¹ Hahn, F., ‘Genesis 15.6 im Neuen Testament’. Probleme bibhscher Theologie, ed. Wolff, H. W. (München: C. Kaiser, 1971), 90–107Google Scholar has elucidated the exegetical history of Gen. 15.6 within Judaism and its reinterpretation by Paul to argue for inclusion of Gentiles.

² The verse also functions in another exegetical tradition reflected in Jas. 2.14–26 and I Clem. 10. But this tradition should not be seen as contradictory of trie election tradition utilized by Paul and the church fathers. The major difference is that the socalled Jacobite tradition of exegesis of Gen. 15.6 is directed to parenetic concerns strictly within the church, whereas the Pauline tradition is more apologetic, applied toward relational concerns for Christian identity outside the church. But both uses of Gen. 15.ective self-definition at heart.

³ Marmorstein, A., ‘Judaism and Christianity in the Middle of the Third Century’, HUCA 10 (1935): 223–263Google Scholar argues that a ‘polemic of exclusion’ developed within early Christianity which emerged from pagan anti-Jewish polemics and was adGentile Christians, who added their own arguments from the Bible.

⁴ The Dialogues by no means the journalistic report of a real disputation. Whatever its merit as an actual discussion, surely it reflects issues which were in dispute between Jews and Christians at the time. Justin makes use of Gen. 15.6 as well as OT passages in general to aid his attempt to speak of God's rejection of Israel from the covenant and the election of Christians. Harnack, A., ‘Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Trypho’, TU 39 (1913): 47–92Google Scholar; Julen, A. B., ‘The “Dialogues with the Jews” as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument Against Christianity’, JBL 51 (1932): 58–70Google Scholar.

⁵ DiaL 92. The same point is made in chaps. 23, 27, and 46, perhaps following the logic of Paul in Rom. 4.9–12. The main point for Justin is that circumcision plays no role in the justification of Abraham. Rather, it was a sign of his election by God; it was not the substance itself, as Justin contended Judaism had made it.

⁶ Justin did not reject the validity of the Law itself. His main point of contention was in the insistence of Trypho that membership within the covenant was conditional upon circumcision. Dial 43–48 centres precisely on this issue. But to be fair, it must not be forgotten how radical Justin's speech must have sounded to Trypho. It would have been like insisting that Christians give up Baptism.

⁷ In chap. 45 Trypho interrupts Justin's argument and asks whether or not justin believes that those who adhere to Mosaic Law will live again in the resurrection of the dead. In chap. 46, Trypho. widens the question, proposing whether or not some who desired to live according to Mosaic Law and also affirmed Christianty's basic precepts could be saved, justin wavers, and Trypho presses for an answer in chap. 47, repeating the question.

⁸ Justin makes no such statement in chap. 44 where he uses Ezek 14.20 to help him press his point that adherence to the precepts of the Law would nolen title one to share in the promised blessings. In chaps. 45–47 Trypho is not presented merely as a victim to the ‘superior’ arguments of justin. He presses Justin on the ultimatequesiion which is raised by justin's logic up to that point. Is Justin (i.e., Christianity) really saying that Jews are excluded from resurrection of the dead? Justin backs off from such a conclusion, and includes Jews.

⁹ See chaps. 8–10 where Trypho argues that circumcision and adherence to the Law are mandatory for inclusion as God's people.

¹⁰ It is clear that while the Proof contends to be catechetical, the nature of the work is apologetic. As Smith, J. P., trans., St Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1952), 20–21Google Scholar points out, Irenaeus attempts to establish trustworthy credentials for orthodoxy for the Church. The method of doing so for Irenaeus is to demonstrate the validity of what the apostles preached. All references are to Smith's translation.

¹¹ As he puts it in chap. 42, the calling of the Gentiles was ‘the fruit of the blessing of Japheth. The response expected is obedience to accept the call and to receive the promise and its implications.

¹² The connection is made again in Adv. Haer. 4.7.1, where the patriarch embraces Christ and rejoices in the coming of Jesus. His rejoicing is passed on to the children of Abraham in the glad tidings of the angels at the birth of Jesus, as well as to mary, who ‘rejoiced in the God of my salvation’ (Lk, 1.46).

¹³ On this dependency, see especially Armstrong, G. T. ‘Genesis in der Alien Kirche’, in Beiträge zur Geschischte der bibtischen Hermeneutik, 4 (Tübingenr: J. C B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1962), 137–145Google Scholar.

¹⁴ u Adv. Marc. 5.3. Book 5 is devoted to Tertullian's critical analysis of Marcion's version of Paul's epistles.

¹⁵ Tertullian goes to great lengths to establish this point in Adv. Marc. 5.3. He counteracts any possibility of separating faith from the Law leading to a separation of the God of judaism from the God of jesus Christ. That the diversity of two testaments is provided to humanity does not imply two gods. (Non poles distantiamunidicare—quat etsi rerum est, non ideo auctorum — quae ab uno auctorepmponitur.)

¹⁶ Adv. Marc. 4.1. and the first part of Adv. Marc 5.3, where Tertullian interprets Gal. 2.16–18. He appeals to Ps. 2.1–3, which he understood prophetically as announcing the future abrogation of the Law, and to Hab. 2.4, which confirms faith as the basis of justification. This verse also appears again when Tertullian cites Gen. 15.6 directly. Tertullian's contention that faith and not the Law serves as the basis of justification was for no moment in dispute with Marcion. But by combining Hab. 2.4 and Gen. 15.6, Tertullian counteracts Marcion's opinion that such a stance is a radical break from the very character of Judaism's God and covenant. Indeed, says Tertullian, the basis of justification was established a primordio, with Abraham.

¹⁷ Such an understanding was not new to Christianity, but is already proposed within Judaism itself by Philo of Alexandria. Goodenough, E. R., By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955), 49–71Google Scholar; Koester, H., ‘Nomos Physeos: The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought’. Religion in Antiquity ed. Neusner, J. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Blair, H. A., ‘Two Reactions to Gnosticism’, CQR 152 (1951): 141–158Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Strom. 2.8; 3.12. Space does not permit entering into Clement's view of these issues. See Völker, W., Der Wahr Gnostiker nach Clements Alexandrinus, Texte und Untersuchungen, V. Reihe, Band 2 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1952), 220–254Google Scholar; Molland, Einar, The Conception of the Gospel in the Alexandrian Theology. (Oslo: I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad, 1938), 16–84Google Scholar for discussions on Clement's distinctive and often divergent conceptualizations on faith.

²⁰ The following description primarily dependent on Molland, 36–37.

²¹ Clement's position of this subject is not unambiguous. As Molland, 35–36 points out, Clement can also develop conceptions of ‘God in us' in other contexts. But he draws back from the consequences of this view which he saw in various heresies.

²² Strom. 5.1. One can recognize here Clement's lack of hesitation to include in perfected faith the efforts of trie believer, thus connecting works to salvation. In the same section he paraphrases Paul: ‘For by grace we are saved: not, indeed, without good works(l); but we must, by being formed for what is good, acquire an inclination for it.’ Clement understood human works, both intellectual and physical, as the exercise of free will that he thought so crucial to the nature of faith.

²⁵ Strom. 5.1. Clement expounds at length on Abraham, mainly paraphrasing Gen. 15 and 17. He shows dependence on Philo of Alexandria's interpretation of Abraham's name change in De Abrahame.