Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: justification: a pre-Pauline doctrine?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Edgar Krentz <ekrentz AT lstc.edu>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: justification: a pre-Pauline doctrine?
  • Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:01:35 -0500


Jeff Gibson wrote:

>Inspired by Jonathan Ryder's question regarding what works exist on the
>issue of what in Paul is "pre-Pauline", I have been reading the very
>book I recommended to him, A.M. Hunter's _Paul and His Predecessors_.
>An up shot of this is that I have been struck by something Hunter says
>with regard to the question of whether or not the "doctrine" of
>justification was something which Paul's *peculium*. Hunter argues that
>it was NOT. His grounds for his conclusion are four considerations:
>
> It is agreed that in Romans Paul often appeals to
> Christian beliefs shared in common by the Roman church and by
> himself. Must not the doctrine of 'justification of faith'
> which bulks so large in this epistle have been familiar to
> them?
> Both the standard Old Testament proof texts for the
> doctrine (Gen. xv.16 and Hab. ii.4) are probably common
> Christian *testimonia*.
> In Gal. ii.16 Paul can appeal to Peter on this very
> common ground. 'Knowing that a man cannot be justified by
> works of the law, but only through faith in Jesus, we also put
> our trust in Jesus Christ.' Let us give this passage its full
> weight: 'You and I, Cephas and Paul, ' says Paul, 'are at one
> in this doctrine of justification by faith. We agree that a
> man is accepted by God not for his works of law but for his
> faith in Christ.' (Cf. Peter's speech, Acts xv. 7-11.)
> When we remember too that the germs of he doctrine are in
> the gospels (Luke xviii. 10 ff. and Luke xv. 11 ff.) we may
> well doubt the commonly accepted view that this doctrine is
> stamped with the Pauline hallmark
>
>
>Now what ever may be made of each of these arguments or the assumptions
>behind them, they nevertheless point up something that I had not really
>given much thought to (possibly because of not reading widely enough),
>namely, that "justification" is historically NOT strictly a Pauline
>doctrine. It is not original to Paul.
>
>So two questions. Is Hunter's thesis (which he notes was adumbrated by
>Weiss in his _History of Primitive Christianity_, p. 231) that the
>justification is not "Pauline" sound?
>
>Second, if it is sound, to whom or to what do we attribute its origin?

Jeff, the concept is of DIKAIOSYNE QEOU is certainly present at Qumran.
TEhe zedakah I..H is there in the OT (cf Hab 2:4). See Kaesemann on Romans
1:17, et al.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Edgar Krentz
Professor of New Testament Emeritus
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 E. 55th Street
Chicago, IL 60615 USA
773-256-0752
e-mail: ekrentz AT lstc.edu (Office)
GHRASKW AEI POLLA DIDASKOMENOS.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page