최후 행위심판 사상으로 본 바울신학의 새 관점 (The New Perspective on Paul and the Final Judgment According to Works)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국복음주의신약학회
· 수록지 정보 : 신약연구 / 9권 / 3호 / 409 ~ 438페이지
· 저자명 : 김경식

초록

This study aims to re-evaluate the New Perspective on Paul and its working presupposition advocated by E.P. Sanders by analyzing the idea of the final judgment according to works in early Jewish literature. This examination begins with the brief summary of E.P.
Sanders's “covenantal nomism” hypothesis and explains that the New Perspective on Paul that James Dunn and N.T. Wright strongly argue for assumes Sanders's hypothesis be the correct picture of early Judaism. Then, our study proposes to critically examine the New Perspective on Paul and Sanders's covenantal nomism in particular in terms of the final judgment according to works to check the validity of the New Perspective interpretation of Paul.
According to Sanders and other proponents of the New Perspective such as James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright, human obedience or the Torah observance is not taken into account at the final judgment in both early Judaism and Paul. This study deals with three pieces of early Jewish literature out of five which Sanders discussed in his book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Ben Sira, 1 Enoch, The Psalms of Solomon) and also investigates two additional works (11Q5 22:1-15; LAB), focusing on the idea of judgment according to works. In so doing, this article shows that Sanders's hypothesis on early Jewish soteriology called “convenantal nomism” is one-sided and thus flawed.
Our discussion demonstrates that in early Judaism human obedience played a critical role at the final judgment. However, this study also shows that not only human obedience but also God's mercy is, as Sanders has argued, the basis for the final judgment. E.P. Sanders underscores God's mercy and election while he de-emphasizes the critical role of human works at the final judgment in early judaism between BC 200 and AD 200. He also argues that human works does not contribute to the final salvation. Rather, according to him,human works does not earn God's favor and salvation because man gets in to covenantal relation with God only on the basis of divine election and he argues that human works plays a role in staying in a covenantal relation with God. However, our study of five pieces of early Jewish literature clearly demonstrates that the pattern of covenantal nomism supported by Sanders cannot explain the soteriological pattern of early Judaism correctly. This is because the early Jewish literature under consideration indicate that human works as well as divine mercy are considered crucial for the final salvation and judgment according to works. Our analysis thus demonstrates that not only the new perspective on early Judaism (E.P. Sanders) but also the new perspective on Paul (James Dunn; N.T. Wright) which accepts covenantal nomism as correct description of early Jewish soteriological pattern fail under our scrutiny.

영어초록

This study aims to re-evaluate the New Perspective on Paul and its working presupposition advocated by E.P. Sanders by analyzing the idea of the final judgment according to works in early Jewish literature. This examination begins with the brief summary of E.P.
Sanders's “covenantal nomism” hypothesis and explains that the New Perspective on Paul that James Dunn and N.T. Wright strongly argue for assumes Sanders's hypothesis be the correct picture of early Judaism. Then, our study proposes to critically examine the New Perspective on Paul and Sanders's covenantal nomism in particular in terms of the final judgment according to works to check the validity of the New Perspective interpretation of Paul.
According to Sanders and other proponents of the New Perspective such as James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright, human obedience or the Torah observance is not taken into account at the final judgment in both early Judaism and Paul. This study deals with three pieces of early Jewish literature out of five which Sanders discussed in his book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Ben Sira, 1 Enoch, The Psalms of Solomon) and also investigates two additional works (11Q5 22:1-15; LAB), focusing on the idea of judgment according to works. In so doing, this article shows that Sanders's hypothesis on early Jewish soteriology called “convenantal nomism” is one-sided and thus flawed.
Our discussion demonstrates that in early Judaism human obedience played a critical role at the final judgment. However, this study also shows that not only human obedience but also God's mercy is, as Sanders has argued, the basis for the final judgment. E.P. Sanders underscores God's mercy and election while he de-emphasizes the critical role of human works at the final judgment in early judaism between BC 200 and AD 200. He also argues that human works does not contribute to the final salvation. Rather, according to him,human works does not earn God's favor and salvation because man gets in to covenantal relation with God only on the basis of divine election and he argues that human works plays a role in staying in a covenantal relation with God. However, our study of five pieces of early Jewish literature clearly demonstrates that the pattern of covenantal nomism supported by Sanders cannot explain the soteriological pattern of early Judaism correctly. This is because the early Jewish literature under consideration indicate that human works as well as divine mercy are considered crucial for the final salvation and judgment according to works. Our analysis thus demonstrates that not only the new perspective on early Judaism (E.P. Sanders) but also the new perspective on Paul (James Dunn; N.T. Wright) which accepts covenantal nomism as correct description of early Jewish soteriological pattern fail under our scrutiny.

참고자료

· 없음