[K Johnson]

The question of whether to translate pivstewV jIhsou: Cristou in Galatians 2 as objective or subjective has had me puzzled for the past few weeks. I believe that I have now come down on the subjective side of things. Wallace gives a grammtical argument for this, but I won't go into the details which you can all read in your very own copy of Wallace.

At first the objective seemed the most likely to me since in the text surrounding the phrase in chapter 2 vs.16 it is talking about "we have believed," which would suggest that since "we" are believing, Paul is also talking about "our" faith, not necessarily Christ's - hence the objective translation.

But then in chapter 3 vs.26, we have the phrase pivstewV ejn Cristw:/ jIhsou:`. It seems that if Paul uses the ejn here to mean "faith in Christ," it would be odd to translate it objectively in 2:16.

So, there is one of my arguments for the subjective translation. I'm sure most of you have an opinion on this, so please post and voice your opinion.

[Michelle Lano]

Kristen,
I just have a small question as to your argument in favor of the subjective genitive in 2:16--If indeed the objective is used in 3:26 (the en making it clear that Christ is the object of our faith), I'm curious as to how that would ascertain the subjectiveness of the genitive in 2:16! I hope I'm not being thick-headed here. As for my own opinion on the subject, I believe I lean in the objective direction at the moment. But, who knows? I'm open to being convinced.
Blessings Upon Thine Goat and Thine Family,
Ploink

[K Johnson]

My dear Ploink,

Nothing profound here - I'm just saying that if he used the ejn in one verse to show an objective meaning, why would he use a different construction a few verses later to express the same thing? I realize that this is not always proof of a different meaning, but it just seems like it might be another argument for a subjective translation. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for choosing the subjective translation. I too am willing to be convinced, and will not hesitate to recant my subjective position if necessary.

kristen

[Michelle Lano]

Kristen,
Your argument in favor of the subjective could actually serve as a good supportive argument, but I'd be interested in knowing what your primary arguments are. If I were to argue in favor of the objective view, at this point, I would be able to do nothing more than mouth the arguments of Dunn (which I won't list, since I'm sure you've read them already). They do actually seem to make sense, but then again, I'm sure the arguments to the contrary do as well, at least at first. A warning against too hastily accepting the subjective view would be, though, that we need to let Scripture speak plainly (even if it sounds odd at first) and not interpret it according to our preset Calvinism. As a Calvinist, I would like to choose the subjective view, because it fits with my theology--but I don't want to jump into the subjective view too quickly!
Toodles!
Ploink

[Jim]

Dear kristen,


Ephesians 2:16 ina dikaiwqwmen ek pistewV cristou kai ouk ex ergwn nomou (so that we would be made righteous out of (the) faith of Christ and not out of (the) works of (the) law)

It seems to me that cristou is objective genitive just as nomou is objective genitive. It is not Christ who is doing the believing, just as it is not the law that is doing the working.


Sincerely,
Jim