¹ For example, Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, I (E.t, New York: Scribner's, 1951), 279f, 314.Google Scholar The antithesis is presupposed in most Protestant theology. It basically relies on taking Judaism at Paul's assessment, and it is so widespread as scarcely to require documentation.

² The most noteworthy example is Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: S.P.C.K., 1955).Google Scholar Other principal examples are Schoeps, H. J., Paulus (1959; E.t., London: Lutterworth, 1961)Google Scholar; Scroggs, R., The Last Adam (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966).Google Scholar

³ Flusser, D., The Dead Sea Sect and Christianity, Pre-Pauline, Scripta Hierosolymitana, IV ² (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1965), 217Google Scholar: “In the following survey of doctrines common to the New Testament and Qumran literature the individual theologoumena will be arranged according to their structural function in the Qumran theology, not according to their context in Christian thought.”

⁴ Sanhedrin 10.1. On the passage, see especially Finkelstein, L., Mabo le-Massektot Abot ve-Abot d'Rabbi Nathan (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950), 212–38Google Scholar; English summary, xxvii-xlii. Even if one does not accept Finkelstein's view that the statement is pre-Maccabean, it is nevertheless necessary to date the basic sentence before 70, since the first exception (those who deny the world to come) obviously refers to the Sadducees.

⁵ Sifre Deut. 343 (to 33.2; Friedmann, f. 142b; Finkelstein-Horovitz, pp. 395f.). There are numerous parallels. See especially Mekilta Baḥodesh 5 (Friedmann, f. 67a; Horovitz, p. 221; Lauterbach, vol. II, pp. 234f.). For the same point, see Mek. Baḥodesh i (62a; 205f.; II, 198–200); Mek. Shirata 5 (38b; 133; II, 39); Mekilta of R. Simon B. Johai to Ex. 19.2 (Epstein — Melamed, p. 137).

⁶ Mek. Pisḥa 16 (19b-20a; 62; I, 140f.); Mek. Beshallaḥ 3 (29b; 98; I, 218ff. [chp. 4]).

⁷ Mek. Pisḥa 5 (5a; 14; I, 33f.).

⁸ Sifre Deut. 311 (to 32.8; f. 134a; p. 352); Sifra Shimini pereq 12.4 (to Lev. 11.45).

⁹ Mek. Baḥodesh 1 (62a; 206; II, 199). Note also Mek. Shirata 9 (42b; 145; II, 69): “Thou hast shown us mercy, for we had no [meritorious] deeds.” The point is made in parabolic form in Mek. Baḥodesh 5 (66b; 219; II, 229f.); Mek. Baḥodesh 6 (67a-b; 222; II, 237f.); Sifra Aḥare Mot pereq 13.3 (to Lev. 18.1).

¹⁰ Numbers Rabbah 3.2, near top.

¹¹ Mek. of R. Simon B JoḤai to Ex. 6.2 (pp. 4f.); Mek. Beshallaḥ 3 (above, n. 6). The different types of explanation are frequently given one after another in the same passage. On the concept of “for his own (his name's) sake,” see Marmorstein, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinic Literature (New York: KTAV, 1968 = 1920), 12–15.Google Scholar

¹² On the election as an omnipresent but often unformulated doctrine, see Schechter, S., Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York: Schocken, 1961 = 1909), 57–64.Google Scholar For discussions of the various reasons given by the Rabbis for the election, see also Marmorstein, op. cit., 24f. and Kadushin, M., The Rabbinic Mind (New York: Blaisdell, 1965), 73f.Google Scholar Marmorstein thought that two different schools had a dogmatic difference over whether God chose Israel gratuitously or on the basis of merit, just as he also thought that discussion of the relative value of the merits of the fathers and of the present generation was a dogmatic scholastic debate (op. cit., 37–65). Although Marmorstein may not have been altogether wrong, he seems to have seen the disputes too much as credal disputes and not enough as complementary explanations of what is basically inexplicable — God's choice of Israel. Kadushin's remark that the haggadic interpretations are independent from each other, rather than mutually contradictory, seems to catch better the spirit of Rabbinic debate. For our purpose, what is most important is what underlies all these explanations — the doctrine of election.

¹³ Mek. Baḥodesh 5 (above, n. 9; translation by Lauterbach). The same point is made in the other two parables referred to in n. 9.

¹⁴ Sifre Deut. 307 (to 32.4; f. 133a; p. 344); cf. Aboth 4.22.

¹⁵ On this point, see further my “On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism,” to appear in the Festschrift for Daube, David, ed. Bammel, E., Barrett, C. K., and Davies, W. D. (London: Oxford, 1974).Google Scholar

¹⁶ For the point that God remains faithful even when the Israelites continue to transgress, see, e.g., Mek. Vayassaʿ 5 (50b; 169f.; II, 121 [chp. 6]) (R. Joshua).

¹⁷ Mek. Pisḥa 5 (5a; 15; I, 37); Sifre Num. III (to 15.22; Horovitz, p. 116).

¹⁸ God's voice says, “he knew my strength and rebelled against me.” P. Ḥagigah 77b, near end (2.1). L. Ginzberg (The Jewish Encyclopedia, V, 139) did not regard the reference to the Holy of Holies as anachronistic, since the place itself was regarded as holy.

¹⁹ Shebuoth 1.6 (the two goats of the Day of Atonement atone for all sins; apparently pre-70); Sifre Zuṭa to Num. 6.11 (Horovitz, p. 243) (“a sin offering atones” for the offense for which it is offered). The best description of the value for piety and morals of the Temple service is Büchler, A.'s description of a man bringing a sin-offering or a guilt-offering: Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (New York: KTAV, 1967 = 1939), 410, 416f.Google Scholar After 70, the Day of Atonement maintained its place, even without the Temple service: Sifra Aḥare Mot pereq 8.1 (to Lev. 16.30). God had said that on this day atonement would be made, and he is faithful to his promise.

²⁰ See Sanhedrin 6.2; T. Sanhedrin 9.5, referring to the death penalty when accompanied by repentance. See also Urbach, , The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1969) [in Hebrew], 382.Google Scholar Urbach notes that, while the Temple stood, the prescribed sacrifices atoned for transgressions against God, while the punishment of the court and the restitution required by law atoned for offenses against one's fellows.

²¹ Mek. Mishpaṭim 9 (85b; 280; III, 73f. [Nezikin 9]) (R. Ishmael); Mek. Baḥodesh 10 (72b–73a; 239f; II, 277–80) and Sifre Deut. 32 (to 6.5; f. 73a-b; pp. 55f.) (R. Akiba). On suffering as atoning, see especially Büchler, , op. cit., 119–211Google Scholar; 337–74. The view that individual suffering was expiatory was, to be sure, known before 70 (see, e.g., the Psalms of Solomon 10.1), but it apparently was systematically formulated only when the traditional means of atonement were lost. See further Rabbi Akiba's View of Suffering, J.Q.R. 63 (1973).Google Scholar

²² Sifre Num. 112 (on 15.30f.; Horovitz, p. 121) (R. Akiba and R. Ishmael).

²³ On repentance as the conditio sine qua non for atonement, see Moore, , Judaism, I (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927), 505Google Scholar and his subsequent chapters on repentance.

²⁴ R. Judah in T. Yom ha-Kippurim 4.5 (Lieberman's ed.).

²⁵ Rabbi in Mek. Baḥodesh 7 (69a; 229; II, 251).

²⁶ Mek. Baḥodesh 7 (68b–69a; 228 f.; II, 249–51). Paralleled in ARN 29; Yoma 86a; p. Yoma 45b, c (8.8); T. Yom ha-Kippurim 4(5).6–8. The discrepancy between “systems” is noted in p. Yoma 45c. After quoting R. Ishmael's four methods of atonement (repentance, the Day of Atonement, suffering and death), the Talmud continues: “Rab Joḥanan said: This is the opinion of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, R. Ishmael, and R. Akiba. But the opinion of the Sages is that the scapegoat atones [cf. Shebuoth 1.6]. If there is no scapegoat, the Day atones [in any case].” (Cf. n. 19.)

²⁷ See especially Strack-Billerbeck, , Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, IV (München: Beck, 1928), 3–13.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid., III, 218; the Rabbinic sentence is in Gen. Rabbah 76.2. This misunderstanding of such Rabbinic statements remains very frequent in Christian scholarship. See, e.g., Schrenk, 's article on righteousness in Kittel, 's Wörterbuch (TWBNT, E.t., 213).Google Scholar

²⁹ Billerbeck, vol. II, 560. The Rabbinic passage is p. Kiddushin 61d (1.10). For a discussion of this point, see “On the Question of Fulfilling the Law,” cited in n. 15 above.

³⁰ Schechter seems to have understood it to be a doctrine that perfect fulfillment of one commandment would bring salvation. See op. cit., 164.

³¹ See Neusner, J., A Life of Rabban Yohanan Ben Zakkai (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 135ff.Google Scholar; rev. ed. (1971), 183f., 246–49.

³² T. Sanhedrin 13.2; Sanhedrin 105a.

³³ These are listed in an anonymous baraitha in Sanhedrin 56a-b, with additions by individual Rabbis. (Cf. T. Abodah Zarah 8 [9].4, where only six are actually listed.) There seems to be no clear early statement to the effect that Gentiles who obey the seven Noachian commandments will be saved, but in one passage the Gentiles are criticized for not keeping even those commandments when God offered them the law: Sifre Deut. 343, cited above, n. 5. This seems to indicate what was expected of Gentiles.

³⁴ Rom. 11.2–7; Rom. 8.2gf.

³⁵ This is frequently taken to be the case. Thus Knox, John (Chapters in a Life of Paul [New York: Abingdon, 1950], 146–55)Google Scholar notes Paul's neglect of the terms repentance and forgiveness, but argues that the “‘substance’ of forgiveness and repentance is at the very heart of Paul's gospel” (154). Similarly, H. J. Schoeps (op. cit., 180) considers part of the main argument of Galatians to be that Christ provides forgiveness of sins. There are numerous other examples.

³⁶ Krister Stendahl (The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West, H.T.R. 56 [1963], 199–215)Google Scholar decisively pointed out that Paul was not plagued by a guilty conscience. See especially 202 and the further references there. Stendahl also noted that the “problem of conscience” in the Lutheran sense does not loom large in Rabbinic literature (208). Although it is true that the introspective and obsessive feeling of a guilt-ridden conscience hardly appears in Rabbinic literature, we should note here that guilt had a much more significant role in Rabbinic Judaism than in Paul's letters. Since, in Judaism, one's religious duty was to obey, disobedience was followed by the guilt of transgression and remedied by repentance and forgiveness. The guilt might not result in a conscience problem, since means of atonement for each transgression were at hand and specified, but guilt of a sort was essential to the pattern of religion. This was not the case with Paul, who neither viewed man's principal religious response to God as obedience to commandments nor understood sin as consisting of transgressions.

³⁷ For the purposes of the present essay, I wish to bypass the problem of the internal consistency of Paul's thought. The relation between Paul's saying that one is judged according to his deeds and the denial that righteousness can come by works of law obviously raises the question, however. On this, see Lyonnet, S., Gratuite de la justification et gratuite du salut, Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus 1961, I (Rome, 1963), 106ff.Google Scholar

³⁸ The best and best-known explanation of this type is that of R. Bultmann, op. cit., 187–352.

³⁹ Ibid., 281.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 242f., 315.

⁴¹ Ibid., 243, 246, 264.

⁴² Ibid., 281.

⁴³ Ibid., 281, 315.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 324f.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 332.

⁴⁶ Bultmann recognized that righteousness could refer not only to the prerequisite for life, but also to the essence of salvation (Ibid., 271). His insistence that in both cases righteousness is a forensic term, however (272), seems effectively to retract the insight. As the essence of salvation, righteousness is not forensic, as we shall indicate immediately below, since salvation itself is not conceived of forensically as acquittal, but as life in Christ Jesus. The chief instances of righteousness as a forensic term seem limited to Rom. 2–5; otherwise it generally refers to the essence of salvation and is the equivalent of “life.”

⁴⁷ The equation is also made in II Cor. 3.8–9, where “the dispensation of righteousness” (vs. 9), though contrasted with the “dispensation of condemnation,” is clearly parallel to the “dispensation of the Spirit” in vs. 8. The latter is contrasted with the “dispensation of death” (vs. 7).

⁴⁸ On the “righteous” in Rabbinic Judaism, see Mach, R., Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch (Leiden, 1957).Google Scholar In Ps. Sol. 3.3 and elsewhere it is clear that the righteous are those who avoid sin and who atone when they do transgress.

⁴⁹ Bultmann, along with almost all other exegetes, failed to grasp the essential difference and thought that Paul's attack on the supposed Jewish means of attaining “righteousness” was true to the point; the term was considered to mean the same to both parties. See his Theology, I, 273. The subsequent differentiations miss the main point.

⁵⁰ Moore, G. F., Judaism, III (1930), 151. So also Schoeps, op. cit., 196.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Bultmann saw that having the Spirit is the same as standing in grace (op. cit., 335), but he seems to have thought of “righteousness by faith” as the necessary gateway to having freedom or being in the Spirit (230f.). They are best seen as substantially the same, except in Rom. 2–5, where the righteousness terminology does seem forensic and prefatory to having peace with God (Rom. 5.1). The relation between the two sets of terminology (righteousness by faith; life in Christ Jesus, etc.) has been often debated. See, e.g., Schweitzer, Albert, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (EX., London: Adam & Charles Black, 1931), 219–26.Google Scholar

⁵² Bultmann, Ibid., 314.

⁵³ This seems to be clear in Gal. 3.27–29: “as many of you as were baptized into Christ. … And if you are Christ's. …” One can readily find phrases which sound as if the “new election” is universally efficacious; thus Gal. 3.26; I Cor. 15.22, on the analogy with Adam. In fact, however, the new elect turn out to be only those who have faith or are in Christ; see Rom. 10.4 (the old covenant is at an end; the new is open to those who have faith); Rom. 8.1–2 (one who is in Christ is free from the old dispensation).

⁵⁴ On the Jewish view that all Jews are God's sons, see Schoeps, H. J., Weiteres zur Auserwählung Israels, Aus Frühchnstlicher Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr, 1950), 202.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry, SNTS Monograph 20 (Cambridge: University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ As they also are in Rom. 2.13.

⁵⁷ Ziesler explicitly denies that righteousness means the same as salvation (208).