God and the logos naturenof man. (p. 21)nOn another meaning of correlation:nKing:nA second meaning ofncorrelation is the logicalninterdependence ofnconcepts. It is polarnrelationships that fallnchiefly under thisnmeaning of correlation.n. . . Thenworld does not stand bynitself Particular being isnin correlation withnbeing-itself In thisnsecond meaning ofncorrelation, then,nTillich moves beyondnepistemologicalnconsiderations tonontologicalnconsiderations, (p. 24)nOn symbol and sign:nKing:nA symbol possesses annecessary character. Itncannot be exchanged. Ansign, on the contrary, isnimpotent and can benexchanged at will. Anreligious symbol is notnthe creation of ansubjective desire or work.nIf the symbol loses itsnontological grounding, itndeclines and becomes anmere “thing,” a signnimpotent in itselfn”Genuine symbols arennot interchangeable at all,nand real symbols providenno objective knowledge,nbut yet a true awareness.”nThe criterion of a symbolnis that through it thenunconditioned is clearlyngrasped in itsnunconditionedness.nCorrelation as thencorrespondence of datanmeans in this particularncase that there isncorrespondence betweennreligious symbols and thatnreality which thesensymbolize. Once a truenGod and the /ogos-naturenof man. (p. 265)nBoozer:nA second meaning ofncorrelation is the logicalninterdependence ofnconcepts. Tillich regardsnpolar relationships asnfalling under thisnmeaning of correlationnThenworld does not stand bynitself Particular being isnin correlation withnbeing-itself In the secondnmeaning of correlation,nthen, Tillich movesnbeyond annepistemologicalnconsideration to annontological consideration,n(pp. 267-268)nBoozer:nA symbol possesses annecessary character. Itncannot be exchanged. Onnthe other hand a sign isnimpotent in itself and cannbe exchanged at will. . . .nThe religious symbol isnnot the creation of ansubjective desire or work.nIf the symbol loses itsnontological grounding, itndeclines and becomes anmere “thing,” a signnimpotent in itselfn”Genuine symbols arennot interchangeable at all,nand real symbols providenno objective knowledge,nbut yet a true awareness.”nThe criterion of a symbolnis that through it thenunconditioned is clearlyngrasped in itsnunconditionedness. . . .n(p. 125)nCorrelation as thencorrespondence of datanmeans in this particularncase that there isncorrespondence betweennreligious symbols and thatnreality which thesenreligious symbol isndiscovered one can bensure that here is annimplicit indication ofnthe nature of God.n(pp. 22-24)nsymbolize. Once a truenreligious symbol has beenndiscovered one can bensure that here is annimplicit indication of thennature of God. (p. 267)nThis last example is particularly revealing, because it showsnnot only the extent of King’s plagiarism (every word on pagen23 of King’s text is lifted from Boozer), but also King’s tacticnof pasting together disparate sections of Boozer’s text, in thisncase sections that are more than one hundred pages apart.nThe smooth and impressive manner in which King conjoined,nword for word, different sections of Boozer’s dissertationncould not have been done without great circumspectionnand forethought.nThe citations of such parallels could go on for manynpages. King on freedom, page 312, is taken from pages 62nand 63 of Boozer. King on the “real interdependence ofnthings and events,” pages 25 and 26, is taken from page 269nof Boozer. King on the omnipresence of God, page 292, isntaken from page 197 of Boozer. King on naturalism, orn”humanism,” page 18, is taken from pages 262 and 263 ofnBoozer. Et cetera.nAs any devotee of detective stories well knows, it is thenslight slips and blunders that most often carry thengravest consequence for the perpetrator of the crime. It isnthe dropped cuff link or forgotten matchbook that oftennreveals the perpetrator’s identity and seals his fate, and Kingnand his dissertation are no exceptions. King’s forgottennmatchbook and dropped cuff link are a comma and a typo.nAmid a discussion of Tillich’s conception of “creation,”nwe find the following parallel.nKing:nBut Tillich does notnmean by creation annevent which took placen”once upon a time.”nCreation does notnrefer to an event, itnrather indicates ancondition, a relationshipnbetween God and thenworld. “It is the correlatento the analysis of man’snfinitude, it answers thenquestion implied in man’snfinitude and infinituden[sic] generally.” Man asksna question which, innexistence, he cannotnanswer. But the questionnis answered by man’snessentia! nature, his unitynwith God. Creation is thenword given to the processnwhich actualizes man innexistence. To indicate thengap between his essentialnnnBoozer:nBut Tillich does notnmean by creation annevent which took placen”once upon a time.”nCreation does notndescribe an event, itnrather indicates ancondition, a relationshipnbetween God and thenworld. “It is the correlatento the analysis of man’snfinitude, it answers thenquestion implied in man’snfinitude and in finitudengenerally.” Man asks anquestion which, innexistence, he cannotnanswer. But the questionnis answered by man’snessential nature, his unitynwith God. Creation is thenword given to the processnwhich actualizes man innexistence. To indicate thengap between his essentialnJANUARY 1991/27n