March 2009 (9:1) 85

Preaching as Translation via Theology

by Abraham Kuruvilla

(editor’s note: Dr. Abraham Kuruvilla is Assistant Professor of Pastoral

Ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary.)

Abstract

The homiletical understanding is strikingly parallel to the transaction

of translation. Both endeavors seek to render a text into a valid
product—a new linguistic text in one, sermonic application in the
other—that, while demonstrating relevance for a fresh setting,
maintains authority of the source text. It will be proposed that the
key hermeneutical entity governing the validity of application in
the homiletical translation from text to praxis is the theology of the
pericope being considered. This entity, pericopal theology, will be
defined and its significant role in preaching delineated.

Introduction

Application is the culmination of the exercise of preaching, whereby

the biblical text is brought to bear upon the lives of the congregation
in a manner that seeks to align the community of God to the will
of God, for the glory of God. Therefore, a fundamental issue for
homileticians has always been the determination of application that
is faithful to the textual intention (i.e., authoritative) and fitting
for the listening audience (i.e., relevant). The struggle to bridge
the gap between ancient Scripture and contemporary listeners in
order to provide valid application is parallel to the transaction of
translation. This paper will explore the metaphor of translation
to demonstrate how the preacher might effectively move from
text to praxis by means of thetheology of the particular pericope
being handled in the sermonic endeavor.1 The peculiar nature of
texts that necessitates “translation” in the preaching of a biblical
pericope will be considered, and a theological means to achieve this
end proposed.2
 The Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society

Translation and Preaching

The singular property of texts that obliges both the linguistic

translator and the biblical preacher to undertake translation is
the phenomenon of distanciation; indeed, the goal of both agents
is to neutralize distanciation by saying the “same thing” as their
respective source texts.

Texts and Distanciation

Texts are unique communication acts, estranged from their authors,

their maiden audiences, and the original circumstances of their
composition—they have undergone distanciation.3 Interpretation
seeks to counter this distanciation, a task aided by the fact that
distanciation does not render the text utterly orphaned: it bears
artifacts of the event and context of writing, and traces of the
author in its script, medium, content, arrangement, etc. Such
residues are essential for interpretation, and are sufficiently present
in most texts to establish the writer’s purpose. Nevertheless, the
physical absence of the writer at the point of the text’s reception by
the reader ensures that the scenario of dialogue no longer operates
in textuality as it does in orality.4 For a text in another language, it is
the translator that becomes the hermeneutic intermediary between
text and audience; for the biblical text, the preacher serves that
office. The proximity of such a mediator to the audience enables
the former to regenerate the message of the text effectively for the
latter. This is the role of both translator and preacher—human
intermediaries between author and readers/listeners “rendering the
communicative action of the script in new situations,” for the goal
of translation is “to enact the way, the truth, and the life in new
settings, to make Christ live within new contexts.”5

Fidelity in Translation and Preaching

“Translation” is derived from the Latin trans (“across”) and latus

(“to carry”). The translator carries a text across a linguistic gap; the
preacher, too, seeks “to carry across” the applicational import of a
passage of Scripture to a congregation across the communicational
 March 2009 (9:1) 87

chasm between text and audience. In principle, there is no difference

between the translation of a text in a different language and that
of a text in a different time; in the case of the Bible, it is both in a
different language and from a different time. Both textual translation
and biblical preaching attempt to demonstrate the relevance of a
source text for a new setting. Both seek to render the original into
a valid, new product—a text in a different, contemporary language
in the one; fresh sermonic application in a different, contemporary
context in the other. While there is thus an element of novelty in
these enterprises of translation and preaching, both also strive to
be faithful to the source text, seeking to maintain its authority in
the new product—the element of fidelity. Translation seeks to be
faithful to the source text (to be “author”-itative), while at the
same time attempting to render that text accessible to a reader,
in the new language and idiom of the latter (to be relevant). In
like fashion, generating application to stimulate life-change for the
glory of God, the homiletician is charged not only to lead meaning
from the biblical text with authority, but also to direct meaning
to the situations of listeners with relevance. Thus “translation”
is descriptive of both the linguistic operation and the preaching
enterprise.

Saying the “Same Thing"

“A translation.. .implies that although we are speaking in a different

language, we are still saying the same thing.”6 Whether linguistic
or sermonic, translation is an attempt to say the “same thing” to
a contemporary audience, the translated product in either case
seeking to be faithful to the source text, thereby bearing its authority.
As a consequence of saying the “same thing” as the source text in
the new context, the distanciation between author and reader is
nullified.

The phenomenon of “false friends” illustrates this eloquently: the

meaning of the word “g-i-f-t,” for instance, depends, at the very
least, on what language the script is in. To disregard the linguistic
context of the text “g-i-f-t” written in German (= “poison”), and to
read it as English would be thoroughly misleading, if not dangerous.
 The Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society

In order to be understood by an English-speaking audience, gift

in German must be translated to poison in English. Only then
will the English reading be faithful to the conceptual core of the
German text—“a chemical substance that causes injury, illness,
or death.” This conceptual core (the “same thing”) maintains an
equipotent identity in both worlds—that of the author and that of
the reader—irrespective of language or context. Such a translation
is not an option; it is necessary in order that the translated product
may remain faithful to the original, saying the same thing as the
latter.7 Across the gulf between the textual world and the readerly
world, conceptual identity (the “same thing”) has to be faithfully
carried: “one...has to posit a transworld identity in order to make
a translation of meaning from one world to another.”8 With regard
to the interpretation and application of Scripture, Richard Hays
declared that “[o]nly historical ignorance or cultural chauvinism
could lead us to suppose that no hermeneutical ‘translation’ is
necessary” for a contemporary audience to grasp the ancient biblical
text.9 Fidelity to the original requires that the linguistic, temporal,
and contextual changes be taken into account; i.e., translation must
occur.

David Clark observed that interpreters of Scripture who refuse to

change the reading of the normative text in a changed situation
(those who resist translation) are transporters, naively carrying the
“untranslated” biblical text into fresh contexts and violating its
transworld identity and conceptual core intention. Transformers, on
the other hand, attempting to be relevant, alter the text, making no
attempt at faithfulness to it. R. Judah ben Ila‘i sagely remarked: “If
one translates a verse literally [a transporter], he is a liar; if he adds
thereto [a transformer], he is a blasphemer and a libeler” (b. Qidd.
49a). On the other hand, responsible translators, unlike transporters
and transformers, are those who speak a new language in the new
context, thus faithfully proclaiming what is affirmed by the text and
its transworld conceptual core.10 This is to assert that untranslated
readings of a text are likely to be readings of infidelity. To say the
“same thing” as the original text, then, is not merely to repeat the
latter verbatim. The conceptual thrust of the text must be isolated,
to which all of that text’s translations/applications must align,
 March 2009 (9:1) 89

if one wants to say the “same thing” as the source. And thereby
distanciation, the result of textuality, is counteracted.

The rest of this paper will propose a means to achieve the goal
of faithful translation in preaching, that enables the interpreter to
say the “same thing,” conferring fidelity (and thus authority) to
sermonic application.

Theology in Preaching

The core thrust of the text that must be translated, this paper
proposes, is the “world in front of the text”—the theology of the
pericope being preached.

The “ World in Front of the Text”

Paul Ricoeur’s notion of the “world in front of the text” provides

a helpful category to understand the conceptual thrust of the
text.11 The text is not an end in itself, but the means thereto,
an instrument of the author’s action of employing language to
project a transcending vision—the “world in front of the text”.
Literary works of any kind are essentially referential phenomena.
A Hollywood western movie, for instance, goes beyond panoramic
vistas of wild frontiers, horses, outlaws, sheriffs, and the narrative
of their interactions. Another implicit, to'be'inferred theme refers
to “the way depicted actions embody, instantiate and/or formulate
ethical knowledge and values.” The film genre of the western, that
depicts a particular society in the western United States of the late
19th century, projects a world with the themes of individual rights,
responsibilities, and codes of honor in the face of evil. Such a world
is projected for all time, not just restricted to the historical era of
the narrative; so much so, if that medium/text were inspired, it
would be advocating a kind of behavior for all its future audiences,
beckoning them to inhabit the projected world with its particular
brand of ethics. Thus the text not only tells the reader about what
actually happened (what the author said), it also projects a “world
in front of the text” (what the author did with what was said) that
90 The Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society

bids the reader inhabit it. Such implied thrusts of texts are always
facets of ethical value; they are especially evident in proverbs and
maxims. “Birds of a feather flock together” semantically makes a
statement about avian social behavior, but also projects a world
in which readers, being warned of guilt by association, eschew
questionable company.12

The determination of the world so projected is thus an integral

undertaking of biblical hermeneutics intended to culminate in
application. This “world in front of the text” is the core conceptual
thrust of a text that, when translated, helps discover application
that is faithful to the original source. Indeed, such a notion is
appropriate to all categories of texts intended for application at
times and places distal to their origin, including, and especially,
religious and legal writings.13 Unlike other utterances, though, the
inspired text of Scripture is unique in its subject matter: in, with,
and through all that it says, the A/author projects a world that
portrays God and the specific details of His relationship with his
creation. That world is not necessarily the way the world actually is.
Rather, it is a world that should be and would be, were God’s people
to align themselves to it. The elucidation of the specifics of this
“world in front of the text” is therefore an essential transaction in
biblical interpretation, for that world, comprising the thrust of the
text, provides the platform from which to develop faithful and valid
sermonic application (that says the “same thing” as the source text).

The Projected World: An Example

If one considers the imperative, “be not drunk with wine” (Eph
5:18), one might ask what the core conceptual thrust of the text
is, that is conveyed by “wine.” Would it be acceptable to be drunk
with an alcoholic beverage other than wine? Distanciation of the
text and the resultant change in context call for that imperative to
be translated in order to generate valid application—a transaction
engaged in by the preacher.

Community governance is in view in the latter half of Ephesians,

with guidelines for living embedded in a cascade of contrasts
 March 2009 (9:1) 91

between the dynamics of the “new self” and the “old self” (4:17-
5:14). Drunkenness is paralleled with walking unwisely and being
foolish, and is explicitly labeled “dissipation,” used elsewhere in the
NT only in Titus 1:6 (1:7 mentions addiction to wine) and 1 Pet
4:4 (4:3 has drunkenness). Wine, while its use is not condemned
in the NT (see 1 Tim 5:23), is clearly not to be abused (3:3, 8;
Titus 1:7; 2:3); inebriation is marked as folly and as a characteristic
of those who operate in the lifestyle of the old self. Filling by the
Spirit, on the other hand, is a characteristic of the wise, those
displaying the lifestyle of the new self.14 Spiritual filling refers to the
abiding presence of God in Christ mediated by the Spirit (note the
instrumental use of the Greek preposition en, in Eph 5:18) with,
in, and among His people. In exhorting the Ephesians to be filled
by the Spirit rather than be drunk with wine, Paul is essentially
commanding them to become, corporately, the unique temple of
God, the dwelling place of God in Christ, by the Spirit (also see
1:23; 3:19; 4:13). Filled in this fashion, the Christian community is
to engage in spiritual worship (5:19-20).15

The conceptual core of Eph 5:18, then, portrays a world in which

believers refrain from drunkenness with any and all manner of
alcoholic beverages capable of rendering one intoxicated.16 Translation
to the specific world of a specific listener is now possible; the
consequences for application are evident: drunkenness is proscribed,
whether it be with vodka, whiskey, or any conceivable ethanol'
containing concoction. The core thrust of the text, the “world in
front of the text,” thus forms the basis for “translation” to derive
valid application for a contemporary audience.

Pericopal Theology

This paper proposes to call that world projected by the text

the theology of the pericope, inasmuch as it portrays God and the
relationship he intends to have with his people. It is a world where
kingdom priorities, principles, and practices are portrayed (in Eph
5:18, it is a world in which God’s people refrain from intoxication
with alcoholic potions of any kind). Therefore it can rightly be
called “theology”—“that skein of thought and language in which
92 The Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society

Christians understand themselves, the Bible, God, and their

everyday world.”17 The theology of a particular pericope, then, is
a specific segment, a quantum, of the larger canonical world; all
such individual pericopal segments together compose a holistic
understanding of God and His relationship to his people. It is such
a world that God graciously invites humanity to inhabit. Thus
one might define pericopal theology as the theology specific to a
particular pericope (the representation of a segment of the plenary
world projected by the canon) which, bearing a future'directed
intention, functions as the crucial intermediary—the element that
enables the preacher to say the “same thing”—in the homiletical
move from text to praxis.

Scripture, thus, displays to readers how God relates to His creation,

by portraying a world governed by divine priorities, principles, and
practices, and offers to the believer the possibility of inhabiting
that “world in front of the text” by subscription to God’s values
and obedience to God’s demands—a new way of living: God’s
way. The biblical canon as a whole projects a composite divine
world. However, in the weekly homiletical transaction that moves
the church towards inhabiting that world, it is the pericope that
remains the most basic textual component handled. As the
fundamental textual entity in ecclesial and homiletical use, and
as a relatively irreducible scriptural quantum composing a single
sense unit, each pericope projects a portion of that broader ideal
world projected by the canon. Each pericope demarcates a segment
of that plenary vision of God’s relationship with His creation, the
details of which segment are unique to that text and are derived
from its particulars. The cumulative projections of all the individual
pericopes of Scripture therefore constitute the integrated, singular,
canonical world. And to this world of Scripture, Christians are
called to align their lives. Therein lies the utility of the projected
world (pericopal theology), for with its future'directed intention, it
makes possible valid application in contexts far removed from those
of the original utterance or discourse. The preaching endeavor,
therefore, must include the explication of this pericopal slice of the
canonical world, elucidating what that specific text affirms about
God and His relationship to mankind. What the pericope so affirms
 March 2009 (9:1) 93

in its theology forms the basis of the subsequent homiletical move

to derive application. Derived as it is from the text, the theology of
the pericope confers fidelity (and thus authority) to the sermonic
application that is subsequently derived from this intermediary.18

Needless to say, the situation of the audience is an important

parameter for the translator-preacher: what specifically is
accomplished in readers and hearers varies from era to era,
situation to situation, and even from person to person. However, as
long as these varied applications fall within the bounds of the same
pericopal theology, they are but instances of a single type, spawned
from the single conceptual core thrust of the text. Therefore all
such applications are saying the “same thing” as the source text;
distanciation is conquered, and fidelity to the original maintained.

Pericopal Theology Distinguished

Pericopal theology, in this conception, is neither the imposition of

a systematic or confessional grid on textual data, nor the result of
an exclusively historical or sociological focus on the subject matter.
Rather, it elucidates the textually mediated theological truth of the
pericope at hand, attending to the contribution of that particular
textual unit to the plenary canonical world displaying God and
humanity rightly related to Him. In this, pericopal theology
differs from systematic or biblical theology. Systematic theology pays
attention to the entailments of what is written, drawing conclusions
deductively from one text and integrating those with deductions
from other texts (for instance, the assertion of the divinity of the
Holy Spirit discovered from a number of biblical texts). By its
integrative activity, it operates at a more general level than does
pericopal theology. Pericopal theology, more inductively derived, is
constrained by the specific thrust of that particular pericope. Biblical
theology falls somewhere in between as it identifies the development
of broader biblical themes across the canon.19 Therefore, its level
of operation also tends to be more general than that of pericopal
theology. The advantage of the greater degree of specificity that
by definition is inherent in pericopal theology is the possibility of
moving from pericope to pericope, week by week, for those who
94 The Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society

seek to preach in that fashion. On the other hand, with systematic

and biblical theology as the basis of sermonic preparation, if one
chooses to preach pericope by pericope, clear distinctions between
the sermonic aims of successive pericopes become harder to
maintain. Operating as systematic and biblical theology does at a
level of generality somewhat removed from the immediacy of the
text and its details (at least at a level farther than is the locus of
pericopal theology), contiguous pericopes will often tend to have
similar thrusts, making lectio continua on a weekly basis virtually
impossible to sustain without repetition of sermonic/applicational
goals.20 However, given the degree of specificity prescribed by
pericopal theology, preaching pericope by pericope would not be
impeded by this handicap, were one to make the theology of the
pericope the bridge to application.

This, of course, is not to declare that sermons and applications

constructed upon systematic theology or biblical theology have
no place in the homiletical calendar. The goal of this proposal is
simply to add another arrow to the preacher’s quiver, one that will
help those keen on preaching pericope by pericope, progressively
unfolding the world projected by the canon. Week by week, and
pericope by pericope, as specific portions of Scripture are brought
to bear upon the situation of the hearers, the community of God
is gradually and increasingly (re) oriented to the will of God as it
“inhabits” the canonical world segment by segment.

Conclusion

In employing the metaphor of translation, this paper has explored

how the sermon and its application may manifest the authority of
the text and maintain fidelity to the original while, at the same
time, relevantly translating that text for a particular audience.
The theology of the pericope functions as the bridge between text
and praxis, between the circumstances of the textual inscription
and those of the reading community. As a pericopal segment of
the canonical world that displays God and His relationship to his
creation, the theology of a particular biblical pericope facilitates
the valid and legitimate translation from the “then” to the “now”
 March 2009 (9:1) 95

with fidelity; it enables the preacher to say the “same thing” as the
text. The theology of the pericope is, thus, the ideological locus
in which the priorities, principles, and practices of the projected
divine world are propounded for appropriation by readers and
listeners. Discovering this entity should therefore be an important
goal of interpretation of all biblical texts, for it is via this critical
intermediary that an interpreter can move from text to sermon,
from authoritative inscription to relevant application. Scripture is
not merely informative, but also transformative; the A/author was
projecting a world in such a way that the theological thrust of the
pericope would be emphasized, allowing the past to flow over into
the present. Sermonic proclamation of a biblical text, therefore,
is complete only with the translation of the text, via pericopal
theology, to praxis.

Notes

1. While acknowledging its more common connotation of a portion of

the Gospels, “pericope” is employed here to demarcate a segment of
Scripture, irrespective of genre or length, that forms the textual basis for
an individual sermon.
2. Portions of this paper were presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Evangelical Homiletics Society, Birmingham, AL, October 16-18, 2008.
3. See Paul Ricoeur, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on
Language, Action and Interpretation (ed. and trans. John B. Thompson;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 145, 147.
4. It is granted, of course, that authorial distanciation refers only to the
alienation of the human agency involved in the creation of the text of
Scripture. Notwithstanding the constant presence of the Spirit of God
(the divine Author of the Bible) with the believing interpreter, it is
the remoteness of its human authors that essentially necessitates the
interpretive enterprise—the engagement of languages, the exploration
of historical contexts, the examination of literary and rhetorical aspects
of the text, etc.
5. Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A CanonicaLLinguistic Approach
to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 131.
6. William Hordern, Introduction (New Directions in Theology Today, vol. I;
London: Lutterworth Press, 1968), 142 (emphasis added).
7. Lawrence Lessig, “Lidelity in Translation,” Texas Law Review 71 (1992-
 The Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society

1993): 1165-1268.
8. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., “Counterfactuals in Interpretation,” in Interpreting Law
and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader (eds. Sanford Levinson and Steven
Mailloux; Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988), 63.
9. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary
Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperCollins, 1996),
5-6.
10. See David K. Clark, To Know and Love God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway,
2003), 53, 56; Hordern, Introduction, 141-142; and Lawrence Lessig,
“The Limits of Lieber,” Cardozo Law Review 16 (1995): 2262.
11. Paul Ricoeur, “Philosophical Hermeneutics and Theological Hermeneutics:
Ideology, Utopia, and Faith,” in Protocol of the Seventeenth Colloquy, 4
November 1975 (ed. W. Wuellner; Berkeley: The Center for Hermeneutical
Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1976), 1-28; idem, “Naming
God,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 34 (1979): 215-27.
12. Peter Seitel, “Theorizing Genres - Interpreting Works,” New Literary
History 34 (2003): 285-286. For the distinctions between what the author
said, and what the author did with was as said, as it pertains to biblical
interpretation, see Abraham Kuruvilla, Text to Praxis: Hermeneutics and
Homiletics in Dialogue (LNTS 374; London: T. & T. Clark, 2009).
13. With regard to a “classic” legal text, the U.S. Constitution, James Boyd
White observes: “What is required in interpreting the Constitution ... is
something like translation, a bringing into the present a text of the past”
(“Judicial Criticism,” in Interpreting Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic
Reader [eds. Sanford Levinson and Steven Mailloux; Evanston:
Northwestern University Press, 1988], 403—404). So also, Lawrence
Lessig: “Like the linguistic translator, the judge is faced with a text (say,
the Constitution), written in an original or source context (America, late
eighteenth century); she too must write a text (a decision, or an opinion)
in a different context (America, today); this decision, in its context, is
to have the same meaning as the original text in its context” (“Fidelity
and Constraint,” Fordham Law Review 65 [1996-1997]: 1371, emphasis
original).
14. Interestingly enough, in the book of Acts, the ministry of the Spirit was
mistaken for drunkenness (2:4, 13, 15).
15. See Timothy G. Gombis, “Being the Fullness of God in Christ by the
Spirit: Ephesians 5:18 in Its Epistolary Setting,” 7yndale Bulletin 53
(2002): 265, 268; Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 379-381; and Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians
(WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 1990), 348.
16. The theology of the whole pericope, Eph 5:15-20, might be summarized
thus: Rather than remaining under the control of alcohol—unwise and
 March 2009 (9:1) 97

foolish—members of the Christian community live wisely, understanding

God’s will and in a manner befitting the temple of God, controlled by the
presence of God in Christ mediated by the Spirit, the consequence of
which is spiritual worship.
17. Paul L. Holmer, The Grammar of Faith (New York: Harper and Row,
1978), 9.
18. While the concept of theology as a bridge between text and sermon
has oft been invoked in the past, what exactly that theology comprises
and how it might perform its role has not been explicated. See Heinrich
Ott, Theology and Preaching (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 17; John
Goldingay, Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation (Leicester, U.K.:
InterVarsity, 1981), 43; John R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 137; Timothy S. Warren, “A Paradigm for
Preaching,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991): 463-486; and idem, “The
Theological Process in Sermon Preparation,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156
(1999): 336-356.
19. For similar definitions of biblical theology see, among others, B. S.
Rosner, “Biblical Theology,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed.
T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
2000), 10; Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A
Contemporary Hermeneutical Method (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999),
267; Elmer A. Martens, “Tackling Old Testament Theology,"Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977), 123; and Graeme Goldsworthy,
GospebCentred Hermeneutics: BiblicaFTheological Foundations and
Principles (Nottingham: Apollos, 2006), 68, 271.
20. For a critique of such a modus operandi, see Abraham Kuruvilla, “Book
Review: Preaching Christ through Genesis, by Sidney Greidanus,” journal
of the Evangelical Homiletics Society 8 (2008): 137-140.
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) in
accordance with the terms of ATLA's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, ATLA may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact ATLA at products@atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2016 American Theological Library Association.