\ fÊl ¿ Vêtus

/68
' Testamentum
BRILL Vêtus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81 brill.nl/vt

The Group Identity of the Human Beneficiaries

in the Sabbatical Year (Lev 25:6)*

Sun-Jong K i m
Hannam University

Abstract
According to the sabbatical year law in Leviticus, the land of Israel must lie fallow during one
year after six years of cultivation (Lev 25:2-5). During this sabbatical year, people may eat with-
out cultivating the land (Lev 25:6). When we consider the human beneficiaries of this law, it is
noted that not only the Israelites but also non-Israelites are included. In this respect an impor-
tant question arises: do the beneficiaries constitute a particular social institution, or are they
social categories chosen ad hoc by the author? In this contribution, we will make a proposal as
to the group identity of the human beneficiaries in the sabbatical year law in Lev 25:6.

Keywords
human beneficiaries of the sabbatical year, fallow year, family, divine creation order

1. Introduction
All the law codes in the Pentateuch legislate for the seventh year, the so-called
'sabbatical year' (Exod 23:10-11; Lev 25:1-7; Deut 15:1-11). But the human
beneficiaries of these laws are presented differently in each code. Whereas, in
Exod 23:11, the poor of the Israelites may eat the products of the land, accord-
ing to Deut 15, the debtors owing the Israelites benefit from this seventh year
law. Differently from these two prescriptions, the list of Leviticus includes the
Israelite land owner as well as other categories which seem to consist of non-
Israelites: the slave (Tip, ΠΕΝ), the hired worker (TDW) and the temporary

*) This paper was supported by 2010 Hannam University Research Fund and presented at the
20th Congress of IOSOT in Helsinki, August 3, 2010. I would like to thank Professor Jan
Joosten for his invaluable guidance in this research.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/156853311X542123

72 5.-/. Kim I Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81

resident (lU?in). Have the beneficiaries in Leviticus been chosen ad hoc by the
author, or do they make up a special group in the Israelite society?
Insofar as the text does not answer these questions, certain commentators
have tried to explain the presence of the different categories in comparison
with other enumerations found in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

2. Review of previous hypotheses

2.1. In the light ofExod 23:10-11

The first approach that we can find in the history of research concerning the
identity of the human beneficiaries of Lev 25:6 is to interpret it in the light of
Exod 23:11. This approach seems appropriate because the fallow year law in
Exodus is generally considered as the source text of the sabbatical year law in
Leviticus.1
Exod 23:11 presents the human beneficiaries of the fallow year as "the poor
of your people" (^QJ? TIN). Leviticus widens the circle of the beneficiaries by
enumerating: "you, your male and female slaves, your hired worker and your
temporary residents who live with you" (Lev 25:6). On the ethnic level, we see
that foreigners are integrated into the list and that, in social respect, various
social categories are associated with "you", i.e., with the "sons of Israel". Cer-
tain commentators think that, while the beneficiaries in Exodus are presented
globally, Leviticus specifies their identity in a concrete way. For example,
Schenker considers that the author of Leviticus specifies the limits of the cat-
egory of the poor in Exodus.2 But this proposal is to be rejected: the sons of

1)
See J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (AB 3B; New York, 2001), p. 2157; J. S. Bergsma, The Jubi-
lee from Leviticus to Qumran. A History of Interpretation (VTSup 115; Leiden-Boston, 2007),
pp. 48-50; J. Stackert, Rewriting the Torah. Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness
Legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen, 2007), pp. 115-125.
2)
A. Schenker, "The Biblical Legislation on the Release of Slaves: The Road from Exodus to
Leviticus", JSOT78 (1998), p. 35; idem, "Der Boden und seine Produktivität im Sabbat- und
Jubeljahr, das dominium terrae in Ex 23,1 Of und Lev 25,2-12", in H.-P. Mathys (ed.), Ebenbild
Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (Neukirchen-Vluyn,
1998), p. 102, n. 16. See also M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford,
1985), p. 180; J.-F. Lefebvre, Le jubilé biblique: Lv 25—exégèse et théologie (OBO 194;
Fribourg, 2003), p. 58, η. 129; A. Wénin, Le Sabbat dans la Bible, Connaître la Bible 38 (Bruxel-
les, 2005), 52; Bergsma, 2007, p. 86; Stackert, p. 123.
 S.-J. Kim I Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81 73

Israel in Leviticus do not correspond to "the poor"; the slave,3 the hired worker,
and the temporary resident do not, at least not necessarily, belong to "your
people".

2.2. In the light of Deut 15:17-18

Recently, Stackert has proposed that the author of Leviticus borrows the list of
the beneficiaries of the sabbatical year (25:6) at the same time from Exod
23:11 (the poor of your people) and from Deut 15:17-18 (your male slave,
your female slave, your hired worker).4

Then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his earlobe into the door, and he
shall be your slave forever. You shall do the same with regard to your female sUve.
Do not consider it a hardship when you send them out from you free persons,
because for six years they have given you services worth the wages of hired laborers,
and the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do (Deut 15:17-18;
NRSV).

But, as I have already remarked, the beneficiaries of Leviticus do not corre­

spond to "the poor of your people" in Exodus. Also, his explanation depends
on unproven premises. We cannot know whether it is Leviticus or Deuteron­
omy which borrowed from the other book. Moreover, his interpretation does
not explain the use of the word "temporary resident" (ΐ^ΊΠ). Stackert thinks
that the mention of the temporary residents of Lev 25:6 anticipates the slavery
law of Lev 25:40. But, as we will see below, the temporary resident in Lev 25:6
is not the same as in Lev 25:40. While the temporary resident in Lev 25:6
benefits from the sabbatical year law with the Israelites in a peaceful relation,
the temporary resident in Lev 25:40 can hire the Israelites. So, in that last case,
we can say that there remains a tension between the Israelites and the non-
Israelites.
Elsewhere, Stackert defines the beneficiaries of the sabbatical year in Lev 25
as the family members: "[...] Lev 25:6-7 does not abandon the poor and the

3)
Milgrom, p. 2161, suggests, on the basis of Lev 25:40, 44, that the slaves of Lev 25:6 are the
chattel slaves, i.e., non-Israelites. However, it is necessary to distinguish between what is written
in a book and the historical reality. For a critique on this opinion, see Bergsma, 2007, p. 206.
I think that, in Lev 25:6, the term "slave" can designate the Israelite slave as well as the foreign
slave.
4)
Stackert, pp. 123-125.
74 S.-J. Kim I Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81

animals. Instead, H here envisions the underclasses in Israelite society as

attached to specific households and explicitly prescribes that these dependent
5
household members may partake of the seventh year bounty". This definition,
which seems to contradict the earlier claim regarding the dependence of Levit­
icus on Exodus and Deuteronomy, is essentially correct, as I will try to show
presently.

3. The theological function of the beneficiaries in Lev 25:6-76

According to the positions discussed above, the list of beneficiaries in Leviticus

is considered only as an explanation of the passage in Exodus or as an amalgam
of the passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy. However, exegetes should inter­
pret the text in the first place in its own structure and place, while paying
attention to its peculiar theological function.
In this respect, we have to pay attention to the fact that the list of the ben­
eficiaries of Leviticus is composed of seven different categories. In these seven
categories are mixed the Israelites and the foreigners. In addition, livestock
(ΠΟΠΙ) as well as wild animals (ΓΡΠ) are also included there. While Exodus
emphasizes an interest in the socially weak by mentioning particularly "the
poor" and "the wild animal", Leviticus shows a higher level of idealism in the
relation between all the creatures by including the Israelites as land owners and
the livestock. The sabbatical law in Leviticus destroys the wall between the
center and the margin. The coexistence of the beneficiaries does not come
from the authors arbitrary choice but from the universalism of priestly theol­
ogy. God has not created the Israelites, but human kind {Adam) J
In addition to the terms added to the passage of Leviticus, attention should
to be given to the expressions which disappeared in Leviticus. The author of
Leviticus deleted the words "let it (the land) rest and lie fallow" (DQUJ, 'ΦΌί)
and "what they leave" (ΊΓΓ).

5)
Stackert, p. 128.
6)
I have treated this problem in more detail in my article, "Les enjeux théologiques des bénéfi-
ciaires de l'année sabbatique (Lev 25,6-7)", ZAW \22 (2010), pp. 33-43.
7)
See J. Blenkinsopp, "Yahweh and Other Deities: Conflict and Accommodation in the Reli-
gion of Israel", Int40 (1986), p. 365.
 S.-J. Kim I Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81 75

Exod 23:11 (NRSV) Lev 25:6 (NRSV)

But the seventh year you shall let it rest
and lie fallow,
so that the poor of your people may eat;
and what they leave the wild animals
may eat. You shall do the same with
your vineyard, and with your olive
orchard.
You may eat what the land yields
during its Sabbath—you, your
male and female slaves, your hired
and your bound laborers who live
with you.

By removing the expression "let it lie fallow" in his source text (Exod 23:11),8
the legislator of the sabbatical year law of Leviticus requires his readers not to
understand his law in the light of the fallow, an agricultural method, which
was practiced generally in the Ancient Near East to increase the productivity
of the land.9 By deleting the mention that the wild animals can eat only the
"rest" of the food eaten by the persons, the author of Leviticus proclaims that
all animals can participate in the sabbatical celebration in the same way as
humans. 10 Although it is possible to regard these adding and removing pro­
cesses as an extreme idealization of a real law of Exodus, it is important to
realize that they rely on the creation theology of the Priestly/Holiness Code.
According to the creation narrative in Gen l:l-2:4a (P), the land created by
God could produce plants without human intervention, and these plants were
used for the food of humans and animals that were created subsequently to the
land.
In this regard, the sabbatical year law in Leviticus does not simply aim to
protect the poor Israelites as in the fallow year law of Exod 23:10-11 and as in
the debt-release law of Deut 15:1-11. By legislating the sabbatical year, God

8)
It seems clear that the author of Leviticus had the text of Exodus (23:10-11) as his source
text. It is sufficient to consider the word ΠΠ^ΠΠ in Lev 25:3 in order to prove this premise:
the third person singular suffix of feminine of this word cannot designate the masculine names,
such as VCW (field) or D"D (vineyard), although they are the nearest antecedents. In fact, this
suffix refers to the feminine name 'land' (f"1N) which is in the previous verse (Lev 25:2;
cf. Exod 23:10).
9)
Cf. J. B. Alexander, "A Babylonian Year of Jubilee? ",JBL 57 (1938), pp. 75-79; L. Lewy,
"The Origin of the Week and the Oldest West Asiatic Calendar", HUCA 17 (1942), pp. 96-97;
C. H. Gordon, "Sabbatical Cycle or Seasonal Pattern? ", Or 22 (1953), p. 81; E. Neufeld,
"Socio-Economie Background of Yöbel and Semittä", RSO 33 (1958), p. 70; C. J. H. Wright,
Gods People in Gods Land. Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
1990), p. 143; M. Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 152-178.
10)
K. Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen, 1966), pp. 349-351.
76 S.-J. Kim I Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81

invites His people to restore the original creation destroyed by human greed.
During a one-year sabbatical, the Israelites experience the divine creation and
are called to realize His creation order in the land. Such a theological project
of Leviticus is neither due to the simple development of the authors previous
source text nor to the mixing of the diverse texts. It relies on the author s own
theological tradition.
If the list of the beneficiaries of the sabbatical year law of Leviticus illus­
trates the creation theology of the Holiness Code, it becomes important to
grasp by which social or religious institution this creation order must be real­
ized. We return therefore to our first question: were the seven beneficiaries of
the sabbatical year chosen ad hoc by the author, so that they realize the divine
creation order individually? Or do they compose a particular social institution
that functions as the executing agent of God s creation order?
In the following section, we will attempt to uncover the identity of the
social institution that is composed of the beneficiaries of the sabbatical year in
two successive steps. First, we will consider the place of the text of the sab­
batical law in Lev 25. The fact that the sabbatical year law (Lev 25:1-7) is the
formative basis of the Jubilee law (Lev 25:8-55) presupposes that the first law
concerns a familial unit. Second, this supposition will be confirmed when we
compare the list of the beneficiaries of the sabbatical year with that of the
household members in the tenth commandment of the Decalogue (Exod 20:17;
Deut 5:21).

4. The human beneficiaries in the sabbatical year (Lev 25:6-7): the

family members

In order to reveal the identity of the beneficiaries in the sabbatical year law, it
would be helpful to consider them in the frame of'the fathers house' (IN ΓΡ2)
n
and of 'the family group' (nn£)U>Q). This exegetical step seems warranted
because the father s house is a basic system in the Israelite society and because

n)
Lev 25:10, 41, 45, 47y 49. cf. 20:5. Several words or expressions are used to render nnSWD.
This Hebrew term is translated by "clan" in the Bible de Jérusalem and tiie TOB, by "family" in
NIV and NRSV, etc., but, these two modern words do not define ΠΠ£Η2>η precisely. The word
IN TO corresponds rather to the expression "the father's house" and the term "clan" is not suit­
able to translate ΠΠ£)1Ζ>0, insofar as it indicates an exogamic group which is foreign to the family
structure of Israel. To resolve the problem of translation, expressions like "kin group" or "protec­
tive association of extended families" are employed by Wright, God's People in God's Land, p. 53;
 S.-J. Kim I Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81 77

the Jubilee law is applied within the framework of the family group
12
(nnswa).
Indeed, certain commentators postulate that the sabbatical year law applies
within the 'fathers house'.13 Apparently however, this postulate is not founded
upon any textual basis. Perhaps they consider that this assumption must be
accepted as natural. The problem is not so simple, however, because it is asso­
ciated with a complicated debate concerning the status of the hired worker
(TDU?) and the temporary resident (2Φ1Π). In a more exegetical approach,
van Houten affirms that the hired worker and the temporary resident are
members of the household. According to her, the laws on family worship in
Exod 12:43-49 and Lev 22:10-13 prove that they are included in the family:
if they lived and ate apart from the household's residence, there would have
been no need for this legislation. I concur with her observation. Yet, in the
case of the sabbatical year law, it seems that she did not adequately take into
account this law in its particular place in Lev 25.

4.1. The place of the sabbatical year law in Lev 25

My assumption that the sabbatical year law (Lev 25:1-7) addresses the father's
house (IN ΓΤΊ) is founded upon the fact that the Jubilee law (Lev 25:8-55)
operates above all within the framework of the family group (nn£)U>D). Because
the Jubilee law must be applied within the extended family and is based on the
principle of the sabbatical year (Lev 25:8-12),14 it is difficult to think that the
latter aims at another social institution than the family.

Ν. K. Gottwald, The Tribes ofYahweh. In Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050
£ Œ (Sheffield, 1999), p. 257.
12)
See J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPSTC; Philadelphia, 1996), p. 467; F. M. Cross, From Epic to
Canon. History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore-London, 1998), p. 5.
13)
Cf. η. 5. According to C. J. H. Wright, "Family", ABD II, p. 762, the hired worker
is included in the fathers house; the temporary resident contributes to the growth of the
family. See also Schenker, "The Biblical Legislation", p. 35: «The fallow year of the Covenant
Code is specified by an additional clause which states what had not been said in Exodus:
what are the Israelite households, men and beasts, allowed to eat?»; Lefebvre, p. 87: "Même si
l'année sabbatique est observée de façon universelle, elle est organisée au niveau de l'exploitation
familiale".
14)
According to E. Otto, "Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17-26", in
H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling (eds.), Levitikus als Buch (BBB 119; Berlin, 1999), p. 166,
Lev 25:2-7 serve as "Hauptgesetz" for the remainder of the laws in this chapter.
78 S.-f. Kim I Vêtus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81

The fathers house (IN ΓΡ2) was a fundamental unit of Israelite society
on the religious and economic level. In theory, the fathers house was autono­
mous. In certain cases, the paterfamilias had a right of jurisdiction completely
independent of the external civil authority. However, when the father s house
lost its capacity of economic autonomy, the family group was to intervene
for it. The Jubilee law clarifies in which order and until which limit the
family group must protect a poor member. The family group was normally
endogamous, in order to preserve the possession of its land (cf. Num 36:1-12).
The lost land was to be repurchased and reinstated in the group (Lev 25:23-
28). This is justified by the fact that in the beginning the land had been divided
on a tribal basis.15 Land which had changed hands, because it had been bought
by another family group, was to revert to the original fathers house. Thus,
one can say that the father s house was the basic unit of the system of land
ownership.16
As we can see here, the beneficiaries of the sabbatical year get a specific new
sense in Leviticus: the family. Neither in Exodus nor in Deuteronomy do the
beneficiaries in the seventh year law have anything to do with the family mem­
bers: in Exodus they are the poor of the Israelites (23:11); in Deuteronomy,
they are neighbors (jn), members of the Israelite community (15:2). Differ­
ently from these books, the seven year cycle s laws in Leviticus (the sabbatical
year/Jubilee laws) were executed in the familial unit.

4.2. Comparison with the list of the tenth commandment

In order to verify my hypothesis that the list of the beneficiaries of the sab­
batical law refers to the family members, it will be useful to analyze this list in
further detail by comparing it with that of the tenth commandment of the
Decalogue (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21).17

15)
Cf. G. von Rad, "Verheißenes Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch", in idem, Gesammelte
Studien zum Alten Testament (TBü, AT 8; München, 19653), p. 92.
16)
For the biblical base, see Wright, God's People in God's Land, p. 54.
17)
Even if there are important variations between diese two texts, the relation between Exod 20
and Deut 5 is not of major concern. For that, one can consult several commentaries.
 S.-J. Kim I Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81 79

sabbatical year the tenth commandment

Exod 23:11 Lev 25:6-7 Exod 20:17 Deut 5:21

•jjn π α Tin TO Tin nwa

nip imw 18 my

Trau;

Τηηηη mu; ITO

non non
Tvwn rrn rrn

The tenth commandment, which presents the list of the possessions of a "fam­
ily" (TO),19 defines the slaves and the animals as goods of an owner. This
enumeration of possessions is stereotyped in the Ugaritic literature.20 We can
think that the beneficiaries of the sabbatical year, which follows the formula of
the tenth commandment, correspond to the household members.21
In the list above, it should be noticed that the author of Leviticus evokes the
hired worker (TDUJ) and the temporary resident (2tt?in) as being "your" hired
worker and "your" temporary resident. The second person singular suffix of

18)
According to A. Phillips, "The Decalogue—Ancient Israel's Criminal Law", in idem, Essays on
Biblical Law (JSOTS 344; London-New York, 2002), 11, 23, the word "its field" was added
later by the Deuteronomist under the influence from Isaiah and Mi 2:2. However, it appears
often in the list of the possessions of the Ugaritic literature. See n. 20.
19)
R. E. Tappy, "Lineage and Law in Pre-exilic Israel", RB 107 (2000), 188: "The Decalogue
(specifically regulations 5-10) addressed both of these variables directly and within the context
of the bet 'ab". See also idem, "The Code of Kinship in the Ten Commandments", RB 107
(2000), 331: "[...] the list of people and property within this law (Exod 20:17) reflects the major
constituent elements of the household". Here, the word TO must be understood as a property of
a family rather than as a building. Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus (WBC; Waco, 1987), p. 299.
20)
J. Nougayrol, Le Palais royald'Ugant III (Paris, 1955), pp. 115-116: "[...] Si, dans l'avenir,
Takhulinu meurt, ses maisons, ses terres, ses serviteurs, ses servantes, ses [bœufs], ses ânes, (et)
toute (autre) chose, seront [à] Gamiraddu [...]". See also W. L. Moran, "The conclusion of the
Decalogue (Ex 20,17 = Dt 5,21)", CBQ29 (1967), pp. 543-554.
21)
Ostensibly we can think that the comparison with the tenth commandment seems tenuous.
For example, the first item (you, the wife of your neighbor) is not the same. But the Decalogue
does not say that the Israelites must not covet another Israelite as paterfamilias but his wife as one
of the family members. In this regard, we may understand the difference of the first item.
80 S.-J. Kim I Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81

the list in Lev 25:6 expresses not only their subordination to the authority of
the paterfamilias but also the proximity between the Israelite master and his
employee, between the Israelite and his guest. It is also significant that, among
all the occurrences of "the hired worker" and "the temporary resident" in the
Old Testament, this verse alone, Lev 25:6, adds the mark of the second person
in these terms. While they are described as dangerous people because they can
take the Israelites as slaves in the Jubilee law (Lev 25:47), they appear, in the
sabbatical year law, as the subjects who can enjoy the same privileges as God s
people.22
I do not think that the addition of the suffix of the second person in the
terms "the hired worker" and "the temporary resident" is simply intended to
align these persons with the other members of the list who are marked by this
suffix. On the contrary, this addition shows that the hired worker and the
temporary resident can also belong to the Israelite family and even take part in
the worship.23 Moreover, by the fact that the Israelites can buy slaves among
the temporary residents (Lev 25:44-45), we can assume that the temporary
residents who became slaves can belong to the Israelite family. The status of
the resident alien, the hired worker, and the temporary resident is not fixed
clearly, but it can vary according to their social situation. The hired worker
and the temporary resident are free. They can have their own family24 or
belong to the Israelite family.

5. Conclusion

The list of the beneficiaries of the sabbatical year law in Lev 25:6-7 includes
foreigners unlike the fallow year law in Exod 23:10-11 and the debt-release
law in Deut 15:1-11. This fact shows that the list in Leviticus does not clarify

22)
The legislation concerning the Jubilee in Lev 25 does not profit the foreigners. Attention is
paid only to the Israelites (ΤΓ1Ν; Lev 25:25 [x2], 35, 36, 39, 47, 48) who lost their possessions
[ΠΤΠΝ] (Lev 25:10). In this legislation, the poor Israelites should not be treated like the foreign
slaves (Lev 25:39). The legislator opposes the treatment of the Israelites to that of the nations.
23)
J. Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Frame­
work of the Law in Leviticus 17-26 (VTSup 67; Leiden, 1996), pp. 73-74: "In his capacity as a
tösäb, a stranger living among the Israelites, he may not automatically partake in the Pesach meal;
but in his capacity as a gêr, to whom certain rights have been conceded, he may be circumcised
and then partake".
24)
On the basis of Lev 25:44-45, Milgrom, p. 2230, supposes that at the time of H there were
still Canaanite enclaves.
 S -] Kim I Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 71-81 81

the vague definition of the beneficiaries in Exod 23:11; nor are they an amal-
gam of Exod 23:11 and Deut 15:17-18. The beneficiaries, composed of seven
different categories, were not invented by the authors arbitrary choice; as the
family members, they reflect the universalism of the Holiness Code.
Insofar as the year of Jubilee is based on the principle of the sabbatical year,
the latter law has to be applied in the framework of the family. This assump-
tion is confirmed by comparison with the family possessions in the tenth com-
mandment of the Decalogue (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21). The family is not
merely a socially and economically basic unit in the Israelite society, but an
executing agent that realizes the divine creation order on the land.
 ^ 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.