The background to this thesis is the debate of the last decades within exegetics, concerning the so called "New Perspective on Paul". Starting from this discussion, the thesis is aming to investigateand discuss the function of Abraham in Paul's argument in Romans 4. This is achieved by, to start with, a thoroughly examination and analysis of different translations of Romans 4:1. Secondly, by trying how the translation suggested by Richard B. Hays can be motivated using a narrative perspective of interpretation emphazising the context of covenant history of the text, and thirdly, by examin and discuss other interpretations of the text and compare their ability to bring intelligibility to the text. Moreover, theological issues is brought to the inquiry about the interpretation and about if and how the different perspectives are compatible.The thesis shows that there are good reasons, linguistical as well as theological, to approve the translation of Richard Hays and the presented narrative perspective. This perspective offers a sullotion to the discord between the Old and the New Perspective and at the same time taking seriously the critics from both sides. However, the perspective needs to be discussed and examined further.The conclusions are firstly, that the advantage of the narrative perspective lies in the problems of the other interpretations to acheive a coherent and intelligible account of the text, due to their lack of an overall theological frame of interpretation, secondly, that the terms in which the debate has taken place ("New Perspective"/"Old Perspective") are inaccurate, thirdly, the importance of reading the New Testament, especially Pauls letter to Romans, in its Old Testament framework, and finally, the significance of the interplay between exegetics and theology.

This study has two major aims: to outline discourse analysis from the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics, specifically in relation to the notion of register and context of situation, and to apply this linguistic methodology to a theological discussion, specifically on the New Perspective on Paul. The first chapter introduces the New Perspective on Paul, surveying the history of the discussion and identifying a central disagreement between the New Perspective and the Old: covenantal nomism against legalism. The second chapter introduces discourse analysis and traces a history of its development within the broader field of linguistics and then in biblical studies, noting the strengths of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). The third chapter outlines a framework of SFL discourse analysis with special reference to register and context of situation, especially with application to Hellenistic Greek. Chapters 4 through 6 apply SFL discourse analysis to the text of Galatians, with a concluding chapter synthesizing the material. This study argues that a discourse analysis of Paul’s letter to the Galatians reflects a situation that coheres more closely to an Old Perspective rather than a New Perspective on Paul. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

The faith versus works dichotomy that has been a foundation of Protestant Christianity for centuries is derived in large part from a flawed understanding of Paul's theology in the epistles to the Galatians and Romans. In the wake of WWII, scholars began reexamining Pauline theological constructs and proposing new ways of understanding Paul's arguments regarding faith and works. James D. G. Dunn dubbed this dialogue the "new perspective." This paper will contribute to one particular aspect of new perspective dialogue: understanding the relation of the paranetic material in the final two chapters of Galatians to Paul's theological arguments in the main body of the letter (1:1-5:12). The ethical imperatives in 5:13-6:10 have often been ignored or explained away due to the fact that they are difficult to reconcile with the faith-only, anti-works bias in the traditional Lutheran interpretation of Paul's theology. It has been customary to view the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians more as a description of what the Spirit does in the life of a believer than any kind of an ethical imperative (though similar imperatives are found throughout the New Testament). Some scholars have suggested that the ethical section of the letter was appended later, or perhaps attached as a general directive unrelated to the specific occasion of the main body of the letter. However, if the ethics cannot be reconciled with their theological foundations, the theology must be misunderstood; we cannot respond by devaluing or deemphasizing ethical systems. Theology cannot be interpreted without considering the ethical imperatives it enjoins. My thesis is that the Pauline ethical imperatives in Galatians are directly related to the theological arguments that precede them, and that a scholarly engagement of these imperatives can illuminate Paul's theology and facilitate a more fruitful understanding. In demonstrating the theological/ethical connections, I will consider the occasion of the letter, Paul's narrative reinterpretations, antithetical constructions, and indicative/ imperative formulas, the tension between salvation-historical and apocalyptic perspectives, and the truth for Paul that transcends the occasion of the epistle.

In Paul's epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, the Apostle famously opposes "works of the law" within disputes regarding Jews and the law. But what are these works, what do they signify, and why are they rejected? Such questions are widely contested in New Testament scholarship, with responses constituting an important fault line in contemporary debates between "old" and "new" perspectives on Paul. This study engages these debates by investigating the views of the earliest patristic sources on this issue, which carry distinct heuristic value due to their historical, cultural, and personal proximity to Paul. Part I of this thesis presents the theoretical basis for using early reception within a period of "living memory" to engage contested areas of interpretation. Part II outlines the "old" and "new" perspectives on works of the law, with Luther, Calvin, Bultmann and Moo presented for the "old" perspective, and the "new" represented by Sanders, Dunn and Wright. Part III presents a comprehensive investigation of early patristic writings, stretching from the Didache to Irenaeus, which evaluates each source's usage of the relevant Pauline texts and their understanding of the meaning, significance, and reasons for opposing works of the law. Part IV concludes with a synthesis of these early views, an assessment of how they relate to the "old" and "new" perspectives, and implications for what their testimony suggests about Paul's meaning in the biblical texts. While neither perspective aligns uniformly with the patristic sources, it is concluded that contrary to current nomenclature, the "new" perspective finds greater correspondence with Christian antiquity than the "old" on this issue, and given these sources' proximity to Paul and the consistent and uncontroversial nature of their interpretations, the burden of proof in contemporary debates should be carried by those who would run counter to these early perspectives.

Uppsatsen är en komparativ studie, där James D. G. Dunns och Thomas R. Schreiners tolkningar av vad som enligt Paulus gör att en människa räknas som rättfärdig samt varför Kristus dog utifrån Gal 2:15-21, 3:10 jämförs och värderas. Viktiga begrepp för tolkningen av dessa verser är rättfärdighet, δικαιοσύνη och laggärnigar, ἔργων νόμου. Dunn anser att rättfärdighet enligt Paulus nås genom att vara i Kristus, ἐν Χριστῷ vilket leder till en förändring av människans väsen till Kristuslikhet. Schreiner tolkar däremot rättfärdighet och rättfärdiggörelse som främst juridiskt, där det centrala är att tillräknas rättfärdighet från Kristus genom hans ställföreträdande syndaoffer. Utifrån de argument av Dunn och Schreiner som jag tar upp i analysen av Gal 2:15-21, 3:10 anser jag att Dunns tolkning av vad som leder till rättfärdighet enligt Paulus är mest rimlig. Om varför Kristus dog anser Dunn att det främst var för att göra förbundet med Gud tillgängligt för hedningarna, medan Schreiner anser att det främst var för att sona för människornas synder. Även på denna punkt anser jag att Dunns argument för sin ståndpunkt är mest rimliga.

I denna uppsats har jag studerat Konflikten i Antiochia, utifrån två aktuella perspektiv på Paulus - ”Nya Perspektivet på Paulus” och ”Paulus inom judendomen”. Syftet har varit att definiera och klarlägga den huvudsakliga innebörden i de två respektive perspektiven samt att utifrån den förståelsen göra en jämförande analys med hjälp av den valda perikopen. Jag har också sökt analysera vilka konsekvenser perspektiven kan få för vår förståelse av Paulus. För att avgränsa uppgiften har jag utgått från ett urval av forskare inom respektive perspektiv. Dessa är för NPP: E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn och N.T. Wright. För PIJ har jag främst utgått från material av Mark Nanos och Magnus Zetterholm. För att kunna göra perspektiven rättvisa presenterar jag också en kort beskrivning av det ”Traditionella Perspektivet på Paulus” eftersom det är det perspektiv som i lite varierande form har varit det dominerande genom historien. Jag har också gjort några förhoppningsvis förtydligande utvikningar kring hur det gick till när judendom och kristendom skiljdes åt samt ett kort avsnitt kring begreppet bordsgemenskap. Slutsatsen i uppsatsen är att perspektiven förvisso skiljer sig åt på flera punkter men att de till övervägande del ligger nära varandra. Detta är särskilt tydligt vad gäller de vetenskapliga drivkrafterna och metoderna som respektive perspektiv använder sig av.