The Rhetoric of        in Paul: Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22, and Philippians 3.9

Abstract

The question of Xrhoiotasigmatauo 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 accented upsilonomega 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 Xrhoiotasigmatauo 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 accented upsilonslashomega phrases and the other elements of their respective contexts- and the role such considerations might play in their own right in disambiguating Xrhoiotasigmatauo . The aim is not to offer a complete exegesis of the texts in question, but to attend specifically to matters that bear on Xrhoiotasigmatauo , 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.

Author-supplied keywords

Cite this document ^(BETA)