Original article written July 1, 2004


The promulgation of the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, on October 28, 1965 was a unique moment in the history of the Church. It was the first time that a council had laid down principles in a solemn way concerning non-Christian religions and recognized in these religions positive values that could be appreciated. Many today, however, are unaware of the tumultuous history of this declaration and how it was initially intended to address exclusively the relationship of the Church with the Jewish people. This paper proposes to examine the origins and development of the Declaration on the Jews and the process by which it eventually became the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.

Origins of the Declaration

Nostra AetateWhen Pope John XXIII announced to the world in January 1959 that the Church would hold in the coming years an ecumenical council, it had been less than 15 years since the end of World War II and of the mass extermination of two-thirds of European Jewry at the hands of the Nazi death machine. The horrific culmination in the Holocaust of centuries of anti-Semitic persecutions now raised such a problem for the conscience of humanity that the Church was morally bound to address the Jewish question at the Second Vatican Council, despite the apprehension this subject aroused.

On September 18, 1960, Pope John commissioned Cardinal Augustine Bea, president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, to prepare a draft declaration on the relations between the Church and the people of Israel. The Pope's decision to tackle this subject at the council had been prompted and influenced by several factors, one of which was his reception in audience on June 13th of the same year of French historian Jules Isaac, known for his studies on the evolution of anti-Semitic myths. During the audience Isaac gave the Pope a dossier in three parts: 1) a program designed to rectify Christian teaching concerning the Jews; 2) an account of theological myths, such as the idea that the scattering of Israel was a punishment inflicted by God for the crucifixion of Christ; 3) extracts from the Catechism of the council of Trent showing that the accusation of deicide raised against the Jews did not belong to the true tradition of the Church.

The Pope was favorable to Isaac's proposals and assured him that he had reason for hope. It was not the first time that John had shown himself well disposed toward the Jews. During World War II, while apostolic delegate in Turkey, he had helped to save thousands of them from the Nazis. Eyewitnesses testify to his constant alertness and never failing activity, speaking of "the goodness of his intervention, his warmth, his dynamism and his sympathy." "Deeply and sincerely moved by the suffering of the Jews, he showed a strong desire to help in every way possible." [1] Some therefore saw the work that he initiated on the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people as "a response by the Church to Auschwitz.” [2]

In 1959, the Pope had changed the Good Friday prayer for the Jews that referred to them as “perfidious,” – a mistranslation of the Latin which had nonetheless long been considered offensive to them. In October 1960, the Pope met with a group of American Jews, greeting them with the words "I am Joseph, your brother!" It was clear to him that the relationship of Christians and Jews had above all a spiritual basis in the history of salvation.

In addition to the Pope's personal experience and initiatives, Rome’s Biblical Institute to the Council's Central Preparatory Commission and the Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies in the USA also made petitions requesting that the Council include the question of the people of Israel in its considerations. Even more significant was a memorandum drawn by an international working group of priests and laymen meeting at Apeldoorn, Holland, proposing several guidelines and suggestions for renewal in preaching and catechesis on the subject of Israel.

History of the Text

In November 1960, at the first meeting of the Secretariat for Unity, Cardinal Bea appointed Fr. Gregory Baum, OSA, to produce a short survey on the problems posed for the Church in connection with the Jews. At the next meeting, in February 1961, Fr. Baum presented the results of the survey, proposing that the council should issue declarations on following three points: 1) underline the close connection of the Church with the old Israel; 2) correct the notion that the Jews are an accursed race or a people rejected by God; 3) solemnly proclaim the Church's unceasing hope of Israel's final reconciliation with herself and condemn anti-Semitism.

At the same time, Abbot Leo Rudloff and John Oesterreicher, together with Fr. Baum were appointed to form the core of the sub-commission for Jewish questions. They had barely even started to work before they ran into opposition. Following a leak of information, Arab governments were alerted to the secretariat’s intentions and immediately began to protest that a positive declaration on the Jews would intrude into the sphere of politics and lead to a diplomatic recognition of the state of Israel. This was only the opening salvo of what would soon become a massive barrage of attacks against the Declaration on the Jews.

At the third meeting of the secretariat, on April 6-21, 1961, Abbot Rudloff shared his conviction that the Church must live in expectation of the reunification of the two Israels at the end of time. Oesterreicher added reasons why the Church must give expression to the role of the Jews in the working out of salvation and put in its true light the relationship between the Church and the Jews. Following this, Fr. Baum read out the preliminary study, which so impressed the listeners that it was greeted with applause, contrary to all the customs of the secretariat. The study asked the council fathers to consider earnestly the following matters:

  1. Any definition of the nature of the Church should teach that the Church is rooted in the Israel of the patriarchs and prophets.
  2. The Church is the Church of Jews and Gentiles; the reconciliation of the two in Christ prefigures and proclaims the reconciliation of all men in the Church. The Jewish people are not accursed but remain forever dear to God.
  3. The reconciliation of the two Israels is an integral part of Christian hope.
  4. Anti-Semitism should be condemned as a sin against justice, love, and the bond of human brotherhood.
  5. The feasts of the just of the Old Covenant, as presently celebrated in the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, might be extended to the whole Church.
  6. Guidelines might be given on the best ways of teaching Israel's role in salvation history.
  7. Paintings and sculptures that preserved the slanders accusing the Jews of ritual murder should be removed; liturgical passages offensive to the Jews should be corrected.

These petitions were discussed during the general meetings of April, August and November 1961. While some criticized the length of the proceedings, Oesterreicher attributes the slowness of the debates to two factors: the opposition of the Arab governments to the declaration, and the fact that the theologians were simply not prepared for a declaration on the Jews in their own minds. “From the time of Christian antiquity up to that of Vatican II, there had been hardly any development of the Church’s teaching on the mystery of Jewish existence. Many other mysteries had been subject of meditation in prayer and intense intellectual activity… but nothing of this kind had occurred with regard to the relationship of Church and Synagogue. The problem was really the Cinderella of theology.” [3]

The First Draft

The first draft of the Declaration on the Jews was worked out during the general assembly held in Ariccia from November 27 to December 2, 1961. It is worth reproducing here in full this embryonic version of Nostra Aetate:

The Church, the bride of Christ, acknowledges with a heart full of gratitude that, according to God's mysterious saving decree, the beginnings of her faith and election are already to be found in the Israel of the patriarchs and prophets. Thus she acknowledges that all Christian believers - sons of Abraham by faith (cf. Gal 3:7) - are included in his call and, likewise, that her salvation is prefigured in the deliverance of the chosen people out of Egypt, as in a sacramental sign. And the Church, new creation in Christ as she is (cf. Eph. 2:15), can never forget that she is the spiritual continuation of that people with whom, in his mercy and gracious condescension, God made the Old Covenant.

The Church in fact believes that Christ, who 'is our peace', embraces Jews and Gentiles with one and the same love and that he made the two one (cf. Eph. 2:14). She rejoices that the union of these two 'in one Body' (Eph. 2:16) proclaims the whole world's reconciliation in Christ. Even though the greater part of the Jewish people remain separated from Christ, it would nevertheless be an injustice to call this people accursed, since they are beloved for the sake of their fathers and the promises made to them (cf. Rom. 11:28). The Church loves this people. From them sprang Christ the Lord, who reigns in glory in heaven; from them sprang Virgin Mary, mother of all Christians; from them came the apostles, the pillars and bulwark of the Church (1 Tim 3:15).

Furthermore, the Church believes in the union of the Jewish people with herself as an integral part of Christian hope. The Church awaits the return of this people with unshaken faith and deep longing. At the time of Christ's coming only "a remnant chosen by Grace" (Rom. 11:5), the first born of the Church, accepted the (eternal) word. The Church believes, however, with the apostles that at the time chosen by God, the fullness of the sons of Abraham according to the flesh will finally attain salvation (cf. Rom. 11:12, 26). Their reception will be life from the dead (cf. Rom. 11:15).

As the Church, like a mother, condemns most severely injustices committed against innocent people everywhere, so she raises her voice in loud protest against everything done to the Jews, whether in the past or in our time. Whoever despises or persecutes this people does injury to the Catholic Church.”

Comparing this initial text with the official document promulgated by the Council four years later, one cannot help but notice a warmth and enthusiasm in this first draft that became somewhat tarnished by the time it reached its final form. The Church acknowledges here "with a heart full of gratitude" her roots in Israel. She embraces the Pauline theology that Christ unifies Jews and Gentiles, and goes as far as warmly declaring that "the Church loves this people [Israel].” The draft boldly and prophetically announces the future conversion of the Jewish people and their union with the Church. Raising her voice in "loud protest" against manifestations of anti-Semitism, it even considers these to be an "injury to the Catholic Church."

Let us now consider the tumultuous development of this document from this initial draft to its final form.

First Setback: The “Wardi Affair”

In June 1962, the world Jewish Congress announced that it would dispatch Dr. Chaim Wardi, a senior official of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in the State of Israel, to Rome as representative of the Congress. This announcement aroused general disquiet and a new storm of protests from the Arab governments that eventually forced the Central Preparatory Commission to remove the draft decree on the Jews from the Council's agenda. Cardinal Bea later explained that it was not rejected "on account of the teaching it contained, but simply and solely because of the unfavorable political circumstances then prevailing.” [4] These concerns were not entirely baseless. Christians in Arab countries were genuinely concerned that the declaration would unleash persecutions against them.

On the eve of the Council's opening, several people, among them the chief rabbi of Rome, appealed to save the Declaration on the Jews. Cardinal Bea "spoke with sympathy of the anxiety of Christians of the Near East who feared for their religious life” but argued that it “would be bad policy to give way to the pressure of the opponents,” a pressure that “would probably crumble into nothing if one stood firm against it.” [5] He questioned whether it was permissible to endanger the renewal of the whole Church and to leave out of account the urgent problem of the Jews because of temporary factors, even if weighty in themselves. Pope John XXIII agreed with Bea and replied that "a profound responsibility requires our intervention." For him, the declaration on the Jews was "not only a matter of the heart but also an act of faith and a work of piety.” [6]

At this point, Cardinal Bea believed that the chances of bringing the declaration into the council aula lay in incorporating it into the schema on ecumenism. This idea became a reality in the second draft, with a cautious reference to all other religions inserted in front of the section on the Jews.

The Second Draft

The second draft of the declaration on the Jews thus became chapter IV of the schema on ecumenism. The most important changes to this draft was a passage rebutting the old charge of deicide that held the Jews of all times responsible for the death of Christ, and warning catechesis and preachers not to fall into an anti-Semitic exposition of the passion story.

Though the new draft was approved at the Secretariat’s session of February 25 to March 2, 1963, it was only delivered to the fathers on November 16, two months after the second session had opened. This significantly cut down the time available for study and discussion. As soon as it was issued, the leaders of the Eastern Churches rose up in united opposition to chapter IV. Cardinals Tappouni (Syrian), Maximos IV (Melkite) and Stephen I (Coptic) intervened vigorously in demanding the withdrawal of the text, objecting that it was out of place to devote a whole chapter to the Jews in a document on ecumenism and that it would cause great difficulties to the Christians in the Near East. These three were joined by the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem and the Armenian patriarch of Cilicia, who maintained that the declaration should mention either all non-Christian religions or none. One commentator appropriately described the discussions of this second session as “when politics held theology in chains.” [7]

As if this weren’t enough, to the Arab opposition to the declaration was added crude anti-Semitic propaganda in the form of pamphlets distributed on the periphery of the Council. One author, for example, writing under the name of Bernardus, wrote: “the Jews are a deicide people, accursed and harmful, against whom the Church must defend herself, today as in the past.” [8] He believed that these claims, together with the repression of the Jews through the centuries, belonged to the normative tradition of the Church, and supported his thesis with edicts of the Inquisition against the Jews dating back to the mid 18th-century. Oesterreicher writes that the obstinacy of this anti-Semitic opposition “can only be explained by a profound ressentiment against the incomprehensibility of God's grace and the election of Israel.” [9]

Paul VI’s Pilgrimage to the Holy Land

Following the second session of the Council, the new pope Paul VI made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land on January 4-6, 1964, hoping that it would have a favorable impact on the declaration. Le Monde acknowledged that he was "the first to dare to speak of peace on both sides of the Israel-Arab border." [10] In the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the pope spoke of the inadequacy of Christian witness in the world and of the manifold failures of Christianity in the course of its history. The highlight of the trip was his cordial meeting with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras I. Yet Oesterreicher comments that “the pilgrimage did not fulfill the expectations of those who had hoped for a relaxation of the political situation in the Near East and with it an end to Arab opposition to the declaration on the Jews.” The Jordanian radio repeatedly punctuated its reports in Arabic of the Pope’s pilgrimage with hateful remarks, such as: “2,000 years ago, the Jews crucified Christ, and 15 years ago, they attacked the people of Palestine,” and: “Truly, of all the world religions it is the Jews who are the enemies of God. Truly, the crimes of the Jews shall never be forgiven them." [11]

Though several theologians, among whom Fr. Baum, Oesterreicher, and René Laurentin rose up in defense of the inclusion of the Declaration on the Jews in the schema on ecumenism, pointing out the common roots, the common writings, a common history, and a unity of goal and predestination of Israel and the Church, chapter IV of the schema on ecumenism was eventually denied success. In the spring of 1964, it was relegated to the appendix of the same schema, and then subsequently separated altogether from the decree on ecumenism.

The Third Draft

On September 25, 1964, in the third session of the Council, Cardinal Bea solemnly introduced the third draft under the name of “Declaration on the Jews and non-Christians.” In Oesterreicher’s opinion, “a solid framework had been left here, but only a framework.” [12] He believed that “the revisions had significantly weakened the Declaration and thus made it more palatable to its opponents.” [13] For instance, it now lacked any links with Pauline theology. The most noteworthy alteration was that word “deicidal” was dropped from the summons directed to Christians not to call the Jewish people accursed or “deicidal.”

In addition, another controversy arose: the acknowledgment of the Church’s eschatological hope for the union of Israel with herself gave the impression to Jewish readers that proselytizing was intended. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel protested in no uncertain terms. He said that “faced with the choice of conversion or death in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, he would choose the latter.” [14] Archbishop Heenan of Westminster responded in an address to the bishops by stressing that the Jews were wrong if they regarded the text as a demand that they give up their religion, but the fact that they had taken the statement amiss was sufficient reason for him to remove the relevant passage from the Declaration. [15] Later, other bishops suggested that it would be better to express the Church’s hope for the turning of the Jews to Christ with a recognition that “the mystery of salvation does not depend upon us, but upon God’s transcendent act.” [16]

Nevertheless, the speeches of September 28 and 29 that followed the introduction of this draft represent a climax in the history of the declaration. Oesterreicher saw in this debate in new awakening to the mystery of Israel in the hearts of many bishops, proving that the Declaration on the Jews was not simply the work of a minority or the product of an energetic and well-organized lobby. Yet anti-Semitic attacks continued. Patriarch Maximos “attributed the progress of the declaration to the skill of the Jews in the art of propaganda”. [17] A communiqué issued by the Arab supreme committee for Palestine saw behind the Council's efforts "imperialist Zionist maneuvers to lead the Church to take up a position in the Palestine conflict favorable to international Jewry." [18]

It is at this time that there appeared a plan to completely separate the chapter on the Jews from the schema on ecumenism. On October 9, 1964, Cardinal Bea received a letter signed by the Secretary-General of the Council, Archbishop Pericle Felici. It announced “that the Declaration on the Jews would be reduced to a short paragraph, and this would be inserted in the draft on the Church." [19] Cardinal Bea and others intervened directly to the Pope, who assured Bea that the declaration on the Jews would be "neither amputated nor diminished." Rather, it was now to become the heart of a separate declaration on the relation of the Church to the non-Christian religions.

Laurentin continues: “Between September 30 and mid-November, 1964, the declaration was amended in conformity with the wishes expressed during the debate. The most striking change was the development of the former short paragraph dealing with non-Christian religions. ” [20] The positive values of Buddhism and Hinduism were now explicitly presented, and the paragraph devoted to the Muslims now totaled 25 lines. The title of the declaration had been changed to: Declaration on the Relation of the Church To Non-Christian Religions. Though the Jews had disappeared from the title, the text concerning them was not only retained, but amplified and strengthened according to the wish of the majority. The clause excluding deicide was even reintroduced, although not in the same terms as it had been previously.

The Fourth Draft

The implementation of these changes became the fourth draft, released in mid-November, 1964. Laurentin evaluates the drawbacks and advantages of the new developments. Drawbacks: “The Jews were no longer linked to ecumenism, it seemed. If this were true, the schema on ecumenism would find itself amputated of its deepest root. In fact, whether one likes it or not, it is in Christ Himself, and hence on the Christian level, that the separation between the Church and the people of Israel occurred.” Advantages: “The difficulties met by the text on the Jews had obliged to the Church, in a positive way, to open herself to extremely new horizons.” [21]

The voting on this draft took place on November 20, 1964. The results were as follows:

Subject of vote




Juxta Modum


Nos. 1-3 Non-Christian religions






Nos. 4-5 Jews; racial discrimination






Whole chapter






Though there was slightly less support for the paragraph on the Jews than for the section dealing with non-Christian religions, the number opposed to the declaration was reduced to 99, with 242 requests for amendments - one of the most favorable results registered during the Council. It seemed like the greatest difficulties were now of the past.

"Holy War" against the Declaration

Yet Arab opposition to the Declaration only intensified in the months preceding the fourth and last session of the Council. Oesterreicher writes: "It seems that the entire Middle East was drawn into the whirlpool of these hostilities, governments and people, Muslims and Christians, Orthodox and Catholics, laymen, priests and bishops." [22] Things only became worse when part of the Israeli press began to attribute a political and Zionist interpretation to the phrase vindicating the people of deicide. Opponents of the declaration also capitalized on the argument that renouncing deicide was an indication that the Church was beginning to dissociate herself from the divinity of Christ. According to them, to exclude deicide would in effect “convert the Catholic Church to Nestorianism!" [23]

Oesterreicher adds that “some [of the bishops] found it difficult to give up ancient prejudices which so easily disguised themselves as the sacred tradition of the Church." [24] With so much opposition, there remained the possibility that the declaration would be quietly dropped. One of the most stirring interventions against this possibility was that of the bishop of Würzburg, Josef Stangl. He pointedly asked whether the Church will "walk in the way of incorruptible truth and justice or in that of tactics, diplomacy and the least resistance?" For him, what was at stake was the credibility of the Church and her claim to moral leadership. [25]

Modifications of 1965

The declaration survived the onslaught, but the fourth section on the Jews was again greatly modified for its final version, distributed in August 1965. In particular, the paragraphs on deicide and anti-Semitism were entirely recast, as shown below:

Fourth Draft

Revised Text


True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ: still,

what happened in the passion of Christ cannot be charged in any way against the whole people, then alive, much less against the people of today.

what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.

The Jewish people never should be represented as rejected or accursed, or guilty of deicide.

Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be represented as rejected by God or accursed, as if this followed from Holy Scripture.

All should see to it that, in catechetical work and in the preaching of the word of God, they teach nothing

that could give rise to hatred or content of Jews in the hearts of Christians.

All should see to it that, in catechetical work and in the preaching of the word of God, they teach nothing

save what conforms to the truth of the gospel and the spirit of Christ.

In her rejection of injustice of whatever kind and wherever inflicted upon men, mindful of that common patrimony, the council decries and condemns hatreds and persecutions

directed against Jews whether they arose in former or in our own days.

The Church, moreover, rejects every persecution against any man. For this reason and for the sake of the patrimony she shares with the Jews, the Church decries hatreds, persecutions, and manifestations of anti-Semitism

directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.


She does so, not impelled by political reasons, but moved by the spiritual love of the gospel.

Some of the differences were: 1) the part played by the Jewish leaders in the death of Christ was added; 2) the new text made no mention of either the Jewish people or the Jewish community, obscuring the exclusion of collective responsibility; 3) the new text made it clear that the Church is the new people of God; 4) it was clarified that the thesis of the censure of the Jews is not biblically founded; 5) the word deicide was suppressed; 6) the instruction to avoid everything that might engender hatred and contempt for the Jews was replaced by a vaguer expression; 7) an explicit mention was made of anti-Semitism. [26]

Cardinal Bea defended the new text and impressed the majority by explaining the modifications made on controversial points. He stated that the suppression of the clause on deicide was "a simple question of words, since the new text expressed the same thing completely and carefully." [27]

The vote took place on October 14 and 15, 1965. 2023 fathers took part in the final voting on the whole draft; 1763 voted in favor, 250 against it, and 10 votes were invalid. The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions was promulgated on October 28, 1965. On that date, opposition was reduced to 88 votes, as against 2221 in favor. Oesterreicher notes that “whoever had witnessed all the crises and vicissitudes of the declaration on the Jews from close by could only regard the triumph of that day as a miracle." [28]

Laurentin adds, somewhat nostalgically: “The text is still beautiful, like those women at the beginning of their decline, but of whom their previous acquaintances say in low voices: 'if only you knew how beautiful she used to be…’ at a moment of exceptional grace, there was still something stiff in the unreticent smile of the Church toward the people of which she is the issue... some people feel this contracture poignantly. However, it would not be noticed at first glance." Yet he also justly recognizes that "the step from a state of secular enmity to warm friendship is not made in a day." [29]

Many indeed saw the promulgation of the declaration not as an end but rather as a new beginning. At the time of the promulgation, Cardinal Bea said: "the declaration on the non-Christian religions is indeed an important and promising beginning, yet no more than the beginning of a long and demanding way towards the arduous goal of a humanity whose members feel themselves truly to be sons of the same Father in heaven and act on this conviction." [30] J.P. Lichtenberg, O.P., elaborates: “a first stage of the difficult, but necessary dialogue between the Church and Israel; a first invitation to Christians and Jews to understand each other better in order to love each other more sincerely, that is the true meaning of the present text. Another stage could have been reached when the Church acknowledges Judaism as a living and effective religion… finally as a third stage the Church would have to recognize the state of Israel.” [31]

Though the Fathers of the Council at the time had no intention of preparing the diplomatic recognition of the State of Israel, the demand was made again and again until it became a reality on December 30, 1993 with the signing of the Fundamental Agreement Between the Holy See and the State of Israel. Though there remains a long way before the union of Israel and the Church is finally accomplished, one may rightly rejoice in the great leaps made in this direction since the Second Vatican Council and Nostra Aetate.

Works Cited

Flannery, Austin, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II, Volume 1 – The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Northport, New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1975.

René Laurentin and Joseph Neuner, The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Glen Rock, New Jersey: Vatican II Documents Paulist Press, 1966.

Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. 5 Vols. Trans. Lalit Adolphus et al. New York: Herder and Herder, 1969.

[1] Oesterreicher, John, “Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Introduction and Commentary;” in Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed. Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 3, p. 7.

[2] Ibid., p. 8.

[3] Ibid., p. 39.

[4] Ibid., p. 42.

[5] Ibid., p. 43.

[6] Ibid., p. 44.

[7] Ibid., p. 49.

[8] Laurentin, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, p. 24.

[9] Oesterreicher, op. cit., p. 122.

[10] Ibid., p. 56.

[11] New York Herald Tribune, January 5, 1964, as quoted in Oesterreicher, op. cit., p. 58.

[12] Oesterreicher, op. cit., p. 60.

[13] Oesterreicher, op. cit., p. 65.

[14] Ibid., p. 66.

[15] Ibid., p. 66.

[16] Ibid., p. 72.

[17] Ibid., p. 82.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Laurentin, op. cit., p. 32.

[20] Ibid., p. 33.

[21] Ibid., p. 35.

[22] Oesterreicher, op. cit., p. 102.

[23] Laurentin, op. cit., p. 38.

[24] Oesterreicher, op. cit., p. 108.

[25] Ibid., p. 110.

[26] Laurentin, op. cit., pp. 39-42.

[27] Ibid., p. 45.

[28] Oesterreicher, op. cit., p. 129.

[29] Laurentin, op. cit., p. 54.

[30] Oesterreicher, op. cit., p. 130.

[31] Ibid.

FaLang translation system by Faboba