwhile for us to make a short study of Gnosticism and then to place this study within the framework of 2 Corinthians 10—13.

Gnosticizing Elements

Opinions vary as to whether Gnosticism was part of the Corinthian complex with which Paul had to deal. Walter Schmithals maintains that the apostle's adversaries in most of his churches were Gnostics.11

But this involves reading too much into Paul's correspondence. A more moderate statement is more acceptable than the extreme view of Schmithals. There is no evidence of the mythological or speculative soteriology that is a feature of many Gnostic systems. On the other

»Floyd Filson, "The Second Epistle to the Corinthians," The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1953) Vol. 10, pp. 265-425.

,0K. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (London: Rivington, 1911), pp. 219-232. "Walter Schmithals, Die Gnosis in Korinth (Gôttingen, 1956).

70 Restoration Quarterly

hand, though, there are Gnostic phenomena to be noted. The self-glorying of the opponents indicates perfection. The man filled with the Spirit has an impressive appearance and can display powerful manifestations—features present among the opponents.

The Gnosticism that has attracted the attention of scholars has been generally the movement that appeared within the Christian religion. Most earlier writers on the subject have regarded it as a purely Christian movement, a perversion of the Christian faith into a specula­tive theology. This traditional theory considered Gnosticism as the contamination of the Christian system by the introduction of Greek philosophy.

There are, however, certain difficulties in the present study of Gnosticism. For one thing, it has proved impossible to identify a single source from which the movement could be said to take its origin. Nor is there definitive agreement on terminology. In research­ing back from the framework of the second century Christian heresy one can find elements of Gnosticism in the NT itself, in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, and in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the area of dogmatic history, Gnosticism is still considered the heresy of the second century. In the broader area of religious history, however, "Gnosis" is something much wider and more comprehensive.

In terms of the Corinthian correspondence, how do we view Gnosticism? One method is to make a distinction between Gnosticism on the one hand and Gnosis on the other. This may seem artificial but it does help to eliminate some confusion. We would, then, con­sider Gnosticism as the known Christian heresy of the second century. Gnosis (with a capital G) we consider as the whole complex of ideas that belong to the general gnostic movement. As Ellis has said, "We must be careful to avoid the tendency to convert parallels into influences and influences into sources."12 In this sense we can speak of an incipient Gnosticism in the NT period, particularly at Corinth, but how much of the Gnosticism that later developed was already present at any given stage is still unclear. Perhaps further light will be shed on this question when discoveries like the Gnostic library at Nag Hammadi13 are studied in detail.

12Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), p. 82. "In 1945, 13 codices containing some 49 Gnostic documents were discovered in the

vicinity of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. Written in^Coptic, they date from the middle of the third century A.D^ and apparently rest on Greek originals.

The "Super-Apostles*' 71

Gnosticism professed to be based on "knowledge" (gnosis), but not as that word is now commonly understood. Its knowledge was always a mystical supernatural wisdom. The true understanding of the universe was possible only by means of this wisdom. A candidate gained the possibility of being saved from the evil world of matter by knowing this wisdom. Thus it had a developed doctrine of salvation. Along with Christianity, the mystery religions had similar salvation systems. Gnosticism, in its development, took into its system of thought many elements from these diverse sources. This syncretism was a basic characteristic. The problem that this poses for the student of Gnosticism is that no single, defined type can by systematized. At times, it would seem to have been mystical. For certain classes, it would have magical elements dominating, and for others philosophical strains would stand out.

Gnosis, as previously denned, was pre-Christian in its origin, and it was in existence as far as gnostic principles were concerned before the beginning of Christianity. Such principles can be identified in both Jewish and non-Jewish writings. It was represented in what is known as the Hermetic literature of Egypt.14 It had astral elements which may be traced back to Babylonian religious conceptions. It had a dualistic view of the universe which could be of Persian origin. Perhaps its most fundamental conception, the wholly evil character of the phenomenal world, was due to a combination of the Platonic theory of the contrast between the real spiritual sphere of ideas and this visible world of phenomena. This was interpreted in terms of Persian dualism: the one good, and that to which man strives to return, the other wholly bad and the place of his imprisonment. This system taught that the world of matter is evil. But there is more to the universe than can be detected personally. This "otherness," the creator and ruler of this world, cannot be the otherness of good, but it must be an inferior and imperfect being, the demiurge. Salvation is being freed from the phenomenal world. It is being freed from the planetary spirits who control this world. The means of obtaining this salvation is "knowledge" (gnosis), a mystical, spiritual enlightenment. The one who is initiated is brought into communion with the world of spiritual realities.

14The Egyptian god "Thoth," which the Greeks identified with Hermes and to which they sometimes gave the title of "Three times great," was, according to tradition, the scribe of the gods and the divinity of wisdom. Thus he is considered the author of religious books—the "Hermetic literature." Cf. A.-J. Festugieres, Corpus Hermeticum (Paris: "Les Belles Lettres," 1960).

72 Restoration Quarterly

This is where ideas from Christianity enter the system. The person of Christ was adapted to give a definite and concrete center to the theory of an enlightening saving knowledge. The unknown and all-perfect God was previously unknown. Christ made him known. This illumination that came from Christ enabled all "spiritual" men, men who were capable of receiving it, to be led back to the realm of the good God. Up to this point the system is not too heretical. Since the material world, however, is evil, Christ could not have had a real incarnation. Thus the Gnostics explained his appearance as either along Docetic (ghostly) lines, or as simply a temporary indwelling of the man Jesus, or as an apparent birth from a virgin mother without partaking of material nature. The God of the OT was the creator of this visible, evil world. Thus he could not have been the God whom Christ revealed, but simply an inferior demiurge.

Why would this system of thought create division within Christianity? This is explained by the fact that the Gnostics taught that not all Christians possess this saving knowledge. This knowledge was con­sidered to be a secret teaching imparted by the apostles to their closer disciples, a "speaking wisdom among the perfect" (1 Cor. 2:6). In Corinth Paul preached a certain gospel, a certain Jesus, by a certain Holy Spirit. His adversaries preached another. Theirs was preached according to a special knowledge (11:5) that Paul did not even want to claim that he had.

Our judgment is that Gnosticism as a recognized system did not exist in the first century, that is, as a Christian heresy. It does seem clear to us, though, that gnostic principles, coming in from both Jewish and pagan sources, are fought in the NT. Much of the writings of John are to be understood in this context as well as certain writings of Paul. Colossians is a good example of the latter. Here in 2 Corinthians we find, too, a much better understanding of what Paul is combatting by recognizing his opponents as promoters of gnostic principles. To speak of Gnosis in Corinth and then to interpret the teaching of Paul's opponents by a wholesale introduction of ideas from the second century systems is to run the risk of seriously distorting the picture. We do affirm, though, that the principles taught by these intruders provided fertile ground for the heretical system that did later develop. Our understanding, then, of 2 Corinthi­ans 10—13 will be based on the conclusion that Paul's opponents, these super-apostles, were Hellenistic Jews who were preaching another gospel and another Jesus based on syncretic, gnostic principles.

The "Super-Apostles" 73

Corinth: Fertile Ground for the Interlopers

According to Acts 19:1 Apollos spent some time in Corinth. He was a powerful speaker and so impressed the church that a certain group arose who were distinctively known as followers of Apollos. These would have been more than likely the Greeks in the church. It seems, however, that Judaic Christians had come and these had been just as acceptable to the Jewish members as Apollos had been to the Greeks. Because of their influence and because of the personal appearance of Peter at Corinth or because of his reputation, a Cephas party arose in the church. This party, the ecclesiastical ancestors of those who subse­quently vented their hatred of Paul in the Pseudo-Clementines, openly disclaimed the authority of Paul. One can imagine them saying, "Cephas is the real head of the apostles, and therefore of the Christians. Paul is a presumptuous interloper and his conduct to Cephas at Antioch was most unbecoming. Who is this Paul, any­way? He is not an apostle at all, but an unauthorized innovator. He has been a persecuting Sanhedrist, and he is an apostate Jew. What had he been at Corinth? A preaching tentmaker, nothing more. Cephas, other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, when they travel around are accompanied by their wives or by ministering women, and they claim the honor and support which they are due. Why has Paul not done the same? Obviously, because he feels the insecurity of his own position. Compare this Paul with Cephas! Very different has been his preaching from that of Cephas at Pentecost! It is the speaking with tongues—not mere dubious doctrinal exhorta­tion—which is the true sign of spirituality . . . " We can imagine another set of Judaizers entering the Corinthian scene. This group was led by one man in particular.15 To this group not even the name of Cephas was satisfactory. They called themselves the followers of Christ and disdained any other name. The leader of this group prided himself on having seen the Christ, perhaps in a vision. Visions were important to him. He was recognized as the leader of the

'One man seems to have been the ringleader of the opposition (10:7, 11) and to have made himself especially obnoxious to the apostle. In all probability he was the offender of chapters 2 and 7. Paul must have been the one offended. What was the offense? It may be that the accusation in the first letter had been taken in a particularly offensive way, or that someone had incriminated the morality of Paul, or perhaps even more, had explained Paul's vision on the road to Damascus as the work of Satan. Regardless, the Corinthians knew what Paul was speaking of. In spite of the personal character of the offense, the crisis produced affected the relation of Paul with the entire church.

74 Restoration Quarterly

"Christ party." These ideas provide a possible framework for the problem of division as considered by Paul in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians.

It is possible that this Christ party of 1 Corinthians may have persisted and formed the nucleus around which these newcomers built up their formidable opposition. If this party was composed of Christians with Gnostic tendencies, then the visiting missionaries who had arrived with letters of recommendation16 were able to cultivate a fertile field. It must be added that it is not even clear that these intruders formed a party. One can conjecture with likelihood, never­theless, that the fact that Paul in 13:20 bears down on internal division indicates the problems were divisive and that this could have been a follow-up of the old factions dealt with in 1 Corinthians. In principle, the attention would center on the "Christ party." The intruders coud attract some of the stubborn members of the "Cephas party" by their Judaism and, by their Gnostic affinity, those who came from the "all is permitted" party (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). Thus we consider it more than just probable that the "Christ party" rested in the shadows and was reconstituted in the middle of the intrigues raised by these foreign preachers. The "men of Christ" of 2 Corinthians considered that they represented Christ better than Paul.

We can understand the dilemma of the Corinthian Christians. They were confronted by two rival apostolates. It was not inappropriate for them to wish to determine which is true and which is false. The difficulty, as pointed out by Paul, is that they used the wrong criteria. They looked for written commendations from high authority and for ecstatic phenomena. Besides the divisions that might have remained from the schismatic problem dealt with in 1 Corinthians, there is another way to divide the Corinthian church: 1) There would have been those who would have normally remained faithful to Paul but did not know how to respond to the forceful, and what seemed to be

"It should be pointed out that a letter or recommendation (3:1) does not necessarily imply a delegating of authority. It is unwarranted to conclude that these letters were recongnized as coming from some high authority and thus must have come from the apostles. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that, since they made a favorable impression on the Corinthian church, they were sent by other Hellenistic churches. The impression is that these adversaries were itinerant preachers and the letters may have been from the churches which they had recently visited. They could have come from churches with a Judaic background, churches where a mystique or "liberal" Judaism mixed with Gnostic tendencies, to the detriment of the doctrine of salvation by the cross.

The "Super-Apostles" 75

overwhelming, agruments of the opponents. 2) The other group would be those who can be found anywhere, the libertines, the personalities who were undisciplined. That there were such Christians, perhaps numerous, who continued to tend toward paganism and who were not convinced in practice that "all was not permitted them," the text states clearly enough (6:14—7:1 and 12:20—13:2).

The Destructive Undermining of the Authority of Paul

How did these intruders go about establishing their authority in opposition to Paul's? What method did they use to ingratiate them­selves to the Corinthian congregation? It seems obvious from a reading of chapters 10—13 that they made a vicious attack on the theology, person, methods, and apostleship of the founder of this church. This they did from their position as "servants of righteousness'" (12:15).

If one had no information about Paul other than the charges made by these opponents, we would have an image of a most despicable hypocrite. Yes, they said, he can write some very strong letters, but in fact he is quite weak in his personal appearance and is most ineffective as a preacher (10:10; 11:6). Not only was Paul unreliable, saying yes and no in the same breath (1:17-18), but he was really a coward (10:1). This so-called apostle had an exaggerated opinion of himself (10:8) and he liked to parade it (3:1). The point is, they say, that he is not really an apostle at all. This was evident by the fact that his ministry had not been marked by "signs and wonders and mighty works" (12:1-12). This imposter refused to accept any money from the Corinthian church for his support, either because he was not sure of his apostleship (11:7-9) or because he was a crafty embezzler of the money being collected for the needy Christians in Jerusalem (12:16-17; 8:20-21). He was a schemer, and his conduct aroused suspicion (l:12ff.; 4:Iff.; 5:11). His behavior indicated that he was mentally unbalanced (5:13).

And so we see Paul denounced as an upstart and self-seeker, destitute of any apostolic authority, and derided for the contemptible appearance he made in person, in contrast with the swelling words and presumptuous claims of his epistles. Ineffective, avaricious, cunning (in their view), a tyrant, a coward, a cheat. Paul is thus pictured by his opponents. When we see how venomous was their caricature, we can hardly be surprised at the indignation expressed in his reply.

76 Restoration Quarterly

Paul's Reply to His Adversaries

Paul's counterattack exposed their deceitfulness and the poverty of any redeeming motivation. They came with another gospel, different from Paul's, a gospel with another spirit (11:4). With this different gospel went a different and lower moral standard—they had no standard beyond themselves and so were guilty of ridiculous and immoderate boasting (10:12). They were mercenary-minded. Their alleged interest in the gospel was prompted by selfish commercial greed as they moved from church to church like itinerant parasites reckoning on the gullibility of the communities to which they attached themselves (11:7, 9; 12:13-18). They made claims to superior authority. They were "super-apostles" (11:5). Pauls cuts through this claim by calling them ministers of Satan who had disguised themselves as ministers of righteousness (ll:13ff.). They proclaimed "another Jesus" (11:4) and boasted of their ecstasy, or spiritual experiences (5:13; 12:1-8). Their emphasis on eloquence probably indicated that they were especially interested in speech (glossalalia) as a spiritual gift (11:6). They loved to praise themselves rather than to await God's commendation (10:12, 18). Instead of pioneering as missionaries in new fields, they invaded communities others had evangelized and took credit as parasites for work others had accomplished (10:15, 16). Contrary to Paul's practice, they claimed and accepted remuneration (11:12) and actually tyrannized and exploited the congregation (11:20). Their eagerness to displace Paul was a sign of self-centered life; they were "those who pride themselves on a man's position" (5:12). They lacked the heart of an evangelist (compared with Timothy and Titus) and did not have the qualities necessary to be elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7); they were domineering, arrogant, greedy, brutal (11:20). At times Paul seems to admit that they are Christians (10:7; 11:23), but elsewhere he specifically denies this and classes them as servants of Satan (11:13-15). It is impossible to define exactly what they taught. From what Paul says about them, however, we can conclude that their real heresy was that they preached themselves instead of the gospel and the Jesus that Paul preached.

^ 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.