[1] Dunn, J. D. G., ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, BJRL 65 (1983) 95–122.Google Scholar

[2] Paul and Palestinian Judaism: a Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London, 1977).Google Scholar

[3] Dunn, , art. cit. 97.Google Scholar

[4] Art. cit. 99Google Scholar, with reference to Sanders, , op. cit. 75, 420, 544.Google Scholar

[5] Art. cit. 100.Google Scholar

[6] Art. cit. 101.Google Scholar

[7] Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia 1983).Google Scholar

[8] Dunn, , art. cit. 102.Google Scholar

[9] Art. cit. 119.Google Scholar

[10] Art. cit. 121.Google Scholar

[11] Art. cit. 119.Google Scholar It also seems as if Dunn has ascribed (119) to Sanders the view that Paul misunderstood Judaism. This is not at all the case; on the contrary, Sanders takes issue with those who hold such a view. See Paul and Palestinian Judaism 496, 549–51.Google Scholar

[12] Cf. e.g. his remarks on Davies', W. D. work in op. cit. 11.Google Scholar

[13] Art. cit. 121.Google Scholar

[14] Art. cit. 107 f.Google Scholar

[15] Sanders, , Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 102.Google Scholar Dunn had the manuscript of this book at his disposal (see art. cit. 102) and makes several references to it elsewhere.

[16] Art. cit. 119.Google Scholar

[17] Art. cit. 120.Google Scholar It is to be doubted whether Sanders would recognize either phrase as representing his stance.

[18] Art. cit. 121.Google Scholar

[19] Art. cit. 122.Google Scholar

[20] Cf. especially Cranfield, C. E. B., ‘St. Paul and the Law’, SJTh 17 (1964) 43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hübner, H., Das Gesetz bei Paulus (FRLANT 119, Göttingen 1980 ²) 118–29Google Scholar (regarding Romans but not Gal-atians); further references in Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law (WUNT 29, Tübingen 1983) 42 n. 1.Google Scholar

[21] Art. cit. 105.Google Scholar

[22] Art. cit. 105.Google Scholar

[23] Art. cit. 106. For Sanders' usage see Paul and Palestinian Judaism 470–2, 501, 518 n. 5, 544; Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 5–10 (esp. p. 8). ‘Most succinctly, righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect; in Paul it is a transfer term.’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism 544.

[24] Art. cit. 106.Google Scholar

[25] Art. cit. 121.Google Scholar

[26] Art. cit. 106.Google Scholar

[27] Dunn (art. cit. 105 n. 28) refers to Williams', S. K. article ‘The “Righteousness of God” in Romans’, JBL 99 (1980) 260 f. Williams, however, rightly insists ‘that we maintain a careful distinction among dikaioun (passive dikaiousthai), dikaiosynē and dikaiosynē theou’; art. cit. 260. Dunn neglects this warning and appeals to Williams' material concerning δικωσύνη θεο in order to determine the meaning of δικαωῦσ θαι in Gal 2. 16.Google Scholar

[28] Betz, H.-D., Galatians (Hermeneia: Philadelphia 1979) 117Google Scholar; cf. 118: ‘a step done’; ‘Jews… became believers in Christ’. This is the universally accepted interpretation.

[29] Dunn might with better reason have appealed to the words ζητονες δικαιωθῆναι έν χρωτῷ in v. 17. The participle ‘seeking’ could refer to a continuing effort, whereas the aorist infinitive δικαιωθῆναι suggests rather a punctual event. Because of this internal tension in the phrasing it is very difficult to make out the meaning of the sentence with any certainty. Most probably the following words εύρέθημεν καί αύτοί άμαρτωλοί have in view the conservative Jewish Christians' reaction in Antioch to Paul's and his friends' behaviour, which put them also into the position of ‘Gentile sinners’ (v. 15). ητοῡντες δικαιωθῆναι έν χριστῷ then, clearly has something to do with day-to-day conduct. But the connection with the once-and-for-all coming to faith (v. 16) is equally clear. It is not easy to pinpoint the meaning of δικαιωθῆναιhere it could be something like ‘trying to live in accordance with our earlier faith decision’.

[30] Cf. Schlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (KEK 7, Göttingen 1962 ¹²) 94Google Scholar; Mussner, F., Der Gala-ter brief (HThK 9, Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1974) 173 f.Google Scholar

[31] Dunn seems to think that future tenses (Gal 2. 16d) or implications (Gal 2. 16c, Gal 5. 5) contradict the notion of a ‘transfer’ use (cf. art. cit. 106), but this is not so. The futures are escha-tological, and given Paul's overall ‘already – not yet’ – scheme it should come as no surprise that in effect one has to ‘enter’ twice: first here and then at the final judgment.

[32] Paul and Palestinian Judaism 471.Google Scholar

[33] See Stuhlmacher, P., Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (FRLANT 87, Göttingen 1966 ²) 185Google Scholar; Kertelge, K., ‘Rechtfertigung’ bei Paulus (NTA 3, Münster 1967) 244 f.Google Scholar; Hahn, F., ‘Taufe und Recht-fertigung’, in Friedrich, J. – Pöhlmann, W. – Stuhlmacher, P. (eds.), Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen 1976) 105–7.Google Scholar Cf. the analogous use of δικαωσύνη in 1 Cor 1. 30 (Hahn, art. cit. 107 f.).

[34] Hahn, art. cit. 111 f. tries to trace this verse, too, back to a traditional baptism liturgy. Unlike many others, however, he thinks that Rom 8. 30 is formulated by Paul himself (art cit. 115 f.; for references to scholars who assume that έδικαίωσεν comes from tradition see 115 n. 79).

[35] Note that Sanders, , Paul and Palestinian Judaism 545Google Scholar recognizes ‘an element of the “transfer” use’ of the righteousness terminology also in Qumran, the similarity being ‘probably connected with the fact that both in Qumran and in Paul one must “be converted”: join a group in which one was not born’ (although the use is not identical). But Paul was not the first Christian to insist (in effect) on ‘conversion’.

[36] Dunn, , art. cit. 106.Google Scholar One gets the impression that είδότες refers, according to Dunn, to standard Jewish belief. Commentators universally recognize that Paul speaks of retrospective ‘knowledge’, Glaubenswissen; see esp. Mussner, , op. cit. (n. 30) 168.Google Scholar Moreover, Dunn's argument depends on his omission of δέ from v. 16a (art. cit. 104 n. 25). Now the particle may or may not belong to the original text. If it does, this automatically destroys Dunn's argument, for then it is clear that a contrast with the standard Jewish view is envisaged already in v. 16a. For the opposite view the textual question is not of crucial importance, although a clause with δέ would admittedly make the statement more effective. If δέ is omitted, it is more plausible to follow the punctuation of Nestle-Aland²⁶ (ειδότες begins a new clause which stands in an implicit contrast to what precedes) than, with Dunn, to assume an anacoluthon.

[37] Art. cit. 119.Google Scholar

[38] Art. cit. 106.Google Scholar

[39] Art. cit. 106.Google Scholar Cf. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2. 11 –18)’, JSNT 18 (1983) 40Google Scholar: ‘Was not Judaism firmly rooted in God's electing and forgiving grace, so that justification through faith was a phrase which could describe the basis for Judaism as well as for the particular expression of faith in the Messiah Jesus?’ While the answer to the initial question is ‘yes’, the rest is a non sequitur (the meaning of both ‘justification’ and ‘faith’ is broadened too much).

[40] This is recognized by Dunn, , ‘New Perspective’ 111 f.Google Scholar; finally, however, he takes ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ in v. 16a as just a more precise definition of the ‘traditional Jewish faith’.

[41] To be sure, Paul does introduce Abraham as a proleptic example of πίστις, and his implicit equation of Abraham's trust in God (Gen 15. 6) with his own faith in Christ may have led Dunn to similar semantic confusion. But Abraham remains a special case. Paul does not suggest that, since Abraham, the possibility of faith was there all along.

[42] See the quotation above in n. 39.

[43] Dunn, , ‘New Perspective’ 112.Google Scholar

[44] Art. cit. 113.Google Scholar

[45] Art. cit. 115.Google Scholar

[46] Dunn, , art. cit. 112 f.Google Scholar

[47] Blass, F. – Debrunner, A. – Rehkopf, F., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen 1976 ¹⁴), § 376.Google Scholar In itself, this may be called ‘the most obvious grammatical sense’: Dunn, , art. cit. 112.Google Scholar

[48] Cf. Oepke, A., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (ThHK 9, 1979 ⁴) 90Google Scholar; Schlier, , op. cit. (n. 30) 92 n. 6Google Scholar; Betz, , op. cit. 117.Google Scholar

[49] Art. cit. 113.Google Scholar Cf. 114: ‘Paul begins to develop a different answer’; 103Google Scholar: Paul's earliest written statement on justification by faith in Gal 2. 16 ‘seems to grow out of Paul's attempt to define and defend his own understanding of justification, over against whatever view was held by his fellow Jewish Christians from Jerusalem and Antioch’; 115Google Scholar: we are ‘witnessing a very crucial development … taking place before our very eyes, as it were. For in this verse we are seeing the transition …’

[50] Art. cit. 104.Google Scholar

[51] It is still less conceivable that Paul's mature view would have ‘begun to emerge’ when he was dictating the letter to the Galatians.

[52] Thus Bousset, W., ‘Der Brief an die Galater’ (SNT 2, Göttingen 1917), 47 f.Google Scholar, who also takes έάν μή in a restrictive sense: ‘wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen’ (48).

[53] I regard Dunn's view that σάρξ at the end of v. 16 denotes an attitude which puts too much stress on the national Jewish identity' as an overinterpretation, but the point is of minor importance for the present discussion.

[54] Cf. Betz, , op. cit. 115, 117.Google Scholar Yet he does not really substantiate the assertion that the ‘doctrinal abbreviation’ in v. 16a ‘must be old’. For a different view see Mussner, , op. cit. (n. 30) 28.Google Scholar

[55] My understanding of Gal 2. 17 is in broad agreement with that of Dunn (see Dunn, ‘Incident’ 36Google Scholar), whereas we differ with respect to v. 18. My view is briefly as follows (for a slightly fuller statement see Räisänen, , Paul and the Law [n. 20] 76 n. 173 and 259 f. n. 159)Google Scholar: The new life-style of Peter and Paul has put them, in the eyes of Jewish (Christian) critics, into the position of ‘Gentile sinners’, as the καί in v. 17, referring to v. 15, shows. Paul admits that he appears as a ‘sinner’ from the point of view of the Torah, but denies that this makes Christ a servant of ‘sin’ in a pregnant sense. The άμαρτ-root, on this reading, changes its meaning in v. 17b. The implicit conclusion is that the law does not provide wholly reliable criteria of sin. As for verse 18,1 doubt that παραβάτης should be seen in connection with the function ascribed to the law in Rom 4.15 (thus Dunn), συνιστάνω should be taken in the sense of ‘demonstrating’. ‘If I reintroduce such ordinances as I had already abandoned, I demonstrate that I have been a transgressor during the period of non-observance.’ The non-observance was, then, based on an arbitrary decision of mine; it was all wrong. But that is not the case. In fact, the non-observance is the result of my death to the law, and this took place διά νόμον (v. 19). Whatever that phrase may mean, it probably at least indicates that Paul's break with the law was not an arbitrary act, but was somehow or other due to the law itself. So it was not wrong.

[56] Matt 5. 17, 2 Mace 2. 22, 4 Mace 5. 33 etc.; cf. Bauer, W., Griechisches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments … (Berlin 1958 ⁵), s.v. 1c.Google Scholar

[57] Cf. Räisänen, , Paul and the Law 54 f.Google Scholar

[58] For a fuller critique of the position that Paul does not attack the law as such see Räisänen, , op. cit. 42–50Google Scholar; the comments made there with particular reference to Cranfield's view are, I think, applicable to Dunn's position.

[59] See Räisänen, , op. cit. 259–62.Google Scholar

[60] Räisänen, , op. cit. 62–73.Google Scholar

[61] Cf. Sanders, , Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 197 and 143 (with reference to Rom 9–11 and Rom 7).Google Scholar

[62] ‘New Perspective’ 102, 119.Google Scholar

[63] Räisänen, , op. cit. 73–7.Google Scholar

[64] See Sanders, , op. cit. 177 f.Google Scholar

[65] Sanders, , op. cit. 29, 56 f. n. 63; 78 f.; 172; 176; 178.Google Scholar

[66] In another connection Dunn correctly speaks of ‘the “Rubicon” significance of baptism’, which expressed the baptizand's commitment ‘with all that this meant in terms of breaking (!) with the previous way of life’. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London 1977) 156.Google Scholar

[67] This is why Dunn's contention that the covenant is not abandoned but rather ‘broadened out as God had originally intended’ (‘New Perspective’ 114) or that ‘Paul's solution does not require him to deny the covenant’ (122) misses the point.

[68] See above, pp. 546–7.

[69] ‘The Jewishness of Paul’, JR 23 (1943) 244.Google Scholar Therefore it is no surprise at all if Paul really did make ‘little sense to his fellow Jews’ (on Dunn, , ‘New Perspective’ 119).Google Scholar

[70] Sanders thinks that the denial is explicit and conscious; cf. Paul and Palestinian Judaism 551. I still hesitate to accept this conclusion (cf. Paul and the Law 187 f.)Google Scholar; at least it might be significant that Paul never spells out the denial of the covenant in plain words (as he does, at times, with regard to the law); and even Sanders states (Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 207Google Scholar) that Paul ‘seems not to have perceived that his gospel and his missionary activity imply a break with Judaism’. But be that as it may, Sanders has certainly grasped the logic of Paul's stance.

[71] If a pre-Christian date could be established with certainty for the practice of proselyte baptism, this would be of immense significance for the issue at hand. Against the background of such a practice the rite alone would have conveyed the message that Jews were in effect in the same position as Gentiles.

[72] This is recognized by Conzelmann, H., Grundriss der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (München 1968 ²) 47Google Scholar: in the proclamation of the earliest church ‘wird eine Stellungnahme zu seiner (Jesus) Person als Bedingung des Heils verlangt. Im Grunde ist damit bereits gesagt, dass nicht die Erfüllung des Gesetzes das Heil schafft, sondern der Glaube.’ I would only modify, in the vein of Sanders, the end of the sentence: it is not God's covenant with Israel that leads to salvation, but faith in Jesus.

[73] If proselyte baptism is pre-Christian, the break would seem to be implied already in John the Baptist's activity: John was then introducing ‘the revolutionary and – in Jewish eyes – scandalous innovation, that he demanded this baptism not only from heathen but from all circumcised Jews on reception into the messianic fellowship. Here already baptism seems to be superseding circumcision.’ Cullmann, O., Baptism in the New Testament (SBT 1, London 1961 repr.; transl. by Reid, J. K. S.) 62.Google Scholar

[74] A word on the ‘new covenant’ might be in order here. Some readers may wish to establish a continuity between Judaism and Paul via Jer 31, where the Exodus covenant is viewed as broken and insufficient and a new covenant is envisaged. It is to be doubted, however, that Jer 31 could have served as a bridge between Paul and those Jews who did not accept his views. The continuity between the new covenant of Jer 31 and the old one is of a quite different sort than that between Paul and the covenant theology. The new covenant of Jer 31 is no different from the old one in outward appearance. Above all, there is no break with the old Torah. The law will not be changed when the new covenant is made; what will be changed is man's attitude to the law and his ability to fulfil it. Incidentally, the other significant feature of the new covenant will be, according to Jer 31, that no religious teaching will be needed any more. One would be hard put to claim that this promise has found its fulfilment in Paul, still less in Christianity (or Judaism, for that matter) at large. For an excellent discussion of Jer 31, where the last mentioned point is also made, see now Carroll, R. P., From Chaos to Covenant (London 1981) 215–23.Google Scholar

[75] Cf. Sanders, , Paul, the Law and the Jewish People 160.Google Scholar