Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle (eds.), The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies (Paternoster, 2009) (with thanks to Paternoster for a review copy)
The pistis christou debate has been reverberating around Pauline scholarship for a long time now. Article after article has been appearing since the 1980s from the likes of Richard Hays, Jimmy Dunn, Morna Hooker, Douglas Campbell, Barry Matlock, David Hay, Stanley Stowers, Bruce Longenecker, amongst others. In 1991 there was a major exchange between Hays and Dunn at SBL. (For a timeline of selected contributions, see here). This is the first book to focus entirely on debate and brings together some of the current leading protagonists from both sides - the book's key exchange is between Campbell and Matlock.
For the uninitiated, the debate focuses around the phrase 'pistis christou' which appears in paul's letters (namely Romans and Galatians), which can be translated either as the 'faith in Christ' or the 'faith/fulness of Christ'. 'Faith in Christ' puts the emphasis on human faith, while 'faith of Christ' puts the emphasis on Christ's faithfulness (generally explained as his faithfulness to go to the cross). (I've written a more detailed explanation here).
The strengths of the book are it brings together a set of essays (see contents here) that explore the debate from all angles - historically (Debbie Hunn), semantically (Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts), exegetically (Campbell, Matlock, Paul Foster, Richard Bell, Mark Seifrid, Francis Watson, Preston Sprinkle and Ardel Caneday), in the wider New Testament (Peter Bolt on Synoptics and Acts; William Salier on John; Bruce Lowe on James; and David deSilva on Revelation), and theologically (Mark Elliot on the Early Church Fathers; and Ben Myers on Karl Barth).
It must be said that some of the key essays are rehearsals of arguments made elsewhere previously (see Campbell, Matlock and Watson in particular), although by bringing these essays together in one book allows easier comparison. The strongest and most convincing essay is from Campbell, now a veteran in the debate. His chapter on Rom 3.22 is tightly written and clearly argued. While, and this may just be my weak Greek, Matlock and Watson much harder to follow. (For Campbell's response to Matlock and Watson, you will need to see the relevant footnotes in his The Deliverance of God). Ben Myers chapter on Barth is a great read, demonstrating from Barth while a christological reading is necessary from a theological point of view.
It will be interesting to see where the debate goes next. Matlock is preparing a monograph, which will bring together his various articles of the last ten years. Campbell's major work is now published and awaiting responses. I'm not convinced by Sprinkle's third view - that the phrase is a reference to the 'Christ event', this sounds very close to the christological reading. I can't see either Campbell, Hays, Matlock, Watson or Dunn changing sides. It will be interesting to see where Wright ends up - I'm guessing (and hoping) he addresses the debate in his forthcoming volume on Paul.
This is a fantastic introduction to the debate, a debate which J. Louis Martyn says is a 'matter of life and death' for Paul himself and his interpreter's. How we should interpret definitely affects how the gospel is presented, and for this reason, this book deserves to be widely read.
Recent Comments