[/SATT 53 (1994)65-86]

TRADITION, REVELATION AND GOSPEL:

A STUDY IN GALAHANS"

Michael Winger 800 West End Avenue, Apt 9E New York, NY 10025-5467

In the middle of the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Galatians, at the beginning of the autobiographical account which itself begins Paul's defense of the gospel he preached to the Galatians, Paul sets out two distinctive ways in which he might have received that gospel: by tradition, or by revelation. These appear to Paul to exclude one another, and he invokes tradition only to dismiss it. declare to you, brothers', he says solemnly, in Gal. 1.11-12, 'that the gospel I pro claimed is not human; for I did not receive it from any human, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ'.1 This contrast between tradition and revelation has been much com mented on.2 Paul's treatment of it here is not easily reconciled with 1. In translating from the New Testament I have usually followed the RSV, but I have altered it freely whenever I thought I could better express the sense of the text 2. Besides the commentaries, see especially K. Chamblin, 'Revelation and Tradition in the Pauline Euangelion\ WTJ 48 (1986), pp. 1-16; R.K.Y. Fung, 'Revelation and Tradition: the Origins of Paul's Gospel', EvQ 57 (1985), pp. 23-41; H.D. Betz, 'Excursus: Conversion, Revelation, and Tradition', in Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 64-66; G. Bornkamm, 'The Revelation of Christ to Paul on the Damascus Road and Paul's Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation: A Study in Galatians , in R. Banks (ed.), Reconciliation and Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 90-103; G.E. Ladd, 'Revelation and Tradition in Paul', in W.W. Gasque and R.P. Martn (eds.), Apostolic Tradition and the Gospel (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1970), pp. 223-30; J.T. Sanders, 'Paul's "Autobiographical" Statements in Galatians 1-2', JBL 85 (1966), pp. 335-43; D. Lhrmann, Das Offenbarungsverstndnis bei Paulus und in paulinischen

66

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

his formally similar remarks in 1 Cor. 15.1-3, where heagain beginning with the solemn declare to you, brothers' and speaking of 'the gospel which I proclaimed to you'proceeds to say that he 'delivered' to the Corinthians what he 'also received': and , technical language for the transmission of 3 traditions. But we do nt need 1 Corinthians 15 to alert us to the issue raised by Galatians 1. For if we think only of Paul and the Galatians, it should occur to us that however Paul received the gospel, surely it was as tradition that he delivered it to the Galatians! And if this is so, what is the place of revelation in Paul's argument to the Galatians? Why should it matter to them that someone (be it Paul or 'those who were apostles before him' [Gal. 1.17]) claims revelation as authority for the gospel, when by its very nature this is evidence inaccessible to the Galatians, who receive the gospel in human words, on human lips? If some issue is raised about the veracity of Paul's accountif Paul's indignant protest in Gal. 1.20, 'Before God, I do not lie', reflects a questions actually under discussion in Galatiano revelation to Paul will lay that issue to rest. In such a case it would seem necessary for Paul to argue on the basis of something which the Galatians themselves know; and how do the Galatians know anything to the point, except what they have received from the apostles by tradition? Thus many modern writers find that, Gal. 1.11-12 notwithstanding, tradition has a fundamental place in Paul's thought. Betz goes so far as to say that 'Galatians as a whole was written to be a defense of Paul's Gemeinden (WMANT, 16; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965); . Wegenast, Das Verstndnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962); L. Goppelt, 'Tradition nach Paulus', KD 4 (1958), pp. 213-33; W. Baird, 'What Is the Kerygma? A Study of I Cor 15:3-8 and Gal 1:11-17', JBL 57 (1957), pp. 181-91; O. Cullmann, 'The Tradition', in The Early Church (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), pp. 59-99; L. Cerfaux, 'La tradition selon saint Paul*, in Recueil Lucien Cerf aux (Gembloux: Duculot, 1954-62), , pp. 253-63. 3. These two reciprocal terms each have a variety of senses, but when used together they generally refer to the delivery and reception of traditions. See BAGD, s.v. 3, 2..; J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida, GreekEnglish Lexicon (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 33.237,238; s.v. 3; LSJ, s.v. 1.4, s.v. 1.4; but compare J.H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (repr.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 [1930]).

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 67 gospel as his reading of the tradition.. . \ 4 and Cullmann maintains that Christian tradition is actually 'on the same level' as revelation, because 'the exalted Christ himself stands as transmitter behind the apostles who transmit his words and works'.5 I shall argue that such views miss the point of Gal. 1.11-12 and its sharp contrast between tradition and revelation. We can see this, and understand Paul's treatment of the gospel as related to tradition and revelation, when we address a series of interrelated questions. What does Paul mean by 'gospel',6 'tradition'7 and 'revelation*? How do these terms relate to one another? And are their relations always the same, or are they one thing for apostles such as Paul and something else for other believers? These are not new questions. I have noted that there is a considerable literature dealing with them, or some of them, which is focused especially on the effort to harmonize Gal. 1.11-12 and 1 Cor. 15.1-3. I want to take a different approach. I intend to pursue Paul's treatment of these issues in Galatians itself, especially Gal. 1.11-16. In this way hints will be found that have been generally neglected; applied to material elsewhere in Paul's letters, including 1 Corinthians IS, these
4. Betz, GalaanSy p. 65 (emphasis added). 5. Cullmann, Tradition', p. 69. 6. This customary English translation of is open to criticism. First, - is 'good news', and its use in a general sense long pre-dates Christianity. English 'gospel', although evidently derived from the Old English for 'good news', now means essentially the Christian gospel; all other meanings are derivative from this (so OED, s.v.). Thus the general sense has entirely vanished from our usage, while it probably remained in early Christian usage. Secondly, is often associated with the cognate term , 'to announce good news'. This association can be preserved, however awkwardly, by expressions like 'the good news of which I announced the good news' (Gal. 1.11); but English has no verbal form of 'gospel'. For these reasons I sometimes render by 'good news'; but since 'gospel' is so entrenched in the modern vocabulary, I use it too. The two terms are equivalent 7. 'Tradition' is also a problematic translation, since for many modern readers this term bears a strong negative connotation, reflected in usages like the opposition of 'tradition-bound' to 'innovative'. But there is no reason to think that the Greek term had this negative import for Paul or the Galations; although Paul criticizes tradition, although he contrasts it with a revelation which is indeed 'new', his criticism is certainly not based on a categorical preference for the new over the old.

68

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

hints will help to fashion a coherent picture of some central elements of Paul's thought. Four principal theses will emerge from this discussion: 1. Paul understands the passing on of tradition to be a human mechanism, no different in Christianity than in Judaism. The problem with Jewish tradition is not that it is Jewish but that it is tradition. 2. Paul understands the gospel not as a form of words but as an event; therefore, it is misleading to speak of the gospel as being handed on by tradition. While the gospel may be described by various forms of words, and these forms may be handed on traditionally, this handing on of various traditions does not in itself constitute delivery of the one gospel. 3. Rather, Paul believes that the gospel is only apprehended through divine power; this is so not only for the apostles, but for all the saints. 4. Generally, Paul speaks of the apprehension of the gospel in other terms: he does not usually say that his hearers have 'received the gospel', but that they have been 'called'. Both expressions refer, how ever, to the same event, so that call reveals to us the meaning of received the gospel. Having presented these theses I will finally show how they allow us to reconcile Galatians 1 and 1 Corinthians 15. I Let us now turn to the texts. I have already quoted Gal. 1.11-12, but here we shall look at it more carefully, beginning with a more literal translation: For I make known to you, brothers, that the gospel announced by me [ * ] is not human [ ]; for I myself8 did not receive it from a human, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ [' 9].

8. Since here is not grammatically necessary, it is probably emphatic; so E.D. Burton, A Critical and Exegetcal Commentary on the Epistle of St Paul to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), p. 38. 9. Without any verb. Grammatically, Jesus Christ might be the subject or the object of the revelation (or both). See below, n. 16.

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 69 What is at issue here? The first point to be observed about this passage is that it develops a theme introduced at the very beginning of this letter: not human, but divine. According to Gal. 1.1 Paul is an apostle neither from humans nor through humans, but through Jesus Christ and God the father; according to 1.10, Paul does not wish to please humans, but God. This theme is placed in context by Gal. 1.6-9, in which we learn that the Galatians are turning away from the good news that Paul preachedgood news which Paul links in 1.6 to 'the one who called you in the grace of Christ', a phrase that, on the gen eral evidence of Pauline usage, almost certainly means God.10 The balance of the letter elucidates what is meant by this 'turning away': the submission of Gentile Christians to at least some elements of Jewish law, most conspicuously circumcision.11 'The good news announced by me' thus excludes Gentile observance of Jewish law; on what grounds, I shall take up shortly. Verses 6-9 also clarify a point that is not so clear in vv. 11-12: whether 'good news announced by me' is some particular gospel among others. According to v. 7, it is not: 'there is no other'. It is plain here, if we did not already know it from other early Christian literature, that 'gospel' has a technical sense; not just any good news is meant, but the good news. As Friedrich notes, Paul generally uses 'gospel' in the absolute; 'he does not need any noun or adj. to define it. The readers know what it is.' 1 2 This, however, appears to be some thing of an overstatement. No doubt the Galatians know in a general way what gospel is referred to, yet there does appear to be a question as to exactly what that gospel is, or at least as to what it means: for
10. When in Paul has an explicit subject, it is always God: Rom. 4.17; 8.30 (2 times); 1 Cor. 7.15, 17; 1 Thess. 2.12; 4.7. Gal. 1.15 is almost as explicit; although there is probably not original (so Burton, Galatians, pp. 51-52; B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Societies, 1975], p. 590 [minority report of Metzger and Wikgren]), it is an accurate gloss. 11. On this the commentators are in general agreement Key texts in Galatians include 5.2 ('See, I, Paul, I tell you that if you are circumcised, Christ will be of no help to you') and 6.13 ('The circumcisers do not keep the law themselves, but they wish you to be circumcised... '). 12. G. Friedrich, '', TDNT, , pp. 721-36, 729. 'Gospel' is abso lute 23 out of 48 times in Paul's letters; in the other 25 cases it is described only through such general phrases as 'of Christ' (eight times), Of God' (six times), 'our gospel' or 'my gospel' (twice each).

70

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

apparently someone is telling the Galatians that the gospel, far from ruling out circumcision, actually requires it. Nevertheless, this dis agreement makes it the more striking that Paul never says, 'You are being told that the gospel is X, but in truth it is Y\ Some remark like this would certainly help us, and would it not have helped the Galatians also? If 'gospel' has been confused, why not clarify it? We will need to consider carefully why Paul makes no such clarifying remark. Turning from gospel to tradition, we see in 1.11-12 a contrast with 1.9. In 1.12 Paul asserts that he did not 'receive' () the gospel from humans, but in 1.9 he speaks of those who 'preach a gospel contrary to what you received* (' ). There is no necessary inconsistency here, however, for the two phrases could be reconciled in several ways: (1) the gospel might come to Paul by revelation but to the Galatians by tradition; (2) perhaps the Galatians 'received' the gospel not from humans but from God; (3) in one of these verses 'received' might not be used in the technical sense related to 'tradition'. When we return to these possibilities below, it will be seen that 2 and 3 merge. Some light on what Paul has in mind will be shed by Gal. 1.13-17, to be taken up below. My last key term here is 'revelation' (). 1 3 Its use in Gal. 1.12 is obscured by the absence of a verb in the phrase in which it appears. We may take 'through the revelation of Christ Jesus' to refer back two verbs to 'receive': received the gospel through reve lation';14 in this case 'receive' loses its technical sense. An alternative is 'reveal' (), suggested by the noun 'revelation';15 if the construction were complete it would be 'revealed through a revela tion', which is redundant but similar to 'the good news of which I announced the good news' in 1.11. This question admits no final answer; certainly the thought 'received the gospel (by revelation)' is suggested here, but equally certainly it is not expressed. Perhaps Paul wished to avoid saying that he 'received' the gospel in any sense, because of the verb's association with tradition, but did not want to

13. Like 'gospel*, 'revelation' has a verbal form, , found in Gal. 1.16. 14. So most commentators. 15. G. Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 67.

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 71 burden his sentence with still another verb whose meaning would have 16 been similar. To pursue these terms further we must now pursue Paul's argument further. In vv. 13-16 Paul proceeds, For you have heard of my conduct when I was in Judaism: that beyond limit I persecuted the congregation of God and devastated it, and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries, so exceedingly zealous was I for the traditions of my ancestors [ ]. But when it pleased the one who formed me in my mother's womb and called me through his grace to reveal [] his son in me in order that I might announce the good news concerning him [ ] among the Gentiles, from that point I did not confer withfleshand blood... Here the contrast between human tradition and divine revelation, prominent in vv. 11 and 12, is repeated; but here the tradition spoken of is Jewish rather than Christian. Most scholars interested in early Christian tradition have assumed it to be different in kind from Jewish tradition;17 it will be well for us to inquire whether Paul shared this assumption. To answer this question we need to look more carefully at vv. 1317. What is Paul's line of thought here, and how does it connect with w . 11 and 12? From 1.13 to 2.14 Paul speaks of his past, and 1.13-17 begins this account.18 The account falls into four parts: 1.13-14 tells of Paul's life 'in Judaism'; 1.15-24 tells of the first fourteen years after 'the revelation of [God's] son in [Paul]'; 2.1-10 tells of a trip to Jerusalem, focusing on a meeting with Peter,19 James and John; 16. A second ambiguity in 'revelation' here lies in the phrase 'of Jesus Christ*; this might be subjective, 'the revelation Christ gave', or objective, that 'which revealed Christ'. Verses 15-16, 'When [God]... was pleased to reveal his son. show that Paul had the objective meaning in mind, but they do not exclude the sub jective meaning; Paul's ambiguity could be deliberate. 17. This underlies the treatments of the authors cited in n. 2, with the notable exceptions of Wegenast, Betz and perhaps Cullmann. Cullmann remarks (Tradition*, p. 65), 'The tanna of the Jews is replaced by the apostlos of Christ', suggesting that the two traditions are parallel; but I think the idea that one replaces the other is not found in Paul. 18. There is no break between w . 17 and 18. My focus on vv. 13-17 (really on w . 13-16) is based on the presence there of our key terms; the passage's relation to what follows, where these key terms fade from view, must be kept in mind. 19. That is, Cephas (1.18, 2.9, 11, 14), usually taken to be the same as Peter

72

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

2.11-14 tells of an encounter with Peter in Antioch.20 Paul's relations with the leaders in Jerusalem, especially Peter, are a major theme from LIS to 2.14. Paul stresses his independence from these leaders; he does not deny his contacts and consultations (see especially 2.221), but when conflict arises that touches on 'the truth of the gospel' (2.5, 14), Paul yields to no one, not even to Peter. In this we see evidence for Paul's claim in 1.11-12 that the gospel he preached is not human, being neither received from any human nor taught; and it is generally agreed that 1.13-2.14 is meant to support 1.11-12.22 To this 1.15-16 provides the keynote: everything follows from God's 'revelation of his son'. Paul's account in 1.13-14 of his life in Judaism is the foil for what follows; ruling Paul's life in this earlier period was no revelation, but 'the ancestral traditions'; everything Paul did then is explained as the product of zeal for these traditions; God is not mentioned. Not only was tradition not the source of the gospel Paul preaches, but tradition was overthrown when the gospel came. The use of 'tradition' in v. 14 and of 'revelation' in v. 16 is thus not incidental to those verses; it is central to Paul's demonstration that the gospel depends on the one rather than the other. Paul means here to repeat and to emphasize the antithesis of tradition and revelation, and moreover to present this antithesis within the categories of human and divine that dominate Galatians from the first verse. In 1.14 the traditions which ruled Paul's past life are described as human: 'of my ancestors'. In 1.15 the revelation is described as divine: God was the revealer, God's son was revealed. The primacy of revelation over tradition, viewed thus, is self-evident. But what exactly does Paul mean by 'the traditions of my ancestors'? Various answers have been given, usually narrow: the oral
(2.8). This has recently been questioned by B.D. Ehrman, 'Cephas and Peter*, JBL 109 (1990), pp. 463-74, and defended by D.C. Allison, 'Peter and Cephas: One and the Same*, JBL 111 (1992), pp. 489-95. 20. It is possible that 2.15-21 is part of this account, continuing Paul's rebuke of Peter. 21. *... and I put before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, privately to those regarded as leaders, lest I might somehow work (or have worked) in vain'. 22. So, e.g., Betz (Galatians, pp. 66), Burton (Galatians, p. 35), F. Mussner (Der Galaterbrief [Freiburg: Herder, 1974], p. 78), H. Schlier (Der Brief an die Galater [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965], pp. 45,49).

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 73 law, or the particular traditions of the Pharisees, or even those of 25 Paul's own family. All of these are unlikely. Was it Paul's zeal for 26 oral law in particular that advanced him beyond his fellows? If we grant that Pharisees had traditions and were moreover especially zealous,27 did Pharisees mean to be zealous for Pharisaism, or for the law of God?28 Was there any point at which the Pharisees supposed that their traditions were in conflict with the law of God, or were more important than the law?29 Nowhere in Paul's writings does he draw a distinction between the law and particular interpretations of the law, or suggest that it is merely some interpretation of the law, not the law itself, which does not apply to Gentiles.30 When Paul speaks of the traditions of his 23. So Burton, Galatians, p. 48. Josephus (Ant. 13.10.6 297) uses 'ancestral traditions' ( ) as distinguished from written laws ( ) to describe what the Pharisees hold but the Sadduccees reject. Nevertheless 'tradition' has a broader import, even in Josephus; see n. 26 below. At least by the time of the Mishnah the simple contrast between written and oral material was completely inadequate to describe Jewish law; see M.I Gruber, "The Mishnah as Oral Torah: A Reconsideration', JSJ15 (1984), pp. 112-22. 24. So F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1982), p. 91; Schlier, Galater, pp. 51-52; J.B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (repr.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), p. 82. 25. G. Schrenk, '', TDNT, V, pp. 1021-22. 26. may be used for written tradition; see 2 Thess. 2.15; Josephus, Apion, 1.4 20, 1.10 53. 27. Acts 22.3; Josephus, War 2.8.14 162, Ant. 17.2.4 41. 28. In the Septuagint 'zeal' is often for God. See generally A. Stumpff, ' .', TDNT, IV, pp. 877-88, 879. 29. If the Pharisees drew a distinction, they acknowledged that their traditions were inferior to the law; see E.P. Sanders, 'Did the Pharisees Have Oral Law?', in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), pp. 97-130, arguing that rabbinic sources generally distinguish tradition from law. Usually, however, the distinctions are implicit and subtle, and sometimes there seems to be no distinction. Thus m. Ab. 1.1: 'Moses received the Law from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue' (H. Danby, The Mishnah [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933], p. 446). Immediately following this passage is the Mishnah's classic acknowledgment that it goes beyond Scripture, but precisely to protect Scripture: 'They said... make a fence around the Law'. 30. It is true that Rom. 13.8-10 and Gal. 5.14 suggest that the law can be dis tilled into the command to love one's neighbor, thus effectively dispensing with cir cumcision, food rules and other distinctively Jewish practices. But not only do these
23 24

74

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

ancestors as dominating his life in Judaism, how could he mean any 31 thing but the very law itself? How else could the Gentile Galatians have understood him? Especially must this be so in Galatia, where, as Paul's letter makes clear, the issue was obedience to die law: testify to everyone who becomes circumcised, that he is obliged to do the entire law' (Gal. 5.3). But if Paul refers to Jewish law as 'tradition', then the relationship between tradition and God is not a simple one. Granted that Paul's writings (and especially his letter to Galatians) betray some ambiva lence about the relation between God and the law, Paul never says that 32 the law is not God's. In another place I have argued that Paul thinks law defective not because it is not God's, but because it is law; it 33 suffers from limits essential to law as such. Gal. 1.13-14 implies that it is the same with tradition. Tradition is human by definition; it is delivered and received by humans, and that is why it is tradition, even though the tradition may be about God and perhaps even originate from God. Epistemologically, this is fundamental. What Moses says may be grounded in a revelation of God to him; but if we receive it from Moses we receive it as tradition. Does Paul see Christian tradition in the same way? What would be the difference? Gal. 1.11-17, in which a claim about tradition relating to the gospel is supported by an argument dealing with tradition related to Jewish law, makes a persuasive case that Paul sees no fun damental distinction between the authority of Jewish tradition and that of Christian tradition. The supplanting of tradition by revelation depicted in 1.13-16 therefore cannot be reduced to the replacement of requirements disappear, so does virtually every specific requirement of the law. So radical a condensation is no mere interpretation; it amounts to a rejection of the legal character of law. 31. As in the parallel formulation which Luke attributes to Paul in Acts 22.3: am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated strictly at the feet of Gamaliel in our ancestral law [ ] being zealous for God [ ]... ' Although this text is not direct evidence of Paul's thought, the language is close enough to that of Gal. 1.14 to give indirect evidence of the way in which Paul's words are likely to have been understood. 32. Note especially Paul's obscure remarks in 3,19-20: '[the law] was given through angels, by the hand of a mediator. Now the mediator is not of one; but God is one.' See M, Winger, By what Law? The Meaning of in the Letters of Paul (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 98-101. 33. Winger, By what Law?, pp. 159-96.

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 75 Jewish tradition by Christian; tradition as such is subordinated to 34 something else. II Now let us consider whether we can better identify what Paul means by 'gospel'. Thus far I have noted that Paul allows only one gospel; that this gospel came to Paul by revelation, not by tradition; that Paul evidently assumes that his readers know what the gospel is; that he does not offer any expression as either content or description of the gospel. To these points, general patterns of usage in Paul allow us to add a ( basic element. This is the intimate connection between the noun good news' ( ) and the cognate verb 'to announce good news' (). The link between the gospel and the declaration of the gospel is thus what linguists term 'transparent', present in the 35 form of the words. Good news is not good news if it is not announced. The point is not only theoretical, for Paul draws on it. In Gal. 1.11, 1 Cor. 15.1 and 2 Cor. 11.7 the two terms appear in a single pleonastic phrase: 'the good news which I announced as good news' (respectively, ' , , and ). In two other places the gospel is 'preached' ( [Gal. 2.2; 1 Thess. 2.9]), and in another 'proclaimed' ( [1 Cor. 9.14]). 34. Similarly, R.E. Sturm ('An Exegetical Study of the Apostle Paul's Use of the Words Apokalypt/Apokalypsis: The Gospel of God's Apocalyptic' [PhD dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, 1983], p. 61); contrast Ebeling (Truth, p. 72) and Betz (Galatians, p. 65), who both regard gospel as proceeding naturally out of traditionan interpretation that cannot stand in the face of Gal. 1.13-16 and its claim of a decisive break. On the other hand, this break does not mean that tradition is now inconsequential; Chamblin ('Revelation', p. 8) rightly observes, 'The revelation of Christ creates the need for tradition concerning Christ', and certainly Paul acknowledges such tradition in 1 Cor. 15. But this does not distinguish Christian from Jewish tradition, which Paul also acknowledges in its place; note his appeals to Scripture in Gal. 3.6,8,10, 11, 12, 13, 4.21-26, 27, 30, and his generally positive account of Jewish law in Rom. 2.12-29 and 7.14 ('we know that the law is spiritual'). 35. M. Silva, Biblical Words and their Meaning (Grand Pfapids: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 48-51.

76

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

36

So the gospel is something which is announced. A famous problem is whether it therefore means some particular form of words used in the announcement. That Paul used a fixed form seems doubtful, for none appears in his letters.37 But if the gospel is not a form of words, then what is it? Another text from Galatians will be helpful here: 'Foreseeing that God justifies the Gentiles by faith, Scripture announced the good news ahead of time [] to Abraham, that "All nations [ 38 ] will be blessed in you"'. Here in Gal. 3.8, quoting what 39 appears to be a blending of Gen. 12.3 and 18.18, we are given the words through which the good news was announced ahead of time; yet it is plain that these words, 'all nations will be blessed in [Abraham]', are not themselves the gospel, nor those by which the gospel is usually proclaimed. Paul interprets these words as a predictiona promise of Christ, and of what will happen when Christ comes: blessing is part of the good news. To announce the promise of this good news of Christ's coming, however far ahead of time, is to announce the good news itself.40 It is often said that for Paul, Christ is the gospel.41 This expression is too imprecise, a banner under which too many different views can gather. Central to Paul's language is not so much the person of Christ

36. This requires us to be cautious in our analysis. It is easy to pass from dis cussion of what the good news is to what it means, or amounts to; thus P. Stuhlmacher (Das paulinischen Evangelium [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), p. 107): 'Das Evangelium ist, so gesehen, mehr als Missionspredigt. .. Inhaltlich gesehen, ist das Evangelium Verkndigung der Herrschaft Christi. Der auferstandene Christus gilt Paulus als Gegenstand, Grund und himmlischer Reprsentant des Evangeliums.* Paul might have agreed with all of this. But did he say any of itwas this what he announcedas he 'proclaimed the good news'? 37. *Neither the formula quoted in 1 Corinthians 15, nor any other formulaic statement of the content of the gospel of Paul is ever repeated in the entire Pauline corpus.' H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), p. 6. 38. Which often (but not always) means 'Gentiles'. 39. Respectively, 'all the tribes of the earth will be blessed in you* and 'all the nations () of the earth will be blessed in him'. 40. Cf. E. Ksemann, 'The Faith of Abraham in Romans 4', in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), pp. 79-101,90. 41. So Baird, 'Kerygma', p. 188; Chamblin, 'Revelation', p. 7; Ebeling, Truth, p. 72; Friedrich, '', p. 731; Sturm, kApokalypto\ p. 67.

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 77 as the event of Christ, which is also an event of God the father; in fact it is much easier to tell what Paul believed about die event than it is to tell what he believed about the person. Gal. 3.8 speaks of an event, for it is events that can be predicted. Moreover, where we have hints of Paul's preachinghis announcement of the good news events predominate. We see this in Paul's account of the gospel in 1 Cor. 15.3-8 ('that Jesus Christ died for our sins...that he was buried and that he was raised... '); in Galatians we find it in the sum mary appearing in 3.1 ( foolish Galatians...before whose eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed crucified'). There is similar language in 1 Cor. 1.18 ("the word of the cross'), 1.23 ('we preach Christ crucified') and 2.2 ( determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ, and 43 him crucified'). Although such passages as these provide a general outline of the event which constitutes the good news, they do not afford a precise 44 definition; nor will I. If we grant simply that the gospel is something which has happened, then it seems that there is in principle no limit to the number of different ways in which this might be announced or described or discussed.45 Thus Paul's failure in the Galatian 42. Paul's summary accounts of the good news focus on Christ, but it is God the father who sent the son (Gal. 4.4), who raised him from the dead (1.1), whose will Christ obeyed (1.4), and who also revealed Christ to Paul as his son (1.15; see Lhrmann, Offenbarungsverstndnis, p. 77). 43. My conclusion is similar to Richard Hays's (The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS, 56; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983]) that the gospel in Galatians is a 'story'. Hays uses this literary term because he wishes to apply insights drawn from literary theory to the analysis of Paul's argument (pp. 193-248); I prefer 'event', to express Paul's conviction (implicit in the term 'good news') that what he proclaims is something which has actually occurred. 44. We cannot, for example, take Paul's shorthand term 'Christ crucified' as 'the gospel'. This phrase was evidently part of Paul's preaching of the gospel, but it is neither self-explanatory nor complete (omitting reference to the resurrection and to God), nor is it clear that these particular words were essential to Paul's proclamation; the summary statements in Rom. 1.1-6 and Gal. 1.4, for example, both omit the term 'crucified', while making other claims ('designated Son of God in power', Rom. 1.4; 'gave himself for our sins', Gal. 1.4) at which the shorthand phrase barely hints. 45. For example, Hays (The Faith of Jesus Christ) interprets 'the gospel story' in Galatians to emphasize Christ's faithfulness; yet the term which expresses this is found only in Gal. 2-3 and Rom. 3. I think one could accept Hays's analysis of Galatians, while reserving judgment as to whether what Paul
42

78

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

controversy to appeal to any essential formula is easily understood: there is no such formula.46 Whatever the language of preaching, that language is not itself the gospel, and handing on this language is not th same as delivering the gospel.47 Ill Let us return to Paul's account in Gal. 1.12 of how the gospel came to him. What does Paul mean when he says that it came "through a revelation of Jesus Christ'? It has often been observed that, as a persecutor of the church, Paul must have heard the gospel before Christ was revealed to him or he himself was called; therefore what came by revelation must have been not the content of the gospel, but rather the conviction of its truth.48 presents there is "the gospel story'. Was this Peter's 'gospel for the circumcised' (Gal. 2.7)? 46. Goppelt ('Tradition', p. 218) argues that if there were nofixedformula Paul could not speak of altering the gospel, as he does in Gal. 1.6-9. This does not follow; the good news can be told in various ways, but if one adds, 'This is good news for those who obey the law\ then this addition certainly alters the gospel from what it would be otherwise. 47. So much for Paul's understanding of 'gospel'. Can we infer how the term is understood by those preachers who, following Paul to Galatia, now evidently preach that Gentiles must observe Jewish law? In Gal. 1.6-9 Paul treats this issue as a dispute over the gospel. Nevertheless there is no indication in Galatians that the basic understanding of 'gospel', namely that it is the good news of the event of Christ, is in dispute; this is not discussed, but rather taken for granted. We may conjecture that these preachers' account of this event includes something like this: *... and thus the good news is that by Christ all who obey God's law are saved'. This particular version of the blessing of the Gentiles, blessing them only when they cease to be Gentiles, Paul will not allow. When, thereafter, Paul speaks in Gal. 2.7 of 'the gospel of uncircumcision' and that 'of circumcision', meaning respectively that which is entrusted to himself and that which is entrusted to Peter, this need not mean two gospels different in contenta possiblity ruled out by 1.6-7. Paul does not refer to the good news but rather to its declaration; he announces it to Gentiles, Peter to Jews. What they announce is the sameor so Paul maintains; when Peter (in Paul's view) wavers on the issue of Gentile law-observance, Paul charges him in 2.14 precisely with failure to preserve 'the truth of the gospel', Paul's distinctive phrase (found only in Gal. 2.5 and 14) for what is lost by Gentile law-observance: in 2.5, circumcision, and in 2.14, Gentile observance of Jewish food laws. 48. Baird, 'Kerygma', p. 189; CK. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation (London:

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 79 This is an important distinction, which indeed goes to the heart of the issue: what takes place when the gospel is proclaimed? This ques tion we must shortly turn to; but I do not think the distinction between knowledge and conviction is important to Paul's argument in Gal. 1.11-12, because I do not think it is related to the point which Paul here wants to make to the Galatians. The issue before the Galatians is not how Paul became convinced of the gospel; it is what the gospel requires of the Galatians: is circumcision necessary, or not? The gospel as Paul announced it to them did not require circumcision; what Paul needs to show in this letter is that he announced it correctly. Paul has little reason to appeal in this context to a revelation of Jesus Christ, unless that revelation functions as authority on this disputed point. However, Paul supplies no particulars of the revelation (was it a vision? of what? were words spoken? what were they?) on which to ground his appealexcept for the purpose clause, order that I 49 announce [Christ] as the good news to the Gentiles...' As Betz observes, Paul does not explain how this commission emerged from the revelation.50 In the nature of things, everything here has to be SPCK, 1985), p. 9; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1982), p. 88. 49. Cf. Bornkamm, 'The Revelation', pp. 96-97; W. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 115-16. Contrast Liihrmann's argument (Offenbarungsverstndnis, p. 77) that, because in 1.12 Paul says 'revelation of Jesus Christ' and in 1.15-16 that God *reveal[ed] his son', therefore God has revealed Christ as the son of God. If this is implicit, Paul does not develop it (perhaps because it does not advance his argument on the issues in Galatia). Liihrmann also argues (pp. 73-81) that Paul opposes 'the revelation of Jesus Christ* to the revelation of law to Moses, taking the latter to be central to the doctrine of the preachers Paul opposes in Galatia. This thesis conflicts with my own that Paul's casual use of 'ancestral tradition' in 1.14 refers to what has been received from Moses; that would be unlikely if it were being expressly argued that Mosaic law is 'revealed*. 50. Betz, Galatians, pp. 71-72. G. Howard (Paul: Crisis in Galatia [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1990], pp. 34-35; emphasis in the original) calls this not merely a commission, but a 'particular form of the gospel9: the 'gospel of uncircumcision' (2.7), which Paul did not receive by tradition because before Paul no one had this gospel to give to him. This theory exceeds the evidence. The premise that Paul's argument turns on his use of 'gospel* to refer to something distinct from what the other apostles preached is not merely doubtful; in 1.7 Paul expressly denies it

80

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

taken on Paul's word anyway; he is the only witness to this revelation. Paul does not elaborate on the significance of this commission to preach to Gentiles, treating it rather as a sufficient demonstration of the point at issue. We may wonder why a gospel to the Gentiles could not include a requirement that Gentiles submit to Jewish law, but it seems that this question did not bother Paul. Elsewhere I have argued that Paul considers Jewish law to be inherently the law of the Jewish people, as Roman or Greek law is the law of the Romans or Greeks, and not applicable to others.51 Paul's argument in Galatians 1 provides some support for this thesis, for Paul proceeds on just such an assumption here: that he was sent to the Gentiles is evidence that he was not sent bearing the law of the Jews. And since God, in revealing Jesus Christ to Paul, did send Paul to preach that Christ is good news for the Gentiles, then it follows that the gospel does not require Gentiles to observe Jewish law, either as to circumcision or as to food or as to any other point. Paul knows this because it was revealed to him by God. How do the Galatians know it? The radical change in Paul's conduct (1.23: "the one who once persecuted us now proclaims the good news of the faith he was destroying') is itself evidence that something more than human was at work upon him. I agree with those who contend that this line of thought, although never spelled out, is a major strand of the implicit argument of 1.11-24.52 But Paul makes other arguments as well, and when in 3.1-5 he appeals most directly to the Galatians it is their own experience he calls to witness:
O foolish Galatians, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was displayed as crucified, who has bewitched you? I want to learn just one thing from you: did you receive the spirit by your lawful action [ ] or by your faithful hearing [ ]?.. .The one supplying the spirit and working powerful things among you, [was]53 this because of lawful actions or because of faithful hearing?

When the Galatians heard the gospel they did not simply receive human words; they received the spirit, and power. Again in 4.6 Paul recalls that 'because you are sons, God sent the spirit of his son into
51. By what Law?, p. 198. 52. Betz, Galatians, p. 66; Schlier, Galater, p. 45. 53. The Greek has no verb, so the tense is a matter of conjecture, perhaps delib erately so. Paul wonders: there was spirit and power among you; what has happened toit?

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 81 your hearts, crying "Abba, father!'" The presence of the spirit is also alluded to in 5.5 ('by the spirit, from faith, we await the hope of justification'), 5.16 ('walk by the spirit*) and 5.25 ('if we live by the 54 spirit...'). We need not understand the delivery and reception of the spirit and of God's power solely in terms of the proclamation of the gospel. But the connection between proclamation and divine power, made in Gal. 3.1-5, is also familiar from Paul's other letters. 1 Cor. 1.18 testifies to it: Tor the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are per ishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God'. Paul's own experience must underlie this testimony; once he thought the gospel foolishness, now he perceives it to be the power of God. 'Word of the cross' is evidently used here to identify what Paul preaches, as 1.23 ('we preach Christ crucified')55 makes clear; it is what Paul typi cally refers to in Galatians as 'the gospel'. Here the decisive role of God's power in Paul's preaching is emphasized by the declaration that without that power the word of the cross is perceived by those who hear it to be foolish. This distinction between different hearings of the gospel is also implicit in Rom. 1.16: 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel; for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith...956 In 1 Thess. 2.13 the human/divine contrast present in Galatians 1 is applied to the gospel generally, not only to its reception by Paul: 'And for this reason we also thank God ceaselessly, that receiving the word of God you heard from us you accepted it not as the word of humans but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers'. Here both human and divine aspects of the gospel 57 are declared: the word is spoken by humans, yet it is not a

54. Gal. 4.9 ('knowing God, or rather being known by God*) may be a similar allusion. 'Knowing God' is evidently an experience of the Galatians; if this is equated with 'being known by God' that too seems to be an experience, and if so, then probably that alluded to in 3.3, 5, 4.6. (Whether God's knowledge of humans be understood as the basis of their knowledge of God, or connected in some other way, is a complex problem. See the extensive bibliography in BAGD, s.v. 7.) 55. Cf. 2.2: 'For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified'. 56. NRSV, REB and NJB translate 'has faith'; NAB, 'who believe'. 57. Although 'gospel' does not appear in 2.13, it is in 2.2, 4, 8 and 9.1 take 'word of God' to be a different description of the same thing, chosen over 'gospel' to make Paul's point clearer.

82

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

human word, and the proof lies, as in Gal. 3.1-5, in the divine power at work where the word is received. What happens when the gospel is proclaimed? That depends. In Paul's view the gospel always rests on divine authority, not only for Paul himself, to whom the gospel was 'revealed', but also for those, like the Galatians, who accept the gospel from Paul; for the gospel comes to them with the spirit and the power of God. If the spirit and the power are lacking, the gospel appears to be foolishness and the hearers do not receive it. IV In putting the matter thus, however, we are using terminology that is not natural to Paul. He does occasionally speak of receiving the gospel; the texts, which we have examined, are Gal. 1.9 ('if someone preaches good news contrary to what you have received...'), 1 Cor. 15.1 ('the good news which I declared to you, which you also received...') and 1 Thess. 2.13 ('receiving the word of God heard from us'). 58 But if we think of 'receive the gospel' as marking one's entry into the community or among the saints, then 'receive the gospel' is not Paul's characteristic terminology for that event. What Paul prefers to say is that one is calledadjective , verb . In Gal. 1.6 he speaks of 'the one who called you in the grace of Christ'; in 1.15 of 'the one who set me apart in my mother's womb and called me through his grace'; in 5.8 again of 'the one who called you'; and in 5.13 he recalls, 'you were called to freedom, brothers'. In each of these passages the terni appears absolute, in the sense BAGD describes as 'to call someone to something', with the 'something' unspecified. This is a technical sense, found also in Rom. 8.30 (quoting the LXX), 9.12, 24, 1 Cor. 7.15, 17, 18 (2x), 20, 21, 22, (2x), 24 and 1 Thess. 5.24. The caller is always God,59 the called are those to whom Paul writes,60 and these passages imply a general
58. In Gal. 2.12, as we saw, Paul denies 'receiving' the gospel from any human. He also uses , 'to receive', in 1 Cor. 11.23, Phil. 4.9 and 1 Thess. 4.1 (and in Col. 2.6 and 4.17, if that letter is Pauline) without reference to the gospel. 59. In Rom. 8.30, 1 Cor. 7.15, 17, expressly so; the other passages allow no other likely interpretation. 60. Except in Gal. 1.15, where it is Paul himself.

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 83 understandingone which Paul expects his correspondents to share that God has called him and them to something which all understand without any explicit description. Twice, however, Paul makes a more explicit reference: in 1 Cor. 1.9 he says, 'God is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his son Jesus Christ our Lord9, and in 1 Cor. 2.17 he speaks of (God who calls you into his kingdom and glory9. These two passages have the same verb ('call'), subject ('God') and object (plural 'you') as the more common usage which does not specify what one is called to; this must be the same call, because if there were more than one Paul could not so freely dis pense with further identification of the call he refers to. That the 'call' marks entry into the community runs under all these passages; in 1 Cor. 7.17-24, where the verb appears eight times, the central theme is 'Each [of you], in the calling61 in which called, in that remain' (7.20). This is applied to specific cases: one who is circum cised (7.18), one who is uncircumcised (7.18), one who is a slave (7.21, 22), one who is free (7.22), all referring to one's pre-Christian condition in the world, which in general Paul says should remain as it was. The connection between the call and the gospel appears in Gal. 1.6: am astonished that you are so quickly turning from the one who called you to another gospel... '; 6 2 it is also suggested by the proximity of 1 Thess. 2.12 ('God who calls you into his kingdom') to 2.13 ('receiving the word of God'), examined above.63 With its emphasis on God's action, the vocabulary of calling bears with it the point Paul has to make expressly (as we have seen) about the preaching and reception of the gospel: that this depends on God's power. It appears that the proclamation of the gospel was instrumental in the calling of Christians; indeed the two are different aspects of a single occurrence. But most of the time, when Paul refers to the calling he says nothing about the gospel or its proclamation.64 61. Here refers (as the passage makes clear) to station in lifea play on words. 62. See also, outside the undisputed Pauline letters, 2 Thess. 2.19: 'he called you through our preaching*. 63. See n. 57. 64. A different but related vocabulary is used in Rom. 10.14-15, where 'proclamation', or 'announcing of good news', is presented as the precondition for belief. In this passage nothing is said of the power of God; however, Paul is seeking

84

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

The vocabulary of 'call', like that of 'reveal', is distinguished in a crucial way from that of 'receive' and 'deliver'; while the good news is both 'received' and 'delivered' by humans, the one who 'calls' and the one who 'reveals' is God. Therefore, while Paul does not say that the good news came to his congregations (as it did to him) 'by revelation', in saying that the members of these congregations are 'called' he says something similar. And not only does 'call' resemble 'revelation': both call and revelation share with the gospel itself the character of an event in which the chief actor is God.65 V I have presented my four theses. To recapitulate, these are: 1. Paul understands the passing on of tradition, in Christianity as in Judaism, to be a human mechanism; Jewish traditionand this includes the lawis not supplanted because it is Jewish, but because it is tradition. 2. He understands the gospel as an event and not as any form of words; the gospel may be described in various ways, and these descriptions may be handed on traditionally, but this handing on of particular traditions related to the gospel is not equivalent to the delivery of the gospel. 3. Rather, Paul believes that the gospel is only apprehended through divine power. 4. Paul usually describes this apprehension of the gospel by saying that his hearers have been called, not that they have received the gospel, these appear to be two descriptions of one experience, but call best expresses Paul's understanding of that experience. What, now, of 1 Cor. 15.1-3? Where in Gal. 1.12 Paul denies receiving the gospel from humans, in 1 Cor. 15.1-3 he presents 'the
to explain the apparent failure of the preaching to Israel, in which the power of God does not seem to have been manifested. 65. Rudolf Bultmann saw a more intimate connection between the event of the gospel and the event of encountering the gospel, arguing that 'the salvation-occurrence continues to take place in the proclamation of the word' (Theology of the New Testament [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1954], I, p. 302; emphasis added). Here, gospel and proclamation are presented as virtually the same event, which is really a way of saying that they have the same effect This effect, of the one event or of the other, manifests God's power.

WINGER Tradition, Revelation and Gospel: A Study in Galatians 85 good news I declared to you...in the language [ ]... which I delivered to y on... which I also received [ ...8 ]...'; Paul then recounts Christ's death, burial, resurrection and appearances (1 Cor. 15.3-8). As I noted at the outset, the contrast between these two passages has been a stumbling block for many; Paul seems to deny tradition to the Galatians, yet affirm it to the Corinthians. This conflict disappears if we read 1 Cor. 15.1-3 in another light. Although this passage is formally parallel to Gal. 1.11-12, substan tively it is closer to Gal. 3.1-5. In 1 Corinthians 15 as in Galatians 3 Paul recalls his preaching of the gospel; for the Corinthians he does this principally by quoting some of the words he used, for the Galatians principally by recounting the effect his preaching produced. But in neither passage are words and effect separated; after quoting his preaching in 1 Cor. 15.3-8, Paul alludes to the effect of this preaching in 1 Cor. 15.11 ('so we preached and so you believed [ ]'),66 and before speak ing of this effect in Gal. 3.2-5 he alludes to its content in Gal. 3.1 ('Jesus Christ was preached as crucified'). In both passages Paul recalls his hearers' call, that event which ushered them into 'the fellowship of Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 1.9). But Paul uses this recollection for different purposes. In Galatians 3 he reminds his hearers that they were called apart from the law, and from this he argues that they remain free from the law.67 In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul reminds his audience that part of the good news is Christ's resurrection, and from this he argues the resurrection of the dead in general. Inasmuch as the Corinthian argument draws on what the good news includes while the Galatian argument draws on what it does not include, Paul naturally makes a more specific reference to his preaching in the one case than in the other. It moreover serves Paul's purpose in 1 Corinthians 15 to invoke specific language because it is language he shared with the other apostles, and, as we know from 1 Cor. 1.10-13, Paul writes to some who heard the gospel from Apollos or Cephas rather than from Paul. Thus in 15.11 he says, 'Whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed'. For this reason Paul finds it useful to note that he

66. Here the past tense for 'believed* links it to the time of the call. 67. Cf. 1 Cor. 7.17-24.

86

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 53 (1994)

himself, like the others, preached in the language he received. But it does not follow that he rests his argument on the authority of tradition; he rests it on what his hearers know, on what they experienced when, hearing the good news, they were called and they believed.

ABSTRACT Focusing on Galatians, the article discusses Paul's understanding of the roles played by 'tradition' and 'revelation' in spreading the gospel. It is argued that Paul sees traditionwhether Jewish or Christianas a human mechanism. While the gospel is transmitted by human words, these words are not the gospel; the gospel is an event which can be described with various words but made known only by divine power; this is reflected in Paul's usual terminology, which is not that one receives the gospel, but one is called. The apparent contradiction between Paul's affirmation of tradition in 1 Corinthians 15 and his denial of it in Galatians 1 results from the different arguments he makes in the two letters; only in Galatians is he talking about how the gospel is spread.

University Microfilms International reproduces this publication in microform: microfiche and 16mm or 35mm film. For information I about this publication or any of the more than 13,000 titles we offer, complete and mail the coupon to: University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Call us toll-free for an immediate response: 800-521-3044. Or call collect in Michigan. Alaska and Hawaii: 313-761-4700.

This publication is available in microform.

AddrH_
(Sty State

Plu

University

Microfilms International

^ 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.