ARMAGEDDON

CHARLES C. TORREY
YALE UNIVERSITY

T H E term "Armageddon," familiar in English literature, pri­

marily designates the scene of the last great battle at the end of
the present age, in which the powers of evil, represented by
hostile nations warring against the Kingdom of God, are to be
overthrown and destroyed. The name is derived from a passage
in the Book of Revelation, 16:16, in which a standing feature
of Hebrew eschatology is given a setting characteristic of the
apocalypse.
The writer sees in his vision three devils in the form of frogs,
(vss. 13 f.) "which go forth unto the kings of the whole world,
to gather them together unto the war of the great day of God,
the Almighty"; (vs. 16) και avprjyayep avrovs els TOP τόπον
κσλούμβνον ΈβραϊστΙ àp μαΎβδώρ: " a n d they gathered them to­
gether unto the place which is called in Hebrew Har Magedön"
Here is a strange-sounding name, where we should have ex-
pected Old Testament terminology. The fact of transliteration
would seem to indicate that the Greek writer himself had his
doubts, and wished to play safe. The word "Hebrew," Έβραϊστί,
may according to circumstances mean either Hebrew or Ara­
maic, but here there is no reason to hesitate between the two.
The division of apßayeooup into two words is required by the
Semitic triliteral root-structure, and the former word in the
compound must be ap, "in, "mountain," as has generally been
recognized. This is only Hebrew, not Aramaic.
The difficulty comes with the second member of the com-
pound, for at first sight ßayeooip suggests no Hebrew word, and
the "mountain" seems to give no help. The whole phrase is a
geographical designation of some sort, and the scene of the
great conflict is somewhere in the holy land, these things are
sure; the term before us, however, may not be a simple place-
name, for the geography of an apocalypse is not always satisfied
by our maps. The Book of Revelation is a storehouse of the
Jewish mythology of its time, and it makes some use of veiled
allusions.
238 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
The interpretation which is now current in English-speaking
lands is in fact very ancient. I t was initiated by certain copyists
or editors of the Greek text who wrote the word with a double
delta, thus making it correspond to the LXX Μαγβδδω, the
usual transliteration of the Hebrew ÌIJD, Megiddo, the well-
known city on the southern border of the Great Plain. The
King James version of the English Bible inherited this later
spelling of the word in Rev. 16: 16; hence the long-familiar
term Armageddon, ordinarily understood to have meant origi-
nally "the mountain (or "mountain-land") of Megiddo," and
proverbially employed to characterize any overwhelming or
final victory. We have recently seen the tropical use and the
geographical interpretation brought together in a popular
terminology derived from an episode in the great war, inasmuch
as the British general who overwhelmed the Turkish army on
the plain of Esdraelon was thereafter called "Allenby of
Megiddo" and "Allenby of Armageddon."
The two geographical terms have in fact become associated,
even in some learned use, to the extent of making them com-
pletely synonymous. In a recent popularly written but authori-
tative volume dealing with excavations in the Near East the
popular equation is accepted, and we see in the Table of Con-
tents " T h e Megiddo (Armageddon) Expedition." Here it
might be thought that the name of the city is used in a wider
sense, to include the whole adjoining region. That this is not
the case is shown by a figure in the text, a photograph of Tell
el-Mutesellim, under which we read: " T h e Palestinian Mound
Covering the Fortress City of Megiddo (Armageddon) now
being Excavated." Once more, in the Index: "Megiddo (Ar-
mageddon, modern Tell el-Mutesellim)," again expressly giving
the city-mound the apocalyptic name. This is insisting on an
identity which in the nature of the case can only be fanciful.
The city itself could never have been called "the Mountain of
Megiddo" (!); what, then, is the signification of the prefixed
har?
There is a more important question to be answered. Can
Megiddo have been intended at all in Rev. 16:16? What is
named is a mountain, or a mountainous region, and this does
 ARMAGEDDON 239
not in the least suit the identification. Megiddo lies at the edge
of the Great Plain, and wherever in the Old Testament the
region of Megiddo is mentioned, it is always the enormous and
low-lying field that is in mind. Twice occurs the phrase, "the
broad valley (nypn) of Megiddo" (Zech. 12:11; 2 Chron. 35: 22).
In the popular work above mentioned, the photograph of the
mound shows no hills in the neighborhood, and on one page we
read: "We could see the impressive mound a few miles away
across the plain. . . . We have had opportunity for studying
. . . the scene of so many dramatic struggles between the na-
tions that it has become proverbial as 'Armageddon.'" The
whole plain, then, was Armageddon? what has become of the
mountains?
The earliest Christian interpreters, including Origen and
Jerome, did not think of ßayeooip as the name of a place, but
guessed (rather wildly) at its meaning, proposing this or that
far-fetched etymology. "Megiddo" was eventually adopted by
nearly all commentators, not merely because of the exact corre-
spondence of the later spelling of the apocalyptic word with the
Greek place-name, but also because of the fact, made much of,
that many important battles had been fought in that neighbor-
hood. The region was a battlefield, however, because it was a
vast open valley, unobstructed by hills. Origen, Eusebius, and
Jerome could have told our modern scholars that the phrase
"mountain of Megiddo" was not only unheard of but intrinsi-
cally impossible.
Accordingly, the textbooks of the present day, after accepting
"Megiddo" with hesitation, proceed to express their dissatis-
faction and to record various more or less improbable con-
jectures. The principal attempts at explanation are listed by
Nestle, article "Har-Magedon," in Hastings' Dictionary of the
Bible; by Cheyne, article "Armageddon" in the Encyclopaedia
Biblica; and by R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, II,
50 f. (In each of these three summaries, it may be observed, the
problem is regarded as unsolved, and the solution is believed to
lie somewhere in the language of Hebrew eschatology.) Those
who still hold to Megiddo point to the fact that its neighbor-
hood was the scene of two momentous events in Israelite his-
240 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
tory: the defeat of the Canaanites by Barak and Deborah, as
narrated in the 5th chapter of Judges; and the defeat and death
of Josiah, 2 Chron. 35:22-25. Would not the famous battle-
ground be the natural place for the coming conflict? To this,
many scholars have replied, that the incidents are too remote
to give the Great Plain a foremost place, or any place, in the
picture of the Last Days. The decisive argument, however, is
found in the fact that the locality of the final struggle is already
designated, definitely and uniformly, in Hebrew eschatology.
The great battle is to be fought in the immediate vicinity of
Jerusalem, as the Hebrew-Jewish scriptures, of whatever date,
say with one voice. The hostile armies make war on the holy
city as well as on the people of God; they come up against
Jerusalem and lay siege to it. Whatever the notions (and they
were various) as to the progress of the struggle, and its duration,
there was never the slightest uncertainty as to the place where
it was to be enacted. This has not been generally realized, and
it may be well to quote the most important passages in extenso,
instead of giving mere references.
The predictions in the Book of Zechariah offer a good start-
ing-point. Chap. 14: Iff. uses plain words, and its program
contains some special features which do not happen to appear
elsewhere in the Old Testament. "Behold, a day of Yah weh
comes, when thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. 2For
I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the
city shall be taken. . . . Half of the city shall go forth into cap-
tivity, but the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the
city. 3 Then shall Yahweh go forth and fight against those
nations; . . . 4 and his feet shall stand in that day on the Mount
of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount
of Olives shall be cleft in the midst," and there will be " a very
great valley" running east and west.
According to this representation the city will be twice be-
sieged by "all the nations," and the first attack will succeed,
though the city will not be destroyed. After an interval, in the
second siege the enemy will be annihilated.
Similarly Ezekiel, in his vision concerning Gog and Magog,
prophesies that these marvellous hordes will in the last days
 ARMAGEDDON 241
come up "upon the mountains of Israel" (39: 2, 4, 17), where
they will then meet their doom. Their fallen hosts will be buried
east of Jerusalem, in a great valley lying in the direction of the
Dead Sea (the text of 39:11 is corrupt, and apparently has
been tampered with, but this seems to be its meaning).
In Zech. 12 (an especially obscure chapter) we read of " t h e
siege of Jerusalem" (vs. 2); "all the nations of the earth gath-
ered together against i t " (vs. 3). " I n that day I will seek to
destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (vs. 9).
Rev. 1: 7 quotes verbally from the Hebrew of this chapter.
The picture given in Joel 4:1-14 is especially familiar. "Be-
hold, in those days I will gather all nations, and will bring them
down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and I will strive against
them there for my people. . . . 9 Proclaim ye this among the
nations; prepare war; stir up the mighty men. . . . 12 Let the
nations bestir themselves and come up to the valley of Je-
hoshaphat, for there will I sit to judge all the nations round
about. 13 Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe; come,
tread ye, for the winepress is full and the vats overflow; for
their wickedness is great. 14 Multitudes, multitudes in the
valley of decision! for the day of Yah weh is near in the valley
of decision."
The prophet may have had in mind no particular locality, in
coining the term "valley of Jehoshaphat," but he certainly
thought of the vicinity of Jerusalem. The way in which this
passage is used in the Book of Revelation will be mentioned
presently.
Phrases from the dramatic little scene in Is. 29:1-7 deserve
to be included. " H o Ariel, Ariel, the city where David en-
camped! I will raise siege works against thee, and thou shalt be
brought low. But the multitude of thy foes shall be like small
dust, and the multitude of the terrible ones as chaff that passeth
away. The multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel,
even all that fight against her and her stronghold, and that dis-
tress her, shall be as a dream, a vision of the night."
The testimony of 4 Ezra is interesting, in that it comes from
an apocalypse whose date is approximately that of the Book of
Revelation. The passage 13:1-38 describes the great battle
242 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

of the peoples in language so definite as to leave no doubt about

the location. The seer is shown a man coming up out of the sea,
who then rides on the clouds of heaven (vs. 3). x\gainst him
gathers an innumerable multitude of men to make war (vs. 5).
He sends down fire (cf. Ezekiel 38: 22, Rev. 20: 9) and it con­
sumes them (vss. 10 f.). Then follows the interpretation of the
vision, and we read: " 3 3 I t shall be, when all the nations hear
his (the Messiah's) voice, every man shall leave his own land
and the warfare which they have one against another; 34 and
an innumerable multitude shall be gathered together, as thou
didst see, desiring to come and fight against him. S5 But he
shall stand upon the summit of Mount Zion. . . . 3 8 And then
shall he destroy them without labor by the Law, which is lik­
ened unto fire."
In view of all this, it would be very surprising if the writer of
the Book of Revelation should represent the overthrow of the
hosts of wickedness as taking place anywhere else than in the
immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem. Apocalyptic tradition
is of necessity singularly constant. We find, indeed, in the
Book of Revelation no contradiction of accepted views, where
the statements of the book are clear. In the passage 14: 14-20
the wrath and slaughter of the Great Day are announced in the
familiar imagery. The Son of Man comes in the clouds of
heaven, and the angel with the sharp sickle is bidden to go down
and do his terrible work. " 1 9 And the angel sent his sickle into
the earth, and gathered the vintage of the earth and cast it into
the great winepress of the wrath of God. 2 0 And the winepress
was trodden without the city, and there came out blood from the
winepress, even unto the bridles of the horses, as far as a thou­
sand and six hundred furlongs." Here are the very words of
Joel 4: 13, from the passage quoted above; and we could be
certain, even without the'έξωθβρτψ πόλεως, that the "valley of
Jehoshaphat" was in the vision of the writer as the focal point
of the final clash with the armies of the Gentile world. Further­
more, in 20: 7-10 the apocalyptist reproduces, for his own
panorama of the last days, the vision of Ezekiel concerning Gog
and Magog. The scene is precisely the same as in all the other
7
passages. " And when the thousand years are finished, Satan
 ARMAGEDDON 243
shall be loosed out of his prison 8 and shall come forth to deceive
the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and
Magog, to gather them together to war (avpayayeîp αυτούς eis
TOP πολεμορ) ; the number of whom is as the sand of the sea (cf.
Ezek. 38:9, 16). 9 And they shall come up over the breadth
of the land, and shall compass the camp of the saints about, and
the beloved city. And fire shall come down out of heaven and
devour them (Ezek. 38: 22)."
I t is therefore quite certain that the writer of this book does
not break with Jewish tradition in regard to the two tremendous
battles in which the evil of the world is to be removed from it by
sword and fire. Both battles, he says in unequivocal terms, are
to be fought on the mountains around Jerusalem, and the powers
of heaven will gain their victory just outside the city. The one
thing which has seemed to many to run counter to this conclu­
sion is the Hebrew-Greek term in 16:16 interpreted as con­
taining the name "Megiddo." I t is now clear that our problem
must be solved without reference to that city or its vicinity.
The faithful in Judea and Jerusalem are to witness the final
manifestation of Yahweh's might. The Plain of Esdraelon, two
days' journey to the north, is utterly out of the picture. What­
ever "Armageddon" may mean, it has nothing to do with Megiddo.
To this conclusion exegetes in ever-increasing number have
been driven. Back of the problematic liar Magedon must lie a
literary or cryptic term of some sort designating the vicinity of
Jerusalem. With this seen as the only possibility, there have
been several attempts at explanation, one of them falling only
a little short of complete success.
The author of an anonymous article published in the Zeitschr.
für die alttest. Wissenschaft, Vol. VII (1887), offered a solution
based on the supposition of an original Hebrew text which was
misunderstood. He suggested (p. 170) that the phrase which
the Greek translator interpreted as rnp ΊΠ, "mountain of
Megiddo," was intended by the author of the apocalypse to be
read as injp in, har migdö, "his fruitful mountain"; meaning
the mountain land which included the region of Jerusalem.
Subsequent writers mention this proposal, but without accept-
ing it. The noun Ί:Ό is rare in the Old Testament, and occurs
244 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
there in the plural only. The supposedly well-known Hebrew( !)
name of the region is ill-suited to this particular context.
Gunkel, in his Schöpfung und Chaos, presented a character-
istic hypothesis which received the support of Zimmern and
Jensen. He compared the dragon of the Apocalypse with
Tiämat, thought that some Babylonian myth must be referred
to in Rev. 16: 16, and suggested that μayeδωp maybe connected
with a name found in certain Greek magic texts which contain
Babylonian material. This name is "Τβσεμίμ^αδωρ, the name
of the husband of Έρβσχιγαλ, a Babylonian goddess of the un­
derworld. The argument for the identification is concisely put
by Cheyne in the Encycl. Bibl., article "Armageddon," col. 311 :
" I t would be natural that the spot where Tiämat was defeated
(and was again to be defeated) by Marduk should be called by
a name which included that of a god of the underworld." The
fact that this conjecture is recorded in several textbooks shows
to what straits interpreters have been reduced; but it could be
swallowed only by a Pan-Babylonian in his hungry moments.
A far more promising approach was made in the field of
Hebrew mythology. As soon as Har Magedön was cut loose
from Megiddo and the need of a new interpretation was felt,
another strange geographical phrase, Har Mö'edh, was sure to
suggest itself to readers of the Hebrew Bible. I t occurs but
once, namely in Is. 14: 13, in the fine poem on the death of the
mighty conqueror (Alexander the Great?) who had shaken the
world to its foundations as no other tyrant had ever shaken it.
The verse reads: "Thou saidst in thine heart, I will ascend into
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the divine stars; and I
will sit on the Mount of Assembly in the recesses of the north"
(p£ttTOTSngio ina). Here is a strikingly interesting bit of popu-
lar mythology of heathen origin, used as a literary property
by a Hebrew poet. Might not the two mysterious "mountains"
be one and the same?
Nestle, in the article "Harmagedon" in Hastings' Dictionary
of the Bible, notes that Hommel conjectured njriD nn as the
original reading from which the Greek phrase in Rev. 16:16
was derived, publishing his conjecture in the Neue kirkliche
Zeitschrift, Vol. VI (1890), 407 f. He supposed that the author
 ARMAGEDDON 245

of the Apocalypse wrote μανέδ or μωέδ, which later was cor­

rected or corrupted into μayeδώp. Hommel's suggestion aroused
some interest. Siegfried, in a review of the Handwörterbuch of
Gesenius-Buhl, published in the Theol. Lit.-Zeitung, 1895,
col. 304, remarked incidentally that in "Harmagedon" the
Hebrew phrase of Is. 14:13 seems to have been confused with
Megiddo; and he referred to E. von Starck's Palästina und
Syrien as expressing the same opinion.
The conjecture bore no fruit, however, for there seemed to be
no way of carrying it further. The distance between μωηδ and
μayeδωp is hardly negligible; and it was not clear why the frog-
demons should assemble the great armies of the world at the
North Pole, or wherever the Semitic Olympus might be located,
for an attack on the Jews of Jerusalem. As to the former of
these two objections, Nestle himself (1. c.) remarked, acutely
enough, that under certain circumstances the consonant 6ain
can be represented by the Greek gamma; but he was unable to
make any use of the suggestion.
Now it has been recognized by many modern exegetes that
the "Mount of Assembly," originally the rendezvous of pagan
deities, was taken over by the Hebrews into their own religious
terminology — like so many other bits of foreign mythology.
Evidence of this is found in Ps. 48, where occurs the singular
phrase, "Mount Zion in the recesses of the north" Three con­
siderations made it very natural that the mythical Har Mô'édh
should be transferred to Jerusalem.
1. Yah weh was supreme over all the "gods," and any assem-
blage of them was at his call and command (Is. 40: 26, Ps. 103 :
20). These divine beings, represented by the heavenly bodies,
are termed "gods," Û\"6K, in Ps. 82, D"6x in 58:2; "sons of
God," Gen. 6: 2, Ps. 2 9 : 1 , 89: 7 f., Deut. 32: 8 (cf. LXX); see
also Deut. 4:19, 29: 25, Sirach 17:17, etc.
2. " Yahweh's holy mountain" had long been a standing and
very common phrase. In the time of the patriarchs and Moses
the mountain was Sinai, in all the later time it was Mount
Zion. In comparison with Sinai, Jerusalem could be spoken of
as " in the recesses of the north " ; so the interpreter of the phrase
could reason — if it were necessary to reason at all.
246 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
3. The use of Ί$ο, mö'edh, in the religious terminology was
perhaps the strongest reason for the adoption of the mytho-
logical term. I t was a designation of the temple at Jerusalem;
Ps. 74: 4, Lam. 2: 6. Ohel moêdh, the "Tent of Meeting" of
God with his people, is a standing feature in the Hebrew Bible
from the Pentateuch to Chronicles. This latter term, especially,
could not fail to attract to itself the "Mount of Meeting,"
which thus became synonymous with yr* "in. In Hebrew
eschatology Jerusalem was the center of all the predicted gath-
erings, whether of the people of God or of the heathen nations.
In Ps. 48:3-9 the psalmist takes his stand, in imagination,
at that point in the world's history where the poets and proph-
ets of Israel especially loved to post themselves, the day of the
final vindication. He sees the assembling of the Gentile kings
and armies, and their overthrow; and then cries out in exulta-
tion (cf. Is. 25: 9 f., where SKID is recognized as a misreading
of ^ÌN): I t has all happened just as we had been told! When,
the poet speaks of the mountain of God as "beautiful in its
elevation," he has in mind that miracle of the Messianic Age
which is described in Is. 2: 2, Micah 4 : 1 , and Zech. 14:10.
The passage, Ps. 48: 3 ff., reads as follows: " 3 Beautiful in its
elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion in the re-
cesses of the north, the city of the Great King. 4 In its palaces
God has shown himself a tower of strength. 5 For, behold, the
kings assembled themselves (njw); all at once they disap-
peared. . . . 8 They were as when the east wind shatters ships
of Tarshish. 9 As we have heard, so have we seen it, in the city
of the Lord of Hosts, the city of our God!"
The allusion here to the mythological term in Is. 14:13 is
universally recognized and beyond question; the psalmist in
his description of the "armageddon" employs both the nn and
the nyio; and it certainly is a legitimate conclusion, that in
Hebrew-Jewish eschatology iy\o Ίη, "Mount of Assembly,"
was a standing term for the scene of the great battle of the
Messianic time. This gives a new point of view from which to
approach the transliterated Hebrew phrase, àp μayeδώp, in
Rev. 16:16.
Here enters the problem of the original language of the New
 ARMAGEDDON 247
Testament Apocalypse, for the question concerns the proceed­
ing of the Greek writer in his transliteration. Was the term
which he wrote already familiar to him in Greek? Was it
known to him in its original Hebrew? Was he free to compose
his own Greek text, or was he rendering a Semitic document
which lay before him in Semitic characters?
There is here no space for discussing the general question, but
certain conclusions may be stated which will be demonstrated
in another place. The language of the present book is as obvi­
ous and certain a specimen of translation Greek as can be found
anywhere, and it has the same character in all parts of the book.
The Greek translation follows the original closely, making it
possible to determine with certainty which Semitic language
was employed. The interpreter did his difficult work excel­
lently, and mistranslations are not numerous. One particularly
interesting specimen may be mentioned here : When the Messiah
rides forth on the white horse, at the head of the armies of
heaven in their pure white uniform (Rev. 19:11-16), his title,
K I N G OF K I N G S AND LORD OF LORDS, is written " o n his gar­
ment and on his banner" φ π ) , not " o n his garment and on
his leg" (Vi). The translator's επί TOP μηρορ αντου was a
strictly accurate rendering, but it rendered the wrong word.
The geographical term in 16:16 was written thus : nyDin. The
briefer orthography, without the vowel-letter, was customary;
thus, for example, the more usual way of writing "Caesar,"
Καίσαρ, was nop, not ΊΟ^ρ. The translator, seeing the designa­
tion of a place or region, could not fail to interpret correctly
the in (mountain) ; but he certainly did not recognize the nyo
which followed, and therefore was obliged to transliterate.
This gave at once and almost inevitably the Greek reading
apμayeδ.
Whoever rendered this Apocalypse into Greek had strong
reason to deal faithfully with every letter of it; see 22:19! The
only Greek consonant which could represent the Hebrew y is 7;
and it was much used in transliteration, without regard to the
question of etymology, as is now well known. Indeed, it was
especially likely to be employed in cases where the interpreter
did not know the meaning of the word before him. Thus in
248 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
1 Chron. 4:9 the cautious translator Theodotion renders the
problematic p y (the result of text-corruption) by Ta/ifys; in
2:47, 49 ψ& by Σαγαφ; in 1 Sam. 9:4 the Lagarde text has
Σeyά\eLμ for ùtyp, etc. I t is not necessary to multiply illustra-
tions. The gamma in μαγβδ certainly represents the Hebrew
guttural. The choice of the vowel e for the second syllable may
have been made simply for the sake of variety; but it seems
more likely that it was occasioned by familiarity with the name
Μα7€δδω(ϊ>), which occurs a dozen times in the Greek Bible.
For the same reason, the very first scribes of the Greek text
would be expected to build out the unfamiliar and seemingly
abbreviated nomen loci into a form resembling the name of the
famous city. Hence, probably, the -ωρ.
The way in which the strange phrase in 16:16 came into be­
ing is perhaps now sufficiently demonstrated, since the fact of
importance, its meaning, has been made clear. Whether we
can fully explain every step in the process or not, λρμayeδωp
certainly originated in the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew
literary term which was not understood. The phrase was in
fact an occult designation of the battle-ground, the holy moun­
tains about Jerusalem; on which, according to the author of
this Apocalypse as well as to every other exponent of Jewish
eschatology, the hosts of heaven were destined to overthrow
the heathen armies at the end of the present age.
 ^ 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.