Journal for the Study of the New Testament

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Matlock, R. B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Vol. 30, No. 2, 173-203 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X07084775
© 2007 SAGE Publications

The Rhetoric of {pi}{iota}{sigma}{tau}{iota}{varsigma} in Paul: Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22, and Philippians 3.9*

R. Barry Matlock

Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK, r.b.matlock{at}sheffield.ac.uk

The question of {pi}iacgr{sigma}{tau}{iota}{varsigma} X{rho}{iota}{sigma}{tau}o in Paul (Gal. 2.16, 20; 3.22; Rom. 3.22, 26; Phil. 3.9; cf. Eph. 3.12) is impossible to avoid and has proved particularly resistant to resolution. The single most frequent exegetical argument made against the objective genitive reading (`faith in Christ') on behalf of the subjective genitive reading (`the faithfulness of Christ') is that the former creates an unacceptable redundancy in several instances, where one finds two or more {pi}{iota}{sigma}{tau}{iota}{varsigma}/ {pi}{iota}{sigma}{tau}{varepsilon}{small accented upsilon}{omega} phrases side by side (Gal. 2.16; 3.22; Rom. 3.22; Phil. 3.9). Using this question of redundancy as a point of departure, this article offers a fresh look at these four verses, accounting for five of the seven {pi}iacgr{sigma}{tau}{iota}{varsigma} X{rho}{iota}{sigma}{tau}o phrases. This is not primarily a negative critique of this redundancy argument, however, but rather a positive inquiry into the inter-relation of and interaction between these {pi}{iota}{sigma}{tau}{iota}{varsigma}/{pi}{iota}{sigma}{tau}{varepsilon}{small accented upsilon}$slash{omega} phrases and the other elements of their respective contexts— and the role such considerations might play in their own right in disambiguating {pi}iacgr{sigma}{tau}{iota}{varsigma} X{rho}{iota}{sigma}{tau}o . The aim is not to offer a complete exegesis of the texts in question, but to attend specifically to matters that bear on {pi}iacgr{sigma}{tau}{iota}{varsigma} X{rho}{iota}{sigma}{tau}o , and more particularly to matters of rhetoric/style/structure. In this way, I will offer a number of exegetical observations that weigh heavily in favor of the objective genitive reading.

Key Words: pistis Christou • objective genitive • subjective genitive • redundancy • rhetoric • structure


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?