The Pistis Christou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary

Abstract

The πíστiς Xρiστoȗ ( pistis Christou) debate continues to be a lively point of scholarly interest. While a vast amount of literature appears on the subject, interpreters often repeat a few main arguments in support of their position. This essay discusses the main exegetical arguments for the two major sides in the pistis Christou debate and how others have responded to the arguments. Arguments for the objective genitive are treated first, followed by those for the subjective genitive. The essay closes with a discussion of the way interpreters have relied on their prior understanding of the larger concept of Paul’s theology as the decisive argument for their position. As such, the essay finds that this larger hermeneutical question of the nature of Paul’s gospel is the true locus of the pistis Christou debate.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.