Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Two Interpretations of “Justification” in the New Testament Reflections on Galatians 2:15-21 and James 2:21-25

2005; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 59; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00393380500339560

1502-7791

Wiard Popkes,

Biblical Studies and Interpretation

The terminology of righteousness and justification is found in several parts of the New Testament, with a clear preponderance in Paul's letters, especially Romans and Galatians. The only other two documents with a comparatively high percentage of such terminology are Matthew and James, not only with regard to the noun and the adjective but also to the causative verb .1 1. I have tried to assemble and assess the Matthean evidence in: “Die Gerechtigkeitstradition im Matthäus-Evangelium,” ZNW 80 (1989): 1–23. The general kinship between Matthew and James is sketched in my commentary Der Brief des Jakobus (ThHK 14; Leipzig: EVA, 2001) 43. Studies on the Theology of Paul contain longer passages on “justification by faith” of course.2 2. For instance, James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: Clark, 1998), § 14. It should not be forgotten, however, that, as the Dead Sea Scrolls re-documented, the Jewish tradition was well aware of the notion of “justified by grace”.3 3. Siegfried Schulz, “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in Qumran und bei Paulus,” ZThK 56 (1959): 155–185; Otto Betz, “Rechtfertigung in Qumran,” in Rechtfertigung (ed. Johannes Friedrich et al.; Tübingen: Mohr, and Göttingen: V&R, 1976), 17–36; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Gedanken zum alttestamentlichen Vorfeld paulinischer Rechtfertigungslehre,” in Worum geht es in der Rechtfertigungslehre? Das biblische Fundament der “Gemeinsamen Erklärung” von katholischer Kirche und Lutherischem Weltbund (QD 180; ed. Thomas Söding; Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 13–26 (on Pentateuch and Psalms). Cf. J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 264–268 (“A Jewish-Christian Tradition About Rectification”). The New Testament authors took over both the terminology and theological implications from the Jewish heritage.4 4. Not from Greek and Roman; this is opinio communis today. This is certainly true for Paul but not necessarily so for James. Rather, it seems that James reacts to a tradition which has its roots in early Christianity, more precisely in Paul (we shall resume that item later). In both cases, the authors do not explain the terminology of justification and righteousness. They adopt it from their antecedents and add their understanding from their own vantage points. Their interpretations, and this is the major point of the present contribution, use language from other backgrounds; the language is in both cases of a personal nature. This fact implies that, for them, the traditional terminology was no longer sufficient to express what was actually meant.