Librarything…
- Theories of Case (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) by Miriam ButtCambridge University Press (2006), Paperback, 272 pages
- A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity by A.-F. ChristidisCambridge University Press (2007), Edition: Rev. & Expanded Translation of the Greek Text, Hardcover, 1660 pages
- Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics) by William CroftCambridge University Press (2004), Edition: 1St Edition, Paperback, 372 pages
- From Molecule to Metaphor: A Neural Theory of Language (A Bradford Book) by Jerome FeldmanThe MIT Press (2006), Edition: 1, Hardcover, 384 pages
- Concept, Image, and Symbol (Cognitive Linguistic Research) by Ronald W. LangackerMouton De Gruyter (2002), Edition: 2, Paperback, 395 pages
All Rights Reserved
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
I’m with you. I don’t think that Paul’s intended audience would have been debating the merits of the subjective vs. objective genitive. They more than likely got what he meant right away.
And for the record, I also lean toward the objective genitive.
Its nice to have you on my side, Nick.
Nice point about the Greek fathers, Mike.
Thanks Loren, hopefully Doug will see the error of his ways…
Mike,
Have you considered third option views?
danielandtonya – yes I have and that’s why I’m only leaning toward an objective genitive.
Its either objective or something else; not subjective.
This is going to really screw up a lot of church music when we have to rewrite all the lyrics…
I’m with you too. And I think the Fathers-argument makes a strong case for it.
” … the meaning of the construction in encoded by the grammar of the language.” (I’m suppose that’in” above should be ‘is’)
I would have to be convinced of this proposition; on the surface it doesn’t seem very likely.
I think that’s a significant data point. At the same time, it may have been unambiguous to them for other reasons. After all, we’re not saying that the phrase is syntactically marked in such a way as to make it linguistically unambiguous. They could have taken it as objective because of a heavier Christ-as-Savior read of the NT as opposed to, say Christ-as-Exemplar. Or they were influenced by the understanding passed on to them, with the phrase essentially being an idiom which is unambiguous as a whole (that, of course, only pushes the problem farther back).
I would have to be convinced of this proposition; on the surface it doesn’t seem very likely.
Carl:
I’m working on it. I have ideas about how to go about it, but the amount of time required will keep me busy for a while. I’ll get something up in the next weeks or so. I hope. The pile of posts I have on the burner waiting to be completed keeps growing.
Have you also read his later article: Roy A. Harrisville III, “Before πίστις Χριστοῦ: The Objective Genitive as Good Greek.” Novum Testamentum. 48:4 (2006): 353-358. He uses Perseus to locate other uses of the objective genitive from the 1st century and earlier. He concludes:
“This article only attempted to ask whether or not there is evidence in classical Greek authors for the objective genitive with p¤stiw. I believe there is ample evidence to conclude that the objective genitive rendering was by no means unusual or abnormal Greek. p¤stiw XristoË as “faith in Christ” is good, if not excellent, Greek.”
Thanks Thomas, I’m go downloading it right now.
You’re welcome. I just emailed you my bibliography on this subject. Enjoy!
Pingback: πίστις Χριστοῦ blog storm « Better Bibles Blog