At La 0001466984

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

1/14

RE-READING MARTIN BURER AND JANUSZ KORCZAK:

FRESH IMPULSES TOWARD A RELATIONAL APPROACH

TO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION1

Reinhold BoschkiUniversity of Bonn, Germany

Abstract

With the help of a relational approach to education in general,

this article works out the possibilities and chances of a relational

approach to religious education in particular. It argues that suchan approach can make an important contribution to religious ed

ucation in a pluralistic world. In education theory, the relational

approach is associated above all with the work of Martin Buber

(1878-1965). Whereas Buber comes from a philosophical back

ground, another Jewish author begins his educational reflections

with detailed observations of children and young people themselves:

Janusz Korczak (1875-1942). The works of both Buber and Korczak

give major impulses toward a relational understanding of religious

education.

The child isn't stupid. There are no more fools among children than among adults.

Let us respect their innocence...

Let us respect their attempts to find knowledge...

Let us respect their failures and tears

Let us respect the present hour and the present day...

Let us respect each single moment because it will fade away and never come

back. When I play with a child or talk with a child, two equally ripe moments

ofhis and my life are melting together. (Korczak vol. 4,1999, 402ff)

In such radical and moving phrases, the Polish pediatrician and educa

tor Janusz Korczak (1875-1942) expressed his "pedagogical credo," as

he called it. His life, which ended in the gas chambers of a Nazi exter

mination camp, was devoted to children in general, and particularly to

the Jewish orphans for whom he cared throughout his life and whom

he helped to stand on their own feet in an environment of hostility

and poverty. In his reflections on education, he created a pedagogical

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

2/14

REINHOLD BOSCHKI 115

work that is unique and, although still little known, stands out among

twentieth-century education theories.

In Korczaks basic assumption that educator and child must meet at

the same level, and not with the older one claiming a superior position,

he laid the foundations for a pedagogy of equality between young

people and adults. This makes his approach a radically relational one.

His work is best understood if we first examine the work of another

important Jewish thinker of the last century: Martin Buber (1878-

1965), the founder of relational and dialogical thinking in philosophy

and educational theory.

All these investigations are undertaken from the perspective of

religious education. The starting thesis ofthis article is: Religious ed-

ucation is a process that involves all dimensions of a person's relation-

ships. Without a clear theoretical concept of personal relationships,

we cannot understand the mechanisms of religious education and for

mation. Furthermore, if we are not aware of the fundamental meaning

of relationships for religious education, we will fail to find appropriate

ways of making a reality of a modern form of religious education that

tackles the problems of a pluralistic world.

FIRST APPROACHES TO EDUCATIONAL

RELATIONSHIPS

Education is based on relation. Relationship is the dominant theme

of any educational process. No education can take place without rela

tionship between adults and children, adults and adults, and so on.These insights are the result of a large number of intensive phe-

nomenological investigations and reflections of the field of education.

Since the major philosophical work of Edmund Husserl (1859-

1939) we have been aware of the importance of perception as a philo

sophical method of investigating reality. In the 1930s, this philosophical

phenomenological method was adapted to social philosophy and so

ciological theory, especially by Alfred Schtz (1899-1959), a student

of Husserl who escaped in 1937 from Nazi Germany and Austria toemigrate to the United States (Schtz 1967; Schtz and Luckmann

[1975] 1989) Th d i h h S h k f h

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

3/14

116 RE-READING BUBER AND KORCZAK

can deduce the understanding of life and world that underlies their

acts.

In phenomenological investigations of the lifeworld, especially of

children and young people, one can find out four fundamental dimen

sions of relationship: relationship with oneself, with others, with societyand history, with time (Boschki 2003). These four dimensions are also

reported in psychological investigations. For example, developmental

psychology has discovered that young people have (at least) three es

sential "developmental tasks" during puberty and adolescence (Fend

2000): (1) to find a new relationship with themselves, (2) to build new

relational bonds with other people (especially peers and parents), and(3) to construct a (new) relationship to the social and historical context

in which they live (neighborhood, township, city, society, and history).

In all these dimensions, "time" is a predominant element.

Such an understanding goes along with a social-ecological view of

everybody's lifeworld, especially that of children and young people.

Urie Bronfenbrenner developed a social theory of understanding in

dividuals within their social context in different social systems: the mi

crosystem (face-to-face relationships), the mesosystem (institutionallevel, such as neighborhoods, schools, and jobs), and the macrosystem

(political and social situations as represented in the mass media, for

example, in television and on the Internet). Later, Bronfenbrenner

added a forth dimension: the chronosystem (biography and history)

(Bronfenbrenner 1979; Bronfenbrenner and Morris 1998). All these

systems represent special levels of social activity, and all of them must

be taken into account if we are to understand and interpret the life of

individuals.These thoughts and investigations are the starting point of a re

lational approach to educational theory, as well as to the theory of

religious education. Dealing with the terms "relational" and "relation

ship" in anthropological, philosophical, and educational thinking, we

must first refer to the work of Martin Buber (1878-1965), who is the

central figure in thinking human beings in relational and dialogical

terms.

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

4/14


relationship. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the reflections

on education of Martin Buber, Herman Nohl, and Janusz Korczak

made a special contribution to our understanding of the relationship

between educator and student. But how can we define this relationship, and what is its significance for religious education?

Martin Buber stood for consistent dialogical thinking in philoso

phy, in philosophy of religion, and in education. It was he who intro

duced the concepts of encounter and relationship to modern philos

ophy, defining them as basic principles of all human life: "I require

a You to become; becoming I, I say You. All actual life is encounter"

(Buber [1923] 1984, 15). Even more: "In the beginning is the rela

tion" (Buber [1973] 1984, 22). In "I and Thou," Bubers basic work

of his philosophy of dialogue and relationship first published in 1923,

relation appears as principle of all being. The terms he uses for this

I-Thou relation are encounter, (real) dialogue, and relationship. The

terms are not clarified in Buber s work. He uses them synonymously.

Interestingly, Buber did not leave these insights to philosophy

alone. In his speeches on education he points out that the same prin

ciple is valid for education as well, thus pushing educational theory

forward to a deeper understanding of the process of education (Ventur

2003). He is convinced that the principle of education is always relation

(Buber [1925] 1986,30), a fundamental relationship between educator

and child. The real encounter with a concrete person, with the educa

tor, has its special significance for the child. It is for him and for her a

basic experience, an "elemental experience" (Buber [1925] 1986, 36)

that constitutes the educational process and stimulates development

and maturity.Here we find a basic dimension of relationship: the personal re

lationship with others. It is only one among many dimensions that

belong to relationship. In the educational relationship, we can find a

dimension that is at least equally important: the relationship with the

cultural and religious heritage, with the very culture that comes to the

children in the encounter with the teacher. Buber s understanding of

education is a broad one: education is the whole impact of "the world"

on a person. But "the world" does not directly "encounter" the childor the pupil. In between the world and the child stands the educator,

h h

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

5/14


existence only if the child trusts the teacher and knows that he is really there

for him. (Friedman 1993,186)

This trust is the basis of every relationship, especially of educationalrelationships. "Trust, trust in the world, because this human being ex

ists that is the most inward achievement of the relation in education"

(Buber [1925] 1986,40). Buber takes all elements of the I-Thou rela

tionship to describe the educational relationship, with one significant

exception, which I will discuss soon. What are the elements of the

I-Thou relationship?

Relationship is more than sympathy.

Relationship means absolute acceptance.

Relationship means responsibility.

Relationship is really encountering and assimilating (Verge-

genwrtigung) the reality of the other person.

Relationship is mutuality (Gegenseitigkeit).

Whereas the first three do not need further explanation, the last twoencounter and mutualityneed some reflection, because in both we

find the intensity and greatness of Buber s educational thinking, as well

as the problems.

In Buber s terms, encounter is a kind of mutual gathering. The

same is true for education. Buber wrote, "In order to be or to remain

truly present to the child, the educator must have gathered the child's

presence into his own existence..." (Buber [1925] 1986, 40). This

encounter is an act that happens IN TIME. It occurs in the present, itbrings the presence of the child and the presence of the educator to

gether in the same moment (Vergegenwrtigung). In the very moment

of encounter, nothing is present except the presence of the other. This

act of encounter is the basis for a deep educational relationship.

Here we find another dimension of relationship: the relationship

with time that characterizes human beings. Animals do not have a con

scious relationship with time, because they live by instinct. Only hu

mans can relate to time, meaning to their own biography, to historyindeed, only they can measure time at all.

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

6/14

REINHOLD BOSCHKl 119

butand this separates them from Buberin such a way that the

time of one person never coincides with the time of the other. The

other always is understood in his or her otherness. His or her time can

never fuse with my time. The problem in Buber s thinking is that two

persons who stand in personal or educational relationship to each other

are seen in complete fusion, in an intense closeness where almost noth

ing divides them. The encounter is complete and total. For Lvinas,

this is an act of violence: the total encounter could end in a totalitarian

encounter, and this is definitely a danger in an educational relationship.

The second point that needs some clarification and critique is

Buber s understanding of mutuality in educational relationship. In

Buber s thinking, the relationship of mutuality is an unequal one. It is

asymmetric. There is a big difference in level between the educator

and the child. So, unlike the relationship of friendship, the educa

tional relationship must be largely one-sided: the educator becomes

the senior partner.

To understand why Buber thinks like this, one needs to remember

his Hasidic background. In the Hasidic tradition, the rabbi stands in an

exalted position in relation to his pupils. The relationship is very closeand very much based on dialogue, but there is always a gap between

teacher and student. Buber probably did not want to formulate this

difference in level in his educational thinking. But he always visualized

the encounter between two human beings as an encounter between

adults. He belonged so strongly to this Jewish tradition that, despite

his dialogical thinking, the difference in level in an educational setting

always remained with him.

ON THE SAME LEVEL: JANUSZ KORCZAK'S PASSIONATE

INTEREST IN CHILDREN

In opposition to such an asymmetrical understanding of the educa

tional relationship, Janusz Korczak, the so-called Pestalozzi of Warsaw,

came from his specific background to more radical conclusions for the

theory and practice of education (Lifton 1988; Langhanky 1993; Kirchner 1997; Beiner 1999).

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

7/14


to 1906. After graduating, he became a pediatrician. He also wrote

for some Polish-language newspapers. Several times during his life he

was forced to serve as an army doctor. His most important work was

to found and manage orphanages for Jewish children in Warsaw. He

and the other teachers lived in a real community with these children:

they shared their meals and work, and came together for assemblies

(a kind of children's parliament). The children had the right to hold

their own courts, and they published a newspaper.

Korczak himself often travelled to Palestine and visited several kib

butzim from which he got the idea of a democratic children's republic.

In his spare time he wrote novels for children and essays about his ed

ucational ideas. In his main books on pedagogy How to Love a Child

(1919) and The Child's Right to Respect (1929), he condensed his ex

periences and thoughts but without working out a specific educational

theory. His books are rather an appeal to adults to change the way they

relate to children. Under the Nazi occupation of Poland, Korczak and

his orphans had to move into the Ghetto and were forced to live under

inhuman conditions. In August 1942, Korczak was deported together

with 200 of"his" children to the Treblinka extermination camp wherethey were murdered. Korczak was given the chance to save his own

life and go abroad, but he refused to do so in order to remain with the

children and share their fate.

Devoting his whole life to childreneven his death in the Nazi gas

chambershis educational work became even more powerful and sig

nificant than the writings of his aforementioned contemporary Martin

Buber. Korczak abandons all asymmetrical thinking about education.

Sharing the children's and young people's life day and night in the orphanages founded and headed by himself, he was convinced that therelationship between adults and young people must be an equal one

otherwise it would be inhuman and destructive. Teachers and children

must live and learn together on the same level, not with teachers see

ing themselves as at a superior level. Korczak, thus, creates a pedagogy

of radical "respect for the child" (Korczak 1996ff.). His approach to

children is free of any romanticism and idealization because he saw

children in their everyday life characterized by absolute poverty, socialdisadvantage, and very bad health conditions. Therefore, childhood

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

8/14


relationship: Korczak's view of children includes the social and political

situation.

Korczak also saw every day that children themselves were not

"perfect." They failed in their social behavior just as much as adults do.Korczak's vision of a renewed educational relationship with children

was always realistic, never romantic.

Korczak derives his ideas from his own phenomenological ap

proach to the lifeworld of children. Sitting in the dormitories of the

orphanages he had founded, he observed the children sleeping. The

next day he saw the same children playing and quarrelling: during as

semblies, in the refectory, during common work, during communal

singing. Everywhere he discovered one basic rule that became thecore of his educational anthropology. When he was only 21, he formu

lated the basic "educational credo" on which all his later educational

writing was founded: "Children don't turn into people, they are people

already" (Korczak 1996, 475). At that time, people thought that chil

dren turn into full human beings only as a result of their education. In

direct opposition to this commonly held view, Korczak developed his

concept of children's rights (Korczak 1996, 45):

1. The child's right to die.

2. The child's right to live for today.

3. The child's right to be what she or he is.

Korczak based a fundamentally new relationship between adults and

children on these three rights. Only a relationship at the same level

can properly respond to children's needs. The educator does not stand

above the childrenshe or he has no position of superiority. On the

contrary, "the teacher must look up to the children. He or she must

try to soar, must stand on tiptoe to reach up to the children's feelings"

(Korczak 1996, 49). Children and young people can even function as

pre-educators for the educators.

Children's education, thus based radically on equality in principle

between adults and children, puts young people at the center of edu

cation, not the adult world of norms and controls. The relationship is

based on mutual trust and respect.

This again sounds romantic and idealistic but Korczak's own ex

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

9/14


to "judge" the offenderbut, in most cases, the judgment was an ap

peal never do it again, and the offender was forgiven. Korczak found

that if you put trust in children, you get trust in return.

In his approach, Korczak had many points of contact and overlapwith Martin Buber s educational thinking. Both based the education of

children on the person and on dialogue. Both conceived of education

as dialogue (Kemper 1990), in which dialogue is not just conversation

but personal encounter and a relationship based on trust. But Korczak

went further, seeingand livingthe pupil-teacher relationship as a

strictly mutual happening between persons on the same level.

The educator learns just as much from the children as the children

learn from the educatormaybe even more.

CONSEQUENCES FOR THE THEORY AND PRACTICE

OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Both thinkers were rediscovered at the end of the twentieth cen

tury, and their thinking has been "reconstructed" and revised in rela

tion to the challenges of todays society. The basic insights of Buber

and Korczak have proved tremendously modern: education cannot be

understood as a technical process, where the younger person learns

from the older simply by accepting what she or he is told. No, edu

cation in a broad and integral sense implies personal relationship! If

education is to mean not only cognitive training and instruction but

extensive personal development, it must be linked to personal bonds

between educator and educandus.

Today, educational theory is being enriched by interdisciplinary

research on personal relationship (Auhagen and Salisch 1993; Duck

1993, 1996; Asendorpf and Banse 2000; Ickes and Duck 2000). We

have learned that relationship is constitutive for the lifeworld of ev

ery individual, and especially of young people who are still seek

ing their own identity. For this reason, it is possible to integrate

the elements of personal relationship into a relational theory of ed-

ucation. The educational process occurs inside various dimensionsof relationship: relationship with oneself, with the educator(s), andith th i l t t All th i i ht h t i t

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

10/14


of personal relationship. For Buber, the task of the educator is to

bring the individual face to face with God (Friedman 1976,180). For

Korczak, the educator is not an intermediary in the relationship with

Godeveryone has to build and manage their own ("Alone with God":Korczak 1997).

To sum up: having re-read Buber and Korczak, and gotten at least

some insights into the social phenomenology of relationship, we have

all the dimensions that constitute the process ofreligious education.

In a multidimensional relational approach to religious education, de

rived from the investigations and reflections discussed, the process of

religious learning has at least five dimensions (Boschki 2003):

1. Religious education provides impulses that help (young) people

to be sensitive in their relationship to themselves. All religions fo

cus on this basic relationship, which is central for one's own con

cept of identity. The way somebody sees himself or herself, theself-knowledge and self-confidence, the sensitivity for one's own

strengths and weaknessesall these things need a lot of inward-

looking reflection and contemplation ofoneself. Korczak gave thechildren he looked after a great deal of self-confidence and a feel

ing of their own value; the religious educator must focus on this

very point. Religions offer a forum where people may tackle some

of these tasks: meditative elements, symbolic acts, and exercises in

silence should be part of any religious education, whether in public

schools or in the parishes. All this may help people to become aware

of their own relationship with themselves, and hopefully to find a

positive self-concept.

2. It is obvious that the process of religious learning and teaching

must include the dimension of personal relationship with others.

This dimension is dominant in both Buber s and Korczak's work.

There is no religion without extensive ethical teaching and implica

tions, no religion that does not focus on face-to-face relationships.

But social learning and ethical learning are only possible "by do

ing," that is, in real interactions with classmates, with peers, with

persons belonging to one's own and to other religious and cultural

traditions. The greater the frequency and diversity of such action

sequences the greater the impact on the individuals religious and

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

11/14


to teach and learn theoretically about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism,

and other religions, but to encounter members of such religions in

a non-competitive setting, leading to concrete learning sequences

on the side of (young) people.3. Religion implies a special relationship to the world around us. Re

ligious education must be aware of the wider setting, of the social

and political context (see Korczak!), and of the world as a whole.

Religious education must help people to become sensitive to their

relationship with the tradition in which they were born (even if they

do not have close bonds to it) in order to have a basis for under

standing others in their tradition. If children are to come to terms

with the experience of cultural and religious diversityand also for

the sake of peace and tolerancechildren need a type of religious

education that helps them to develop positive and appreciative ways

of being with other children from culturally and religiously differ

ent backgrounds. This is why religious education cannot be limited

to the task of supporting identifications, but must also include per

sonal encounters with others who come from such backgrounds

(Schweitzer and Boschki 2004).

4. In all these dimensions, the relationship with God is intertwined

(Heyward 1982; Sattler 1997). Religious education must give im

pulses to think about and maybe find one's own relationship with

God and the Ultimate. If this dimension is lacking, education may

be anything you like, but it is not religious education. Children

and young people ask the basic question about God (the Ultimate):

Does God exist? If so, in what relationship does he stand to me,

and I to him? Is he watching me? Can I count on him? Where ishe when people suffer? Is he waiting for us after death? and so on.

Many of these questions are not answerable in one sentence, and

not even in lengthier teaching sessions. They can only be answered

by each individual within a specific religious tradition. Young people

learn to give their own answers to such questions by encountering

persons who live (or at least try to live) a religious life. Encounter

is more than information and less than indoctrination.

5. Religious education stresses our relationship with Time, meaningour own lifetime and biography, as well the time of others, and of

i d f hi P l k Wh d I f ? Wh

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

12/14


Religious education means becoming aware of these five dimen

sions, and of the fact that all dimensions of relationship are closely

interlinked. The process of religious education is characterized by

becoming aware of, or becoming sensitized to, all dimensions of relationship. This teaching and learning process should not be only an

intellectual one. When Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) noted

that messages have both content and relational themes, they were

pointing to something that is essential for communication theory as

well as for everyday communication. Especially in the field of religious

education, these insights are of great importance. Religious teaching

that puts the stress only on information ("content") forgets about the

relational and emotional aspect of religious learning.

Emotional impulses should be part of religious education courses.

The very best way to include such affective impulses lies in encounter

(see Martin Buber). Encounters with persons who live in a religious

tradition can be a help to self-identification for those who are born

into the same tradition. For others, the encounter with them offers the

possibility of learning authentically from a representative of another

denomination or another religion how he or she understands and lives

his or her own religious life. If these encounters happen in a non

competitive setting and on the same level (see Janus Korczak), meaning

not with persons seeing themselves as in some sense superior, they can

be a starting-point for a positive personal relationship. This will enrich

religious learning tremendously.

Religious learning in its depths, either in one's own tradition or in

exchanges with another religious tradition, happens in such personal

relationships. They should be "passionate relationships" (Nohl [1933,

1935] 1988,169) between educator and pupils or students, and include

an absolute respect for the child and sensitivity to his or her own

religious ideas, questions, doubts, and fantasies; that is, to "children's

theology" (Hull 1991).

To paraphrase the words of Martin Buber quoted earlier (Buber

[1923] 1984,15, 22): I require a You to become a religiously educated

person. Becoming a religious I, I need a religious You. All actual reli

gious education is encounter. Even more: In the beginning of religiouseducation is the relation.

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

13/14

126 RE-READING BUBER ANDKORCZAK

REFERENCES

Asendorpf, J. B., and Banse, R. Eds. 2000. Psychologie der Beziehung. Bern et al.: Verlag Hans

Huber.Auhagen, A. E., and Saliseli, M. von. Eds. 1993. Zwischenmenschliche Beziehungen. Gttingen:Hogrefe.

Beiner, F. 1999. Korczak-Pdagogik. Legitimation und praxis erzieherischen Handelns.Pdagogische Rundschau 53(5):665-681.

Boschki, R. 2003. Beziehung als Leithegriff der Religionspdagogik. Grundlegung einerdialogisch-kreativen Religionsdidaktik. Ostfildern (Germany): Schwabenverlag.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The ecology of human development. New York: Harvard UniversityPress.

Bronfenbrenner, U., and Morris, P. A. 1998. The ecology of developmental processes, pp. 993-1028. in Handbook of child psychology, Volume I, edited by R. M. Lerner. New York: Wiley& Sons.

Buber, M. [1923] 1984a. Ich und Du [I and Thou], in Das dialogische Prinzip. 5th ed. Heidelberg:Lambert Schneider.

[1923] 1984b. Elemente des Zwischenmenschlichen [Elements of the Interhuman], inDas dialogische Prinzip, 5th ed.: Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider.

([1925] 1986. ber das Erzieherische, in Reden ber Erziehung, 7th ed. Heidelberg:Lambert Schneider.

Duck, S. W. Ed. 1993. Social Context and relationships, London: Sage Publications.Duck, S. W. Ed. 1996. Handbook of personal relationships 2nd ed. New York: Wiley & Sons.Fend, H. 2000. Entwicklungspsychologie des Jugendalters. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.Friedman, M. 1993. Encounter on the narrow ridge. A Life of Martin Buber. New York: Paragon

House.

Heyward, C. 1982.The redemption of God. A theology ofmutual relation. Washington: UniversityPress of America.

Hull, J. M. 1991. God-talk with young children: Notes for parents and teachers. Derby: CEM.* Husserl, E. [1902, 1903, 1984]. Logische Untersuchungen, Gesammelte Werke [Husserliana],

vol. XVIII, XIX/1, XIX/2. Dordrecht: Den Haag.Ickes, W, and Duck, S. W. 2000. Ed. The social psychology of personal relationships. New York:

Wiley & Sons.Kemper, H. 1990. Erziehung als Dialog. Anfragen an Janusz Korczak und Piaton-Sokrates.

Weinheim/Mnchen: Beltz.Kirchner, M. 1997. Von Angesicht zu Angesicht. Korczak und das Kind. Heinsberg: Dieck.Korczak, J. 1996ff: Smtliche Werke (16 volumes). Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus.

Langhanky, M. 1993. Die Pdagogik von Janusz Korczak. Neuwied/Berlin: Luchterhand.Lifton, B. J. 1988. The king of children. A biography of Janusz Korczak. London: Chatto &Windus.

Nohl, H. [1933,1935] 1988. Die Theorie der Bildung, in Die pdagogische Bewegung in Deutschland und ihre Theorie. Frankfurt/M.: Klostermann.

Sattler, D. 1997. Beziehungsdenken in der Erlsungslehre. Bedeutung und Grenzen. Freiburg:Herder.

Schtz, A. 1967. The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston HL: Northwestern UniversityPress.

Schtz, ., and Luckmann, Th. [1975] 1989. The structures of the life-world. Evanston III.: North-western UniversityPress.

Schweitzer, F., and Boschki, R. 2004. What children need: cooperative religious education in

German schoolsresults from an empirical study. British Journal ofReligious Education26(1):

V t B 2003 M ti B b d i h H d l N ki h N ki h V l

7/27/2019 At La 0001466984

14/14

^ 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 permissionfrom 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 specificwork 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

At La 0001466984