brueggemann bone

OF THE SAME FLESH AND BONE (GN 2,23a)

The poetic fragment of Gn 2,23a may perhaps provide a more important image for Biblical faith than has usually been recognized. I suggest that a proper understanding of the line might clarify for Scripture study the very important image of husband-wife which occurs in several OT traditions and is later utilized in Paul. It may suggest an insight concerning marital rela-tions which need to be thoroughly rethought in light of current changes happening under the name of "sexual revolution." More importantly, in light of our current ecological crisis the text places the man-woman in the context of the larger issue of man's relation to earth. In establishing prior-ities, there is no doubt that the intimate personal relation is subordinated to and understood with reference to man's first vocation, the care of and covenant with the rest of creation.

The text has not been appreciated in Biblical theology largely because it has been understood primarily in the context of torturous discussions of a "metaphysical" kind about the physical constituency of the human person and the sexual relationship.1 Moreover the text appears to be isolated in the OT and therefore insignificant for larger questions of Israel's faith. In what follows I will suggest another approach to the verse under consider-ation.

I Stanley Gevirtz2 in his careful study of poetic patterns has correctly noted

that certain word pairs are normal and to be expected in a variety of literary patterns. Noting the fact that certain terms are characteristically coupled to others greatly illumines the function of a term in any context.

In our verse such a word pair is noted. The term "flesh" and "bone" are such a pair and frequently stand together. They are used with "skin" to describe the situation of distress in which the speaker finds himself. Similarly in Jb 2,5 they refer to one's historical physical existence. In a curious com-bination in Ps 102,5 in a song of lament, the same two words are used to describe a situation in which the speaker is immobilized. Interestingly, in all

1 See S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (Westminster Commentaries, 8th ed.;

London: Methuen, 1911) 42f. von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 82, rightly protests against such an exegesis in the current context of the line : ". . . the question about the special construction of the human body becomes nonessential (see a tv . 24!)."

2 Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization;

Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963). Cf. the more general discussion of William Whallon, Formula Character and Context (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1969) 140-161.

532

OF THE SAME FLESH AND BONE 533

three uses, the combination speaks about a person in trouble or on the verge of it. In passages which we will consider later (Gn 29,14; Jgs 9,2 ; 2 Sm 5,1 [1 Chr 11,1]; 2 Sm 19,13f.), the two terms are used together to speak about a person in his total relation to another.

Thus the combination as Gevirtz has suggested of such patterns is not just an addition of terms, or an accidental occurrence, but comes to exist in its own right as a way of speaking about a functioning person in his totality. When we exegete Gn 2,23 we shall expect the word pair to function in approximately this way.

II It is next to be observed that each of these words has a double meaning.

First and better known, to speak of bsr of course means "flesh," even in the sense of "meat." As such its reference is visibly physical. This is the way it has most often been understood and translated in our passage. But it is equally clear that the term bsr means weakness, empty of power and mean-ing. As such it is the antithesis of "spirit" (as in Is 31,3). Thus Schmidt3 can speak of it in connection with Janos as "Hinfalligen, Schwanken, Sterb-lichen." Flesh is that which has no staying power or capacity to work its will in its environment. As such the term obviously does not relate simply to the physical notion of flesh, but includes the psychological notion of frailty. And when one asks about the meaning of the term in any given context, it is futile to ask if the meaning is "flesh" or "weakness." It embodies both the physical and psychological. We have no single word in English for this combination and it might well be rendered with a hyphen "flesh-weakness." The problem in our language of finding words which express psychosomatic unity in a personal organism is of course well known. It is this difficulty which makes the understanding of our verse problematic. The terms are "wholistic" but we have learned to render them as if they connoted only the physical. This double focus is important for a fresh understanding of Gn 2,23. Such an understanding of the term suggests that we are dealing with an assertion that is not concerned simply with physical relationship but includes also psychological dimensions of interaction.

The same is true of the other word in the pair. The term of course is conventionally translated "bone" in our verse and there is ample evidence to support that rendering. But when it is translated "bone" we tend to neglect its root meaning of "power" or "might."3a The rendering "bone" tends to reduce the encompassing psychic connotations of the word to a one-

"Gott und Mensch in Ps. 8/' TZ 25 (1969) 8. 3* James Muilenburg, "Introduction and Exegesis of Isaiah 40-66," (IB V; New

York : Abingdon, 1956) 683, understands it to "represent the basic stability of the self."

534 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 32

dimensional physical object. The problem is the same in both the pair words. The term rather speaks of a person or agent in his ability to function

effectively and to work his will in his context. For example in Gn 26,16, Abimelech acknowledges that Isaac's company is larger and therefore stronger and so he has no intention of resisting or challenging him. Again the term combines the interpersonal with the physical in a way which tends to be lost in our translation, so that again, it is useful to use a hyphen and render it "bone-power."

Thus our two words which conventionally appear in English as physical properties of the body need to be rendered in ways that speak of the functioning of the whole organism. We shall render them "flesh-weakness" and "bone-power."

I l l

The two terms in Gn 2,23 which we have now rendered "flesh-weakness" and "bone-power" are not to be regarded as referring to two simples states. The fact that they are a continuing pair in the traditions means that together they mean something different from what either might mean separately. Because they are antithetical, it is most likely that they mean to state two extreme possibilities and include everything between them, thus all physical-psychological dimensions of interaction from A to Z.

The phenomenon of two opposites including the range of intermediate possibilities is of course well known. In Gn 2,9 the tree of "good and evil" may refer to "everything." Though this is a much disputed exegetical question, von Rad4 understands it that way: "Knowledge of good and evil means, therefore, omniscience in the widest sense of the word." That point has been challenged by Robert Gordis5 but it is at least a possible rendering.

A more obvious case is the frequent use of gdl-qln "from the greatest to the least" (cf. 1 Sm, 5,9; 20,2; 22,15; 30,2.19; *2 Chr 34,30; Est 1,5. 20; Jer 6,13 ; 31,34; Jon 3,5 ; Gn 44,13), which of course means to include every part of the group. Probably the same is expressed in "Heaven and earth" (Gn 2,4),6 "city and field" (Dt 28,3), and perhaps this phenomenon is relevant in the word pairs of Is 11,6-9: "wolf-lamb," "leopard-kid," "cow-bear," which mean to speak of shalom among all parts of creation.

In our verse (Gn 2,23), the poles of "flesh-frailty" and "bone-power"

* Op. cit., 79.

"The Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls " JBL 76 (1957) 125.

6 See Cyrus Gordon, The World of the Old Testament (2d ed.; Garden City

Doubleday, 1950) 35, . 3.

1970] O F THE SAME FLESH AND BONE 535

mean to express the entire range of intermediate possibilities from the extreme of frailty to power. Thus the relationship affirmed is one which is affirmed for every possible contingency in the relationship, as we affirm in the marriage formula, "in sickness and in health, in plenty and in want." Here the text says, "in every circumstance from the extreme of frailty to the extreme of power." A relation is affirmed which is unaffected by changing circumstances. It is a formula of constancy, of abiding loyalty which in the first place has nothing to do with biological derivation, as it is often interpreted.7

IV If we have here a formula of abiding loyalty for every changing circum-

stance, we may further understand the statement of bsr-sm if we examine contexts which are parallel to our text.

The first comparable text we will consider is 2 Sm 5,1. (The parallel of 1 Chr 11,1 offers no additional data.) The tribes of the north have come to Hebron to make David their King :

Behold, we are your bone and flesh. In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you that led out and brought in Israel ; and the Lord said "you shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel.8

The following verses show that a covenant was made between the two parties though, as Hertzberg notes, it is clearly between a sovereign and his vassals. Our formula in v. 1 clearly is a covenant formula, an oath of abiding loyalty : "we will be with you in frailty and power. Our oath to you will not waiver with changing circumstances." If it is not to be read as a covenant formula but rather as a statement of blood connection9 then it is curious that this is not mentioned. To the contrary, the next statement about Saul does not connect David with Saul but rather drives a wedge between them, so that the formula must speak about covenant loyalty and not about

7 The discussion by Werner Reiser, "Die Verwandtschaftsformel in Gen. 2,23,"

TZ 16 (1960) 1-4, moves very much in the same direction. I had completed this paper when I first discovered his discussion. While his discussion does not preclude the element of physical oneness as I do not either, clearly the emphasis is placed else-where, namely, on belonging to each other because of mutual commitment.

8 Reiser, ibid., 2, notes the problematic character of the formula unless it is inter-

preted as I propose. 9 See Hertzberg, I & II Samuel (tr. J. S. Bowden; Philadelphia: Westminster,

1964) 266.


blood ties. It is this act which made possible the confederacy of north and south in a single monarchy which Noth10 calls a "personal union." Clearly the categories of personal interaction and relationship are used here for political and covenantal actions. The formula is a statement of loyalty in initiating and affirming a treaty relationship.

The second text we will consider is 2 Sm 19,13-14. Whereas the vassals come pledging allegiance to the sovereign in 2 Sm 5,1, here it is the king claiming the loyalty of his vassals after his flight before Absalom. Appar-ently his southern subjects did not urge his return. David makes his claim upon them :

My brothers are you, you are my bone and my flesh.

It can of course be argued that this is reference to blood ties. But such can be the case only in a most general sense. More likely, "brother" and "bone and flesh" refer to the sharing of covenant oaths.11 Pedersen12 shows that "brother" refers to all those who have ties of community and commitments to solidarity. Thus David's reference here is not to blood ties, though they may be present, but rather that mutual covenant commitments must be honored because the vows assume fidelity through thick and thin.

In 19,14 perhaps the allusion to blood ties is more to the fore. Here David appeals to Amasa to act in loyalty toward him. It is clear that Amasa was identified as a blood relative of David (cf. 2 Sm 17,25 ; 1 Chr 2,17). But even if that were so, the fact that David promises a military promotion to Amasa suggests that blood ties are here subordinated and the honoring of covenant commitments with all the related political implications is what is being stressed. As concerns both Amasa and the elders of Judah, David is reaffirming the vows which bind them in loyalty to him. It is these vows that let him speak of solidarity in "frailty" and in "power." Our renderings in this way fit well with a circumstance in which a king has lost his throne and is about to regain it, i.e., he moves from frailty back to power, and through it all he anticipates support from those sworn to him.

The third text in which our formula occurs is Jgs 9,2. Abimelech, son of Gideon, seeks the allegiance of the citizens of Shechem. There is no doubt that the blood factor enters in, for the clan (mispah) of his mother is men-tioned. But our formula is not used with reference to that group, but rather

io The History of Israel (2d ed.; New York: Harper, 1958, 1960) 187. n John Skinner, Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910) 70, speaks of

"one flesh" meaning "one clan." Such a dimension to the term bsr is not inappropriate here if "clan" is understood as a group which has common commitments to each other.

12 Israel MI (London: Oxford U., 1926) 57-60.


with the citizens (ba'ale) of Shechem, a larger group which apparently does not claim such close kinship bonds. To them he says :

"Remember that I am your bone and your flesh/'

and the response they make is appropriately : "He is our brother."13 Perhaps it can be argued that flesh and bone here refers to actual blood

ties. However in the context of a power struggle and with the citizens of the city being addressed, it is more likely that responsibility for political or communal loyalty is the topic of discussion. Moreover, the simple response, "He is our brother," is not merely an affirmation of blood ties, but is rather a covenant oath which affirms and establishes a pattern of solidarity. The formula "He is our brother" may be understood as an analogy of the divorce formula (Hos 1,6), formula of re-marriage (Hos 2,25), or the formula of adoption and enthronement (Ps 2,7). The consequence of the affirmation by Abimelech and the response of the citizens of Shechem is apparently com-munity solidarity in which leader and followers are bound together in spite of any circumstances which may arise.

The fourth and last text which concerns us with the same formula is Gn 29,14.13a In this text, blood ties are much more in evidence. In v. 12 Jacob is called "brother" and Laban responds :

Surely you are my bone and my flesh.

And the consequence is that Jacob stays with him. Now of course this story functions to celebrate family connections and

purity of line in its present context. But it is also apparent in the narrative which follows that Laban is not adverse to claiming loyalty where he can. Subsequently Laban imposes upon Jacob his "kinsman" who has certainly obligations to him. In light of the covenant formulated in 31,44ff., it is not impossible that another old covenant formula is also employed in 29,14 as the basis for the interaction between Jacob and Laban. They have dif-ficulties with each other but it is equally clear that they are bound to each

13 von Rad, Das Gottesvolk in Deuteronomium (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929), has

shown that 'ah means all those in a covenant community, so blood ties are to be minimized in understanding the term. The term "brother" frequently refers to cove-nantal relations without regard to blood ties. Cf. D. Hillers, Covenant: the History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969), R. Clements, Abraham and David (SBT 2/5; London: SCM, 1967) 50, N. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth (New York: Harper & Row, 1964) 104, N. 20, and J. Priest, "The Covenant of Brothers," JBL 84 (1965) 400-406.

13a See the discussion of John Van Seters, "Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near East Customs: A Re-examination," HTR 62 (1969) 388-391.


other. Perhaps the formula of "frailty and power" expresses the character of their being bound to each other.

In all four texts we have examined, there is some ambiguity between blood ties and covenant commitments. But if the blood ties are the kind Pedersen suggests, then they are general and very vague. We need to think in terms of communal solidarity rather than blood ties. The "brotherhood" is one of common loyalty more than common birth. Thus we are dealing with a covenant formula which describes the commitments of partners to each other who have obligations to each other in all kinds of circumstances, thick and thin ('sm and bsr).

V We may now return to the use of the formula in Gn 2,23. There is not,

as nearly as I can determine, any evidence from Mesopotamian parallels which will illuminate our formula. Moreover most commentaries, if they take up this verse, talk about the word-play 'is-issah in the second part of the verse,14 but pass over the first part with the translation "flesh-bone" thus missing the point of the formula as we have presented it here.

It is not my intention here to suggest different layers in the tradition but only to note the tensions in the text which have been missed in most of the standard exegeses.

1 ) The play on words in 23b 'is-issah is of course well known and much interpreted. Its meaning is obvious once it is assumed that woman is derived from man. However it is clear that this word-play in what sounds like a very old aitiological formula is an intrusion in the text. This is evident first in that it does not follow from our formula in the preceding line. It can be connected with it only if our formula is not understood as a covenantal formula, but as a statement of biological derivation which it is not. More clearly, nowhere prior to this is man called 'is. He is consistently "ha 'adam." Thus the word-play is inappropriate and without connection to its context and cannot possibly provide a clue to the meaning of the text.

2) In w . 21-22 is the other statement which apparently speaks of bio-logical derivation of woman from man. The statement raises questions be-cause a) to derive one person from another in this story is out of keeping with the present intent of the story;15 b) the natural partner of ha 'adam in the narrative is ha 'adamah and not woman. If a play on words is relevant to the story it is 'adam-'adamah and not 'is-'issah; and c) the term for rib (sala') is a strange one used only here in the OT to refer to the human person. So we must look elsewhere for an understanding of the statement.

14 See for example Skinner, op. cit., 69f.

16 See, e.g., von Rad, Genesis, 82.


S. N. Kramer1 6 has suggested that the whole motif of "rib" is derived from a Sumerian usage in which the term used means both "rib" and "live" the latter referring to the woman as the mother of life. Thus the usage in Sumerian is a pun. The "lady of the rib" is also "the lady who makes live." In the Hebrew rendering the figure of the rib remains but the power of the pun is completely lost. And when the meaning of the pun is lost, all that remains is a device whereby woman enters the scene. Thus in w . 21-22 we have a lost pun and in v. 23b we have a word-play which is inappropriate to the story. These are the main elements which speak of woman being derived from man. Quite clearly neither embodies the focus of the narrative about man and woman in its present context.

3) What remains when these misleading elements are placed in perspective are a) w . 18-20, the need for a mate and difficulty in finding one, b) v. 23a, the affirmation of finding a partner, and c) v. 24, the implication of this new partnership. None of these, it is clear, is concerned with biological derivation. Now the issue is the continuing relation with reference to their freedom and responsibility. Thus I shall insist, the main point is that the two, man and woman, are covenant partners and this partnership is decisive for understanding the life of either or both.

We affirm that the formula of 23a is a covenant formula as in its other uses we have examined. The formula is intensified by double use of bsr and 'sm to express the profound loyalty and solidarity of purpose which is now expressed. They are bound by oath now to share in their common cause in every circumstance of weakness and every circumstance of strength. And that to which they have made common oaths is the care of the earth (cf. v. 15). For both of them the responsibility of 'adam is 'adamah, and the woman partner now shares that loyalty and that responsibility.

4) This formula of solidarity in "weakness and strength" is underscored by the frustration of w . 18-20 in which among all other creatures there is no suitable "helper," i.e., there is no other able to enter into this kind of covenant for every circumstance.17 Perhaps this is the most radical statement about human personhood made in Scripture, namely the capacity to make oaths and enter into covenants, and the counterpoint which Reiser stressed, that man is congenial for covenants only with humankind.17* It is important that the covenant-mate is to "help" (vv. 18,20). The help that is to be

16 The Sumerians, Their History, Culture and Character (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963) 149. Cf. T. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1969) 21-22, and the works cited there.

1 7 On this point Reiser, op. cit., 4, is especially pertinent.

i? Though G. Kaufman, "Imago Dei as Man's Historicity," JR 36 (1956) 157-168, is a comment on the creation narrative, the central point of his argument is not unlike the one being made here, i.e., man is that creature who can make covenants.


rendered apparently is in "tilling and keeping" the earth (v. 15). When the matters in vv. 21-22 are recognized as a device to comment on the appear-ance of woman, we can read directly from v. 20 to v. 23 to follow the main thread of the story. Seen this way the "help" is found when the covenant formula is spoken, for the solidarity is in doing man's work, namely, caring for the earth. Thus the covenant formula implies obligations.

5 ) The covenant formula is further substantiated by the concluding state-ment of v. 24 (v. 25 is presented to make the transition to Chapter 3) ,18 The first part of v. 24 has the language of covenant relations, to abandon (azav) and to cleave (davaq). The latter term, when used of interpersonal relations, as in any context, is clearly a covenant term. It is especially used in Deuteronomic contexts in clusters of covenant words to speak about loyalty to covenant partners (Dt 11,22; 10,20; 13,5; Jos 23,8; 1 Kgs l l ,2).1 8 a In the speech of Jos 23 for example, the term suggests an exclusive relationship which asserts the jealousy of the covenant partner and excludes all other relationships. Conversely the term ('azav) refers to abandoning one covenant commitment for the sake of another (cf. Jer 1,16; Hos 4,10). The two terms in Gn 2,24 also speak of terminating one loyalty and the embrace of a new one. Thus it substantiates the covenant formula of 2,23a.

Finally, in 2,24b the term "one flesh" can of course be taken to refer to kinship and blood relations,19 but in light of our understanding of v. 23, it can refer to all those who have a mutuality of concern and loyalty. Certainly it refers to a community bound in covenant as in mispah (Lv 25,49) and cannot at all be understood in terms of biological derivation or sexual inter-course. "One flesh" refers to the solidarity of purpose about which we have already spoken.

VI We come to the conclusion then that Gn 2,18-24 in its comment on man

and woman is an attempt to talk meaningfully about interpersonal relation-ships which has been often misunderstood in conventional exegesis. Among the implications of our conclusion are these :

1 ) The key phrase about the relationship in 2,23a is a covenantal formula which does not speak about derivation in a biological sense but means to speak about commonality of concern, loyalty, and responsibility.

is See Skinner, op. cit., 71. 1 8 a

Cf. . Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot (Analecta Biblica 20 ; Rome : Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 79, and the cluster of words to which davaq is related.

1 9 See Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon on the Old Testa

ment (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) 142.


2) That exegetical tradition which understands the text to speak about biological derivation of woman from man is based on a lost pun ( w . 21-22) and an inappropriate word-play (v. 23b) which surely miss the main point of the text. Such an exegesis fails to understand the main thrust of the text which speaks of the solidarity of man and woman in loyalty and respon-sibility.

3) The solidarity of that relationship as presented in the narrative is of course for mutuality, but is also addressed to the larger meaning of human-ness with reference to 'adamah. Any understanding of human interaction which ignores this counterpoint presents only a partial understanding of humanness. Indeed the mutuality of the pair is subordinated to the primary mutuality of 'adam is-'issah)-'adamah.

4) The image of God and his bride Israel is of course a familiar one in the prophets (cf. Hos 1-3 ; Jer 2,2 ; 3,1-5 ; Ez 16,23 ; Is 54,1-8). The image is presented both in terms of infidelity and then of restored relation.

It is of course recognized that the marriage image is an attempt to talk about covenant. But on the basis of Gn 2,23a as I have presented it, it becomes clear that marriage is not a more personal or tender image for covenant, but speaks directly about a relationship which endures through thick and thin, weakness and strength. It is most appropriate for asking about fidelity and infidelity, which is the meaning of the marriage imagery for the Yahweh-Israel relation. Thus the terms davaq and 'azav are precisely appropriate.

5) The same imagery in Paul (Eph 5,21-33) is illuminated. The relation of Christ and his bride-Church is grounded in a commonality of concern, loyalty and responsibility which is pledged to endure through weakness and strength. Notice that in v. 31, Gn 2,24 which we have understood as a covenant formula is quoted. It affirms that Christ and his Church are bound by vows which make them "one flesh/' i.e., one loyalty to endure all circumstances.

Though the figure is slightly different, Paul's image of "one body" in 1 Cor 12, 12-27 also speaks of a common loyalty in which the body (one flesh) is held together by sharing in the same purpose.20 This way of handling the image suggests the spectacular scope of this purpose and loyalty to which all the covenanted parts are committed.

6) Finally it is appropriate to add a word about the insight of this text into male-female relations. The text suggests nothing of the superiority of

20 If one may risk opinion about later Church doctrine this line of reasoning is

surely useful when one considers the relation of Father to Son in high Christology (cf. Jn 17,11) and indeed even the language of the councils which speak of "one substance."

542 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

the male as often suggested, nor is it really an affirmation about the legitimacy of sex, as if the question even arose in Israel.

On the positive side two factors are most important. First, the relation is grounded on shared concerns, loyalties, and commitments which are taken with seriousness. It is not a light, casual relation nor one grounded in a mood or a feeling. It is rooted in an oath of solidarity. Second, the real meaning of the relation is not found in mutual enjoyment though that is not precluded, but is directed toward the human task of caring for the earth.21 Human relations are set in a context where solidarity with and responsibility for the larger world are directly affirmed.

In summary then the central teaching of the formula concerns fidelity to vows, constancy in purpose, acceptance of responsibility which are appro-priate to our humanness. When the formula of 2,23a is understood in this way, the whole fabric of Israel's faith is greatly illuminated in terms of fidelity and solidarity. Israel from the beginning knew she lived in a world where solidarity, fidelity, and responsibility are the essentials of shalom. The categories in which this verse is usually exegeted show how far we are removed from the main point of the tradition. To recover the power of such texts requires liberation from some of our most valued exegetical presup-positions and a return to the covenantal categories in which Israel viewed her world and lived her life.

WALTER BRUEGGEMANN Eden Theological Seminary St. Louis, Missouri

2 1 This dimension is not given adequate expression by Reiser. Thus the formula

in its present context affirms man's is-'issah) lordship over the earth. It is in this role that he needs "help."

^ 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.

brueggemann bone

Documents