NARRATIVE TRADITIONS IN THE

PARALIPOMENA OF JEREMIAH AND 2 BARUCH

The substantial relationship between the Paralipomena of Jeremiah and

the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch has long been noted by students of both
works.1 Most recently, it has been the subject of a detailed study by Pierre
Bogaert.2 The present article will examine Bogaert's argument for the liter-
ary dependence of Par Jer on 2 Baruch and will make some additional and
alternative suggestions regarding the complex histories of the relevant
Jeremiah-Baruch traditions.

I
Bogaert cites the following parallels between the two works:8

2:1-2 1:1-2 Command to leave the city

6:1 1:3; 4:1 Chaldaeans surround the city
7:1; 5:1 1:5-6 [1:6-7] Boasting of enemies
4:7 [4:8]
4:2 1:6 [1:7] Reference to God's "hands"
6:2-4 4:1 [4:1-2] Angels on walls and command for
8:2 3:1-2 enemies to enter the city4
6:8 3:8 [3:10-11] Command to the earth to receive the vessels
8:4-5 4:2 [4:3] Enemy takes the city and leads the people
captive
9:1-2 2:1-2 Rending of garments
10:18f. 4:3.4 [4:4-5] The temple keys
11:4-5 4:9 [4:10] Reference to the patriarchs
77:20-26 7:8-12 [7:7-11] The eagle and the letter
1
See A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux Pseudpigraphes Grecs d'Ancien Testament
(Leiden: Brill, 1970) 75, . 28. For the Greek text of Par Jer, see J. R. Harris, The
Rest of the Words of Baruch (London: C. J. Clay, 1889).
2 P. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch (SC 144; Paris: Cerf, 1969) 1. 177-221.
8
Ibid., 186-190. Verse numbers are cited first according to the edition of Harris
and then in brackets [ ], where they differ, according to the edition and translation by
Ann-Elizabeth Purinton and Robert A. Kraft, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (Texts and
Translations 1, Pseudepigrapha Series 1; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature,
1972).
4
Contra Bogaert, Par Jer 3:1-2 is a better parallel to 2 Bar 6:2-4, and Par Jer
4:1, to 2 Bar 8:2.

60
1973] SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS 61

In order to define more precisely the relationship of which these parallels

are a clear indicator, Bogaert then studies the literary structure of Par Jer. 5
He finds three separate components: the story about the sleep of Abimelech;
the legend of the stoning of Jeremiah ; the narrative framework of the book.
By literary analysis he isolates the Abimelech material as a separate tradition
redacted into the broader narrative framework in order to create an interval
of time between the capture of Jerusalem and the return from exile.6 The
second death of Jeremiah, by stoning, has also been redacted into the narra
tive from traditional materials. The purpose of its inclusion is to harmonize
certain conflicting data: the biblical account of Jeremiah's flight to Egypt;
the story of his stoning, found in the Vitae Prophetarum ; traditions about
his exile in Babylon mentioned in 2 Baruch, Par Jer, and other sources.7
Having isolated these two blocks of material, Bogaert is left with a narrative
framework which, in its broad lines, is the same as that of 2 Baruch: the
prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the command to leave; the
appearance of the angels; the hiding of the vessels; the destruction of
the city; the removal of the keys; Jeremiah's exile to Babylon; Baruch's
lament; the command to send the letter; the sending of the letter via the
eagle. Only the return and the death of Jeremiah are not found in 2 Baruch.
They were added in Par Jer, when the time period was extended by means
of the addition of the Abimelech material.8 An analysis of the theology of
Par Jer leads Bogaert to a date ca. 136 A.D.9 On this basis he concludes
that either the narrative framework of Par Jer is dependent on 2 Baruch, or
both have utilized a common source.10
Bogaert opts for the former alternative. (1) The 66 year interval between
the destruction of Jerusalem and the sending of the letter, with its instruc
tions regarding the return, is a patent literary device by the author of Par
Jer and is integral to his purpose. In any common source, the letter would
have made no reference to the return. In this respect, the source would have
resembled much less Par Jer than 2 Baruch, which also mentions no interval,
and in which the letter deals with the destruction of Jerusalem.11 (2)
Certain difficulties in Par Jer are resolved if one posits its dependence on
5
Bogaert, Apocalypse 1. 192-202.

Ibid., 192-95. Bogaert suggests that the author has utilized the legend of Onias,
attaching it to the figure of 'ebed melek to fit the Jeremiah context, ibid., 196-98.
7
Ibid., 198-200. He also suggests a relationship between the account of Jeremiah's
stoning and the Onias material. As another motive for the stoning story, he mentions
a possible aetiological interest.
8 Ibid., 202.
9 Ibid., 203-20.
io Ibid., 220.
il Ibid., 220f.
62 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 35

2 Baruch. For example, in Par Jer, Jeremiah and Baruch stand on the walls
of Jerusalem and observe the destruction of the city, including walls on
which they are standing. This improbability is explained if the author's
source was 2 Baruch, where the seer witnesses the city's destruction in a
vision. 12 (3) It was normal for apocalyptists to depict the catastrophe of A.D.
70 by means of a description of 587 B.C. in order to underscore the theologi
cal continuity of the two events. Par Jer has borrowed this scheme from
either 2 Baruch or a writing from the same school. Is it reasonable to posit
a writing so similar to 2 Baruch, yet distinct from it? 1 3 (4) The topographi
cal references in Par Jer are most naturally explained as updated revisions
of those in 2 Baruch. Again resort to the theory of a common source is
unnecessary. 14

Bogaert's conclusion is threefold: (a) the narrative framework of Par Jer
is dependent on a source very closely related to 2 Baruch; (b) there is no
reason to distinguish that source from 2 Baruch itself; (c) dependence on 2
Baruch would explain certain difficulties in Par Jer. On conclusion (a) we
are in agreement. Conclusion (b) is basically a conclusion by default. We
shall review it in the light of possible evidence that there was, in fact, a
common source. But first we turn to his conclusion that dependence on 2
Baruch would explain certain difficulties in Par Jer, notably the problem of
Jeremiah and Baruch standing on the very walls whose destruction they are
witnessing. 15
The text of Par Jer records the following sequence of events. The Lord
appears to Jeremiah and tells him that he is about to destroy the city (by
means of the Chaldaean army) (1:1-3). When Jeremiah protests that the
enemy will boast over their victory and asks that the Lord destroy it himself,
the Lord replies, "For neither the king nor his host will be able to enter it
unless I first open its gates" (1:4-8) [l:4-9]. 1 6 He then bids Jeremiah to
take Baruch and ascend the walls to observe this destruction (1:9-10)
[1:10-11]. Jeremiah and Baruch obey (3:1). When they see the angels with

12 Ibid., 200, 221. I.e., the author of Par Jer was pretty stupid,
is Ibid., 221.
14 Ibid.
1 5 On pp. 200-202, Bogaert mentions several internal inconsistencies and difficulties
which suggest to him that the author of Par Jer has used sources. In the case of only
two of these, does he draw the specific conclusion that Par Jer has used 2 Baruch.
The relationship of Jeremiah to Baruch (his point b, p. 201) will be treated below.
He cites only the problem of the walls in his summary on p. 221.
16 Translation by Ann-Elizabeth Purinton and Robert A. Kraft, ad. he.
1973] SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS 63

their torches (3:2), Jeremiah asks the Lord about the temple vessels
(3:5-7) [3:7-9]. The Lord commands Jeremiah to bury the vessels (3:8)
[3:10]. Jeremiah and Baruch enter the holy place, remove the vessels, and
consign them to the earth (3:14) [3:18-19]. The two then sit down and
weep (ibid.) [3:20]. The next morning, when the Chaldaean army sur-
rounds the city, a voice from within the temple bids them enter (4:1)
[4:1-2], because the gate is open.
In, the narrative of Par Jer as it presently reads, Jeremiah and Baruch
are not standing on the walls whose destruction they are witnessing. They
have descended from the walls in order to dispose of the vessels. Moreover,
Par Jer specifies a destruction of the city gates, not the walls, as in 2
Baruch.17 Nevertheless, it does appear that Par Jer has compressed a source.
The presence of the angels with torches suggests a more wholesale destruc-
tion of the city than the present text indicates.18 In such a source, Jeremiah
and Baruch may have witnessed the destruction of the interior part of the
city at a safe distanceon the city walls. We need not posit dependence on
2 Baruch.19
We move now to Bogaert's conclusion that there is no reason to posit
a source for the narrative framework of Par Jer other than 2 Baruch itself.
Are there in Par Jer any elements that are more primitive than their
counterparts in 2 Baruch? In his discussion of the episode of the keys
(2 Baruch 10:18//Par Jer 4:3-4 [4:4-5]), Bogaert notes that among all
the occurrences of this tradition, 2 Baruch alone places it in the form of an
exhortation rather than utilizing a narrative genre.20 It is evident that this
exhortation presupposes a narrative about the throwing of the keys up to
heaven. Insofar as he passes on the tradition in narrative form, the author
of Par Jer is reflecting a more primitive form of the tradition.21
A second point of comparison is to be found in the parallel accounts of
the concealing of the temple vessels and furnishings.

17
One may arrive at the conclusion that the walls on which Jeremiah and Baruch
are standing are being destroyed only by reading Par Jer in the light of 2 Baruch.
18
This appears to be the function of the torches in 2 Bar 6:4f., although the
sketchiness of the account in chs. 6-8 suggests that 2 Baruch has also compressed a
source.
19
It is not altogether clear that 2 Baruch is describing a vision. At the end
(8:3), it is stated matter of factly that Baruch departs. Moreover, the destruction of
Jerusalem is a fait accompli. Perhaps behind both Par Jer and 2 Baruch is a version
in which Baruch and/or Jeremiah view the destruction of the city from the Mount of
Olives.
20
For Bogaert's discussion of the keys episode, see Apocalypse 1. 234-41. For the
above-mentioned observation, see p. 236.
21
Bogaert avoids this conclusion; see ibid., 240.
64 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 35

2 Bar Par Jer

6:4 Four angels appear 3:2 Angels appear
6:5 Destruction prevented 3:4 Destruction prevented
by another angel by Jeremiah
6:6-9 Angel commands the 3:8 [3:10-11] Jeremiah to command
earth to swallow the the earth to swallow
vessels and furnishings the vessels
6:10 Vessels are swallowed 3:14 [3:19] Vessels are swallowed

The obvious difference between the two accounts is the agent who hides the
vessels. In 2 Baruch it is an angel; in Par Jer it is Jeremiah. The legend
of the concealing of the temple vessels and furnishings is known from a
22
number of sources. Of particular interest here are 2 Mac 2 and the Life
28
of Jeremiah in the Vitae Prophetarum. At three points, Par Jer agrees
with either or both of these accounts. (1) In all three cases, it is Jeremiah
who hides the vessels. (2) In 2 Mac 2:4, Jeremiah does so in response to
an oracle ( ), 2 4 as he does in Par Jer 3:8
[3:10-11], (3) In 2 Mac 2:7 and Vita 1er 12, as in Par Jer, the eschatologi-
cal terminus at which the vessels will be restored is the "gathering together"
of God's people. 25 From his agreement with 2 Mac 2, we can see that the
author of Par Jer knows a form of this tradition which dates back at least
to the 1st century B.C. In this respect, he has preserved elements of the
tradition more primitive than those in 2 Baruch. On the other hand, 2
Baruch preserves what appears to be a primitive element. The author men
tions the burial of the temple furnishings, as does 2 Mac 2, while Par Jer

22
See Bogaert, Apocalypse 2. 24.
23 See C. C. Torrey, The Lives of the Prophets SBLMS 1; (Phila., 1946) 21f., 35f.
Although Par Jer and Vita 1er do appear together in some of the same mss. (Denis,
Introduction, 72), it is apparent that the latter contains materials of a different
provenance from the former. Space does not permit a detailed comparison of the
stories in 2 Mac 2 and Vita 1er. However, the following parallels suggest that both
are variants of a common tradition: the burial place is on or near Mt. Nebo (2 Mac
2:4; Vita 1er 14) ; the exact location of this place is unknown (2 Mac 2:6; Vita 1er
13) ; reference is made to the cloud (2 Mac 2:8; Vita 1er 14) ; the place where the
vessels are hidden is sealed (2 Mac 2:5; Vita 1er 13).
24
The language of 2 Mac 2:4 may also suggest a miracle on the order of that
described in Par Jer and 2 Baruch.
25
The Greek expression varies in the three forms of the story. On Par Jer 3:8,
see G. Delling, Jdische Lehre und Frmmigkeit in den Paralipomena Jeremiae
(BZAW 100; Berlin: Tpelmann, 1967) 65-67, where he also cites the parallel in
2 Mac 2:7 (n. 63). On the textual problem in 3:8, see the apparatus in the Purinton-
Kraft translation, ad loc.
1973] SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS 65

refers only to the vessels.26 It appears that both 2 Baruch and Par Jer are
witnesses to an earlier tradition.
A final point concerns the respective roles of Jeremiah and Baruch in
Par Jer and 2 Baruch. According to Bogaert, Baruch is depicted throughout
the tradition as a disciple of Jeremiah. However, in Par Jer, that relation-
ship has not been respected in essential elements of the narrative. Specifically,
it is Baruch who receives the revelation concerning the return and sends a
letter to Jeremiah, spelling out for the latter the conditions of the return.
This is clearly a case of Jeremiah being subordinated to Baruch. This sub-
ordination, he maintains, is a result of Par Jer having taken over ple-mle
material from 2 Baruch, in which Jeremiah plays almost no role.27 Bogaert
does note that Jeremiah calls Baruch his son and that Baruch refers to
Jeremiah as his father. However, this is not sufficient, in his view, to
establish the hierarchy of their importance ; for the narrative itself does not
support such a hierarchy, as the episode of the letter indicates.28 However,
at this point a comparison of the early parts of the two books is instructive.
2 Bar Par Jer
1-2 The Lord appears to 1 The Lord appears to
Baruch, announces the Jeremiah, announces
destruction of the city, the destruction of the
praises his piety, and city, praises his piety,
bids him inform Jere- and bids him inform
miah, so that both may Baruch, so that both
leave the city. may leave the city.
5:5-6 Baruch tells Jeremiah Jeremiah tells Baruch.
et al. They weep. They weep.
6-8 Baruch alone witnesses 3:1-8 [3:1-11] Jeremiah and Baruch
the destruction and the ascend the walls. Jere-
burial of the vessels. miah is put in charge
of the burial of the
vessels.
26
Par Jer mentions only the vessels, 2 Mac only the furnishings, and 2 Baruch
both furnishings and vessels. One might also cite 2 Bar 6:8, where the threefold repeti-
tion "Earth! Earth! Earth !" corresponds more closely to the threefold exclamation
in Jer 22:29 than does the single "Earth!" in Par Jer 3:8 [3:10]. However, it is clear
that the author of Par Jer is revising to fit his context (specifically the reference to
creation), and we have no way of knowing whether his source had the threefold ex-
pression. On the other hand, it may be that 2 Baruch is revising his source into closer
conformity with the biblical text
27
Bogaert, Apocalypse 1. 200. By this Bogaert appears to mean that since 2 Baruch
places Jeremiah in Babylon and has Baruch write a letter to Babylon, ergo the author
of Par Jer has Baruch write the letter to Jeremiah.
2
Ibid., 201, . 1.
66 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 35

9-10 Word of the Lord 4:5 [4:6] Jeremiah is involun-

comes to Baruch, who tarily dragged off to
tells Jeremiah that he is captivity along with
to go to Babylon. the people.
10:18 Baruch tells the priests 4:3 [4:4] Jeremiah himself dis-
to dispose of the keys. poses of the keys.
This comparison reveals the following about the early part of the narrative
of these two books. (1) In 2 Baruch, Jeremiah is clearly subordinated to
Baruch, who is the recipient of revelation. (2) Precisely in the correspond-
ing passages in Par Jer, the opposite subordination is expressed. Moreover,
in the first passage listed, God's words regarding the seer's piety (2 Bar
2:2; Par Jer 1:2) are more appropriately attached to Jeremiah than to
Baruch, reflecting, as they do, a passage from the call of Jeremiah (Jer
1:18). 29
These data admit of two explanations. (1) The author of Par Jer has
taken material from 2 Baruch and revised it back to conform with the tradi-
tional image of the Jeremiah/Baruch relationship and specifically with
certain elements in the biblical account itself. (2) There was a Jeremiah
tradition regarding the fall of Jerusalem, which 2 Baruch has transformed,
and of which Par Jer is a more primitive witness with regard to the sub-
ordination of Baruch to Jeremiah. If we accept the first alternative, we must
suppose that Par Jer has revised his received material in the direction of
subordinating Baruch to Jeremiah, while at the same time, he has done
the opposite by asserting the superiority of Baruch over Jeremiah in the
letter episode. The second alternative is perhaps more likely. Our author
has simply taken over the Jeremiah tradition as received, but following
the tradition of a letter from Baruch, he has implicitly asserted a reverse
relationship in that scene.30 There is one hint in 2 Baruch that the author
did in fact know a narrative tradition which asserted the superiority of
Jeremiah over Baruch. This occurs in chapter 33, which presupposes, con-
trary to 10:1-5, that Jeremiah was in command of the situation when he left
for Babylon.81
Our observations in this section lead us to the conclusion that the narra-
tive framework of Par Jer knows a Jeremianic tradition about the fall of
Jerusalem, on which 2 Baruch is also dependent.
29 It might also be argued that Par Jer 3:8 [3:10-11] is closer to Jer 22:29 than is
2 Bar 6:8 in that words of Jeremiah are (to be) spoken by Jeremiah, whereas 2
Baruch places them in the mouth of an angel.
30
The tradition of Baruch sending a letter is not limited to 2 Baruch and Par Jer,
as the existence of both the apocryphal Baruch and separate mss. of the 2 Baruch
letter indicate. On the latter, see Bogaert, Apocalypse 1. 43-55.
81
Bogaert overlooks this fact in his commentary on ch. 33, Apocalypse 2. 68.
1973] SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS 67

III
In order to determine more precisely the literary genre and the function
of such a tradition, we turn first to the story about the burial of the temple
vessels and furnishings. Exilic and postexilic Jewish literature evinces
considerable interest in the temple vessels. Their capture by Nebuchadnezzar
is singled out for mention in the biblical accounts of the fall of Jerusalem
(2 Kgs 25:13-17; Jer 52:17-23; 2 Chr 36:18-19), and their return is duly
noted (Ezra 1:6-11). Later writings also note their capture (Dan 1:2;
As Mos 3:2). Apart from the tragedy of the fall of the holy city and the
temple, it is understandable that pious Jews should shudder at the idea of
the sacred vessels and furnishings of the temple falling into unclean hands.32
Indeed, the tale of Belshazzar's feast explicitly connects the fall of the
Babylonian empire with the haughty arrogance evidenced in this pagan
desecration of the holy things of the Lord (see especially Dan 5:23). The
apocryphal Book of Baruch contains what appears to be a counter-tradition
to the Dan 5 story. According to Bar 1:1-9, Baruch returned the temple
vessels to Judah during the fifth year of his exile in Babylon. The account
of this incident is followed by two favorable references to Belshazzar ( 1:10-
14) , 33 All of these texts assert that God protects his sacred vessels. Accord-
ing to Dan 5, God punished those who polluted the vessels. Baruch 1 implies
that the incident never happened. To the contrary, it tells us that good
king Belshazzar sent the vessels back to Jerusalem shortly after their
capture. The cycle of legends in 2 Mac, The Life of Jeremiah, 2 Baruch,
and Par Jer avoids the whole problem by claiming that God commanded
the vessels and furnishings to be concealed before the invading army could
seize them.
A similar tendentious motive is evident in the whole of the narrative
material regarding the fall of Jerusalem in Par Jer 1-4 and 2 Baruch 1-8.
Lest one suppose that the heathen have taken the city by their own power
and might, the story of the capture of the city is retold, making it clear,
however, that God himself allowed the event to happen.84 Indeed, he himself
32
In the two accounts of Antiochus Epiphanes* death, this same sacrilege is singled
out for mention (1 Mac 6:12; 2 Mac 9:16). It is evident, from the conqueror's point
of view, that such plunder made fine booty. See the relief in the Arch of Titus.
83
On the literary-critical problem, see J. J. Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch (Leipzig,
1879) 16, 210f., who suggests that vs. 8 is a marginal gloss. Even if that is so, it is
noteworthy (a) that the text makes a favorable reference to Belshazzar and (b) that
the glossator chooses to add a reference to the return of the vessels in this context.
Moreover, the secondary nature of the reference says nothing about the age, origin,
and independence of the tradition.
34
For a similar concern from the time of Pompey, see Pss Sol 2 and 8, both of
68 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 35

destroyed the city and/or opened it up to the Chaldaean invaders. This

type of retelling the ancient stories is as old as the Chronicler. It has many
counterparts in the literature of the second temple period, e.g., the narrative
sections of Enoch, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Book of Jubilees, the hag-
gadic portions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Anti-
quities of Pseudo-Philo. Not a little of this material has been respun for
apologetic, polemical, and other tendentious purposes. Our investigation
suggests that parts of the narrative material in 2 Baruch and Par Jer have
been taken from some such tendentious retelling of the events of the last
days of Jerusalem, perhaps written under the name of Jeremiah.85 The
writers of 2 Baruch and Par Jer, seeing the parallels between 587 B.C.
and A.D. 70, reused the source for their own purposes.86 The dating of this
source is an open question. However, it should be noted that the writer of
2 Mac 2 claims to have taken the story of Jeremiah and the temple furnish-
ings from an extant written source (2:4). 8 7
The Jeremiah-Baruch tradition is a complex one, and we have treated
only one aspect of two documents.88 That the author of Par Jer knew of an
apocalyptic Baruch tradition is evident from 4:11 [4:12], and it is not
impossible that he knew 2 Baruch.89 However, we have argued above that
our author also knew some older Jeremiah traditions whose general form
and function can be determined.40
GEORGE W. E. NICKELSBURG, JR.
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

which are specifically concerned with Jerusalem's sins as the cause of Pompey's con-
quest. Cf. also 2 Mac 5:17-20.
35
The use of pseudonymity need not carry with it a special idea of revelation or
inspiration. In some of the narrative materials mentioned above, it appears to be merely
a literary device intended to liven the narrative.
39
This speaks to Bogaert's point 3 (above, p. 62). It is not necessary to posit the
catastrophe of A.D. 70 as a presupposition for the rewriting of the story of 587 B.C.
37
I see no reason to dispute the claim of 2 Mac 2 regarding the existence of these
written sources. However, aside from the content specified by that author, we can only
speculate.
38
We have not mentioned the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch), which
bears some resemblances to 2 Baruch and Par Jer.
39
Par Jer 4:11 [4:12] is, however, a somewhat misleading summary of 2 Baruch,
where revelations come almost always from God himself and seldom from angels. See,
however, 3 Baruch.
40
For a somewhat similar position, see L. Gry, "La ruine du Temple par Titus,
Quelques traditions juives plus anciennes et primitives la base de Pesikta Rabbathi
XXVI," RB 55 (1948) 220-22.
 ^ 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.