Rom.1:5: hUPAKOH PISTEWS

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Sep 13 06:26:50 EDT 2000


At 3:47 AM +0000 9/13/00, Mark Wilson wrote:
>To Jim or Dennis (I don't know who made these statements)
>
>Concerning this:
>
>>What one believes without empirical proof is
>> > "faith".
>
>I find this definition at odds with Romans 10:17 in this respect:
>
>ARA hH PISTIS EX AKOHS hH DE AKOH DIA hRHMATOS CRISTOU (or, QEOU)
>
>It seems to me that "faith" is strictly limited to the area of "divine
>revelation."

I think this thread has taken a direction leading AWAY from legitimate
B-Greek concerns into theological speculation; if it is to continue at all,
it needs to keep the focus on demonstrable lexical usage in GNT or related
Greek texts.

On the side of lexical usage however, I think I find myself in agreement
with Jim Murray, that PISTIS should be viewed as the same sort of verbal
noun as FOBOS. Moreover, although Platonic usage doesn't bear any real
weight toward understand GNT usage of the verb, I think it's worth noting
that in Plato's "Figure of the Divided Line" in the REPUBLIC, PISTIS is
essentially acknowledgement of the objects of perception as what they
'appear' to be--but includes acceptance of the surface appearance (DOXA) of
what one is told or is popularly believed.

At 8:45 PM -0500 9/12/00, James S. Murray wrote:
>You seem to be saying that because PISTIS is an abstract state (not
>action), it cannot be a 'verbal noun'.  Is a 'verbal
>noun' necessarily a 'noun of action?'   Wouldn't PHOBOS be a similar noun
>describing an 'abstract state' and not an
>action?  I'm reminded of a first year Greek text (copyrighted in 1896!) I
>picked up that cited, as an example of the
>subjective genitive, 'hO TWN BARBARWN PHOBOS' (the fear of the barbarians,
>i.e. the fear which they felt). For the
>objective genitive, they gave 'hO TWN hELLHNWN PHOBOS' (the fear of the
>Greeks, i.e. the fear which they inspire).
>Clearly, a verbal idea is in mind, isn't it?.
>
>It seems to me that one would need to investigate the occurances of PISTIS
>in a genitive construction and conclude that, in
>each case, a better alternative exists than the objective or subjective
>genitive.  Perhaps your study has done that.
>However, I'm failing to see how this relates to the issue of the source of
>one's faith.

-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list