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)

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.