Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

OMC said:

Pistis Christou, ἐὰν μὴ, εἰς Χριστόν, Gal 2:20, Gal 3:27, and John 3:16 all converge on one apostolic reality — justification is grounded in Christ’s faithfulness, and experienced through our believing into Christ, because union with Christ makes His faithfulness the operative power of our life.
In Gal 2:16, ἐὰν μὴ (“if not = except”) marks Christ’s pistis as the exclusive gateway of justification; Paul then immediately says εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν — “we believed into Christ Jesus” — meaning our faith is not a parallel instrument but the union‑creating act by which Christ’s own covenant fidelity becomes ours.
That is why Gal 2:20 says “I live by the faith of the Son of God”: Paul’s life is animated by Christ’s pistis, not by the autonomous power of his own believing.
And Gal 3:27 explains the mechanism — being baptized into Christ means we have “put on Christ,” so His faithfulness is now the clothing of our identity.
John 3:16 fits perfectly: “whoever believes into Him” (εἰς αὐτόν) receives life because believing is the Spirit‑given act that unites the sinner to the Son whose pistis secures justification.
The synthesis is simple: Christ’s faithfulness is the ground; our believing‑into‑Christ is the means of union; union makes His pistis the life we live by.

Click to expand...

Wow. Before I saw your post here, I had just recently come to essentially this same conclusion after hearing about a Greek professor in Greece named Aikaterini (Ekaterini) Tsalampouni, Αικατερίνη Τσαλαμπούνη. She is a New Testament professor at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and has written specifically on πίστις Χριστοῦ, including Galatians 2:16, understanding the expression in terms of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.



....

Qt said:

I see where you are heading and The Genitive Case is not the issue.

Click to expand...

My New Look at “The Faith of Jesus Christ” in Galatians 2:16:

Dear Qt:

You still have not really told me personally why you believe there is an error in Galatians 2:16. I am not sure why there has been so much secrecy around the exact objection, because it would be much easier to address the point directly if you would simply state what you think the KJV gets wrong there.

While you said that the genitive issue is not really the issue in Galatians 2:16, I decided to look into it more deeply anyway, because I know the KJV’s wording “the faith of Jesus Christ” has been a point of criticism for some in the Critical Text and modern-translation camp.

Just recently, in fact only yesterday, that deeper look led me to hear about Aikaterini (Ekaterini) Tsalampouni, Αικατερίνη Τσαλαμπούνη, Professor of New Testament at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. She has written specifically on πίστις Χριστοῦ and discusses the subjective-genitive versus objective-genitive interpretation of the construction. She favors the subjective genitive, understanding Χριστοῦ as referring to Christ as the subject of the faithfulness, so that πίστις Χριστοῦ conveys the faithfulness of Jesus Christ rather than the objective-genitive idea of our faith in Christ.

That interpretation immediately caught my attention because it gave me a different way of understanding the KJV wording than the one I had already been considering. Before this, I understood “the faith of Jesus Christ” as referring to the life, truths, teachings, and doctrine of Jesus Christ, the revealed Christian faith centered in Him. Tsalampouni’s interpretation introduced another possibility that I had not seriously considered before: that πίστις Χριστοῦ refers specifically to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2:16 can therefore be read this way:


From what you are saying here, it appears that you may hold to this same basic interpretation yourself. That would not be surprising, since the subjective-genitive interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ as referring to Christ’s faithfulness has become a fairly popular view in modern scholarship. Where we may differ is in how far that interpretation is carried. You appear to take Christ’s faithfulness in a direction that overrides Conditional Salvation and Sanctification, whereas I would not. Even so, on the meaning of Galatians 2:16 itself, we may be much closer than I originally thought.

Why Tsalampouni’s Interpretation Interested Me:

Once I began looking more deeply at the grammatical question, I wanted to see what Greek-speaking scholars who actually live and teach in Greece had said about πίστις Χριστοῦ.

I am not suggesting that Greek scholars in Greece all agree about the construction. They do not. But when the issue concerns the natural force of Greek grammar and the semantic range of Greek words, I believe scholars who live within the language deserve serious consideration.

There are many English-speaking biblical scholars here in the United States who have studied Greek academically, sometimes extensively. Nevertheless, studying Greek through grammars, lexicons, parsing guides, morphological databases, Bible software, and other aids is not the same thing as spending your life thinking, speaking, reading, and communicating in Greek.

Tsalampouni’s study is titled:



What especially interested me is that she favors the subjective-genitive interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ, understanding the phrase in terms of Christ’s faithfulness rather than merely turning the expression into “faith in Christ.”

Under this reading, Galatians 2:16 contains two related ideas that belong together: Christ’s faithfulness in accomplishing His work, and our faith in Him and in what He faithfully accomplished on our behalf.

[ To be continued in my next post to you ]



,,,,

Qt said:

I see where you are heading and The Genitive Case is not the issue.

Click to expand...

[ Continued from my previous post to you ]

The Entrance Gate and Foundation:

Paul is fighting against what I call “Circumcision Salvationism,” which is the false belief that a person first had to be circumcised and brought under the Old Covenant law system in order to be initially saved. Paul hints at this when he says in Galatians 2:3, “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:” (For the false “Circumcision Salvation” belief being promoted by the Jews upon Christians, see Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, and Acts 15:24 in the KJV. Note: You must read these passages in the KJV because some of these words are neutered like a cat in the modern versions.)

Anyway, the immediate concern in Galatians 2:16 is therefore the entrance gate and foundation of our salvation. We do not enter through circumcision, works of the law, or our own righteousness. Our initial salvation begins solely with the grace of God through Jesus Christ.

Under the faithfulness of Christ interpretation, that foundation rests in Christ’s faithfulness and what He accomplished for us. We place our faith in Him and rest in His grace. From there, we continue looking to Christ and depending upon His inner working in our lives and His continued faithfulness toward us.

That does not mean obedience, righteousness, and holiness become optional afterward. They are necessary under the New Covenant. We are to follow Christ and obey His commands and teachings. We cannot justify sin under God’s grace and think that we will be okay with the Lord. If we sin, the biblical response is to confess and forsake it and seek God’s mercy.

Proverbs 28:13 says:


The larger question of works of faith in the ongoing Christian life is not the main subject here. The point is that our entrance and foundation are not circumcision or works of the Mosaic law, but Jesus Christ, His grace, His faithfulness, and our faith in Him.

Other KJV Passages Concerning Christ’s Faithfulness

This interpretation also fits other passages in the KJV that directly describe Christ’s faithfulness and obedience.

Hebrews 3:1-2 says:


Romans 5:18-19 is perhaps even stronger because it connects Christ’s righteousness and obedience directly with justification:


There is also a direct lexical example in the KJV itself. Titus 2:10 translates πίστις as “fidelity”:


The Greek there is πίστιν, the accusative singular of πίστις. Galatians 2:16 has πίστεως, the genitive singular of the same noun. They are simply different grammatical forms of the same Greek word. Thus the KJV itself gives an example where πίστις carries the sense of fidelity, or faithfulness.

The Middle English Dictionary: “Faith” Could Mean “Faithfulness”
The historical English evidence is also significant. The Middle English Dictionary, under feith, gives in sense 5(a):


In other words, the English noun faith itself historically could carry the meaning faithfulness. The two concepts were not always separated into the distinct English forms faith and faithfulness as sharply as modern readers may assume.

Middle English Dictionary, feith, n.:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED15481

Earlier Lexical Support

Strong’s entry for πίστις also includes “fidelity.”

I generally do not regard modern lexicons as reliable authorities for establishing the meaning of a biblical Greek word. I only take notice of them when they point back to an older source that predates, or stands outside, the influence of German Rationalism.

In this case, Thayer is relevant only because, under πίστις, where he gives the sense “fidelity, faithfulness,” he cites the earlier work of Willem Koolhaas on πίστις, πιστός, and πιστεύειν. Thayer places the Koolhaas citation directly in the section where πίστις is being treated as “fidelity, faithfulness” and as the character of one who can be relied upon.

Willem Koolhaas (1709-1773) was an eighteenth-century Dutch Reformed minister and linguistic scholar, not a product of the later German Rationalist school. His 1733 dissertation on πίστις, πιστός, and πιστεύειν predates the major development of German theological Rationalism.

Older Greek lexical material likewise shows the close relationship between the πιστ- word family and the ideas of fidelity, constancy, trustworthiness, and faithfulness.

Even Modern Critical Text Scholars Recognize the Possibility

After hearing about Tsalampouni’s interpretation, I also discovered that scholars within the modern Critical Text and modern-translation world recognize “the faithfulness of Christ” as a legitimate interpretation.

Daniel Wallace discusses πίστις Χριστοῦ in terms of the possible meanings “faith in Christ” and “the faithfulness of Christ.” Bill Mounce likewise discusses the subjective-genitive versus objective-genitive question and acknowledges “the faithfulness of Jesus” as a possible interpretation.

You told me that the genitive issue is not what you are objecting to in Galatians 2:16. Nevertheless, I decided to investigate that grammatical question more deeply because I know that “the faith of Jesus Christ” has been criticized by some in the Critical Text and modern-translation camp.

I am approaching this from the position that the Textus Receptus is correct and that the KJV accurately translates it as “the faith of Jesus Christ.” My interest in the genitive construction is therefore not about questioning or correcting the text, but about understanding more deeply what the wording already given in the text means.

What especially interested me was discovering that the subjective-genitive construction has been understood in terms of the faithfulness of Christ. Combined with the fact that πίστις itself can carry the sense of fidelity or faithfulness, this gives an important explanation of how “the faith of Jesus Christ” can refer to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

What is significant to me is that I did not arrive at the faithfulness of Christ interpretation through Wallace, Mounce, or modern Critical Text scholarship. I first heard about it through Tsalampouni, and only afterward discovered that this same grammatical and lexical interpretation is recognized elsewhere.

Tsalampouni’s Paper:​

Aikaterini Tsalampouni’s paper is titled «Πίστις Χριστοῦ» στις επιστολές του Παύλου, “Pistis Christou in the Letters of Paul,” and is available through her Academia.edu publications page:

https://auth.academia.edu/TsalampouniEkaterini/Exegetical

Note: If you are interested in checking out her paper, just know that her paper is written in Greek, so you may need to translate it. For pinpoint accuracy, you could pay a professional translator. Otherwise, ChatGPT or other AI tools can translate the paper into English for you, although key grammatical statements should still be checked against the original Greek.



....

OMC said:

What does she say?

Click to expand...

Aikaterini (Ekaterini) Tsalampouni (Αικατερίνη Τσαλαμπούνη), Professor of New Testament at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece, has written specifically on πίστις Χριστοῦ and discusses the subjective-genitive and objective-genitive interpretations of the construction. She favors the subjective genitive, understanding Χριστοῦ as referring to Christ as the subject whose faithfulness is in view. Thus, πίστις Χριστοῦ conveys the faithfulness of Jesus Christ rather than the objective-genitive interpretation of our faith in Christ. This interpretation also fits naturally with the KJV wording, “the faith of Jesus Christ,” particularly when “faith” is understood according to its older English sense of “faithfulness,” as documented in the Middle English Dictionary.

Middle English Dictionary, feith (faith), n.: (fifth definition):

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED15481

Tsalampouni’s Paper:​

Aikaterini Tsalampouni’s paper is titled «Πίστις Χριστοῦ» στις επιστολές του Παύλου, “Pistis Christou in the Letters of Paul,” and is available through her Academia.edu publications page for free (Note: Just say no thanks to upgrading):

https://auth.academia.edu/TsalampouniEkaterini/Exegetical

Note: If you are interested in checking out her paper, just know that her paper is written in Greek, so you may need to translate it. For pinpoint accuracy, you could pay a professional translator. Otherwise, ChatGPT or other AI tools can translate the paper into English for you, although key grammatical statements should still be checked against the original Greek.

I have yet to research it personally myself, but I am very excited to check it out, for sure.

Note 2:

Oh, and I generally do not regard modern lexicons as reliable authorities for establishing the meaning of a biblical Greek word. I only take notice of them when they point back to an older source that predates, or stands outside the influence of German Rationalism.

In this case, Thayer is relevant only because, under πίστις, where he gives the sense “fidelity, faithfulness,” he cites the earlier work of Willem Koolhaas on πίστις, πιστός, and πιστεύειν. Thayer places the Koolhaas citation directly in the section where πίστις is being treated as “fidelity, faithfulness” and as the character of one who can be relied upon.

Willem Koolhaas (1709-1773) was an eighteenth-century Dutch Reformed minister and linguistic scholar, not a product of the later German Rationalist school. His 1733 dissertation on πίστις, πιστός, and πιστεύειν predates the major development of German theological Rationalism.



....

OMC said:

What does she say?

Click to expand...

I uploaded her paper to ChatGPT. If ChatGPT’s translation of her Greek is accurate, she says the following:

On pp. 72–74, Tsalampouni deals directly with the genitive construction in Galatians 2:16. She notes that “the noun πίστις and the verb πιστεύειν occur three times in different combinations: διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, and ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ.” She says that those who accept the objective genitive argue that the middle expression, “we believed in Jesus Christ,” explains the other two occurrences of πίστις Χριστοῦ, but then states: “Nothing, however, at this point in the epistle permits such a conclusion.” Because διὰ/ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ is contrasted with ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, she says that “it would perhaps be preferable to seek in the genitive ‘of law’ the answer concerning the character of the genitive ‘of Christ’ in this particular verse.” She adds that if νόμου functions as a subjective genitive, then “it is very probable that the genitive ‘of Christ’ has the same function.”

Then there is another very useful statement on p. 74. Tsalampouni explains the theological difference between the two constructions: “The supporters of the subjective genitive, however, contrast here the human action represented by the works of the Law with the divine initiative of salvation and with the divine faithfulness manifested through Jesus Christ. In this case, the action of God is in the foreground, and not so much the human factor.”

She also gives an important caution on pp. 74–75. She observes that the same genitives in ancient writers can sometimes function “either as objective or as subjective” depending on the context. She therefore questions whether “a strict distinction between the subjective and objective genitive” fully expresses Paul’s thought and expression, rather than imposing “much later questions upon the text.”

In other words, she is not simply saying that πίστις Χριστοῦ should be paraphrased as “faith in Christ.” She gives serious grammatical and contextual consideration to the subjective-genitive understanding in which the expression points to the faithfulness of Christ. In either case, she is backed by historical scholarship in the Received Text tradition.



.....

Dino246 said:

Most of your critics here probably don't believe that either.

Click to expand...

Where is your Bible that contains no errors that you can point to?

Dino246 said:

As I'm sure you're aware, Jesus and His followers didn't deal with thousands of variant manuscripts and a thousand years of OT texts that had the Messiah carefully edited out.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that proves my point that God is into preserving His words correctly.

Bible Highlighter said:

Sure, there are corruptions of God's words out there. The corruptions only exist in your Modern Bibles and Critical Text.

Click to expand...

Dino246 said:

That is stubborn ignorance.

Click to expand...

No, its called doing basic research into Bible history and comparing the KJV vs. Modern Bibles. It's all to obvious to see unless a person simply does not want to see such things.



....

Bible Highlighter said:

Sure, there are corruptions of God's words out there. The corruptions only exist in your Modern Bibles and Critical Text.

Click to expand...

Dino246 said:

That is stubborn ignorance.

Click to expand...

Revelation 21:6 represents a new textual change in the modern Critical Text tradition. The change comes from the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) of Revelation and is being incorporated into the new UBS6/NA29 text. Whereas NA28 reads γέγοναν. ἐγώ [εἰμι] τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, essentially, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega,” the new ECM text reads γέγονα ἐγώ τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, which can be rendered, “I have become the Alpha and the Omega.”

From a traditional Christian understanding of Christ’s eternal divine identity, this new wording is extremely troubling and, in my view, heretical in its implication. Jesus Christ did not “become” the Alpha and the Omega. He eternally is who He is. The language of “I have become the Alpha and the Omega” introduces an idea completely foreign to the KJV and the traditional text and can sound as though Christ somehow came into or acquired a divine identity that He did not previously possess.

Then again, we should not be surprised to encounter readings in the Modern Bible Movement that diminish or distort what Scripture says about our Lord. We have already seen the controversial variant in Mark 1:41 that portrays Jesus as being moved with anger when healing the leper, rather than being moved with compassion. Now, with Revelation 21:6, the new critical text introduces wording that can actually be rendered, “I have become the Alpha and the Omega.” These are not insignificant stylistic differences. They are attacks upon our very Lord Jesus Christ.




....

OMC said:

Her grammatical observations are sound: πίστις occurs three times,
the genitive can be subjective, and the contrast with works of law is central.
She is also right that ancient Greek genitives can function either way depending on context, and she is right that forcing a rigid subjective/objective dichotomy can impose later categories onto Paul.
But her key claim — that “nothing in the epistle permits” the conclusion that εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν explains the other two phrases — is only partly true.
Grammatically, she is correct: the middle clause does not automatically determine the meaning of the genitives.
Contextually, however, Paul’s argument does lean toward the objective reading because he is contrasting human reliance on Torah with human reliance on Christ, not contrasting human works with Christ’s faithfulness.
Her suggestion that νόμου as a subjective genitive (“the law’s action”) implies Χριστοῦ must also be subjective is clever but not decisive;
Paul uses ἐξ ἔργων νόμου idiomatically to mean “from doing the law,” not “from the law’s faithfulness.”
Her theological contrast — human action vs. divine initiative — is legitimate, but Galatians 2:16 is not primarily about divine initiative; it is about the instrument of justification. The subjective genitive is possible, but the epistle’s rhetorical flow still favors “faith in Christ.” I would love to question her personally and compare notes.

Click to expand...

Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni
Faculty of Theology
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
[email protected]

Source for her email:
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/tsa368022?utm




....

OMC said:

Thank you,

Click to expand...

You are most welcome.
If you learn anything fruitful or new after talking to her on this, please let us know here (if possible).
I am really interested in this.



....

Dino246 said:

That's your concern, not mine.

Click to expand...

Not too long ago, you made a statement that at least implied that you believed we may actually have God's perfect words today. But now that I have put you directly on the spot and asked you to identify where those perfect words are, I suddenly get a dismissive statement that seems designed to blow the whole question off. How convenient.

If you really believe that God's perfect words exist today, then this should not be a silly or irrelevant question. Where are they? At some point, you have to move beyond vague statements about preservation and actually identify what it is that God preserved.

Bible Highlighter said:

Yes, and that proves my point that God is into preserving His words correctly.

Click to expand...

Dino246 said:

Not even a little.

Click to expand...

Obviously, you do not have much incentive to see it differently. But imagine if you lived in a different world, or even a different period of history, where the majority of scholarship favored the Textus Receptus and the KJV. Imagine that this was the accepted scholarly position, and that if you walked into most churches questioning the Received Text and tried to argue against it from the Hebrew and Greek, people laughed at you or tried to make you look like an idiot for believing otherwise.

Would you still be as confident in the position you hold today? You would be virtually alone, with few friends who agreed with you and hardly anyone to confide in about what you believed.

Imagine that the scholarly establishment, seminaries, pastors, books, and people around you were constantly telling you that the Received Text was correct, that the modern critical approach was obviously wrong, and that your position was held only by an extremely small radical fringe group whose arguments had supposedly been exposed ten times over. Would that environment influence the way you looked at the evidence? I think it would at least force you to examine things from a very different perspective.

And think about how differently you would approach almost any other important written document. You would never take this same liberal approach if you were buying a house and discovered that the contract was based upon other contradictory contracts containing different terms. You would demand to know which contract was authoritative. You certainly would not agree to test-fly an airplane if the engineers who built it were working from conflicting schematics, with one set adding parts, another omitting them, and experts continually debating which drawings represented the original design. When something important is at stake, we instinctively understand that the exact wording of the authoritative document matters. Yet when it comes to the very words of God, suddenly we are told that competing texts, omissions, additions, brackets, uncertainties, and continually changing conclusions should not trouble us.

Now imagine that a million dollars were at stake, and you could receive that million dollars if you could at the very least recognize the historical pattern of the two Bible lines. Would that not give you a powerful incentive to look more carefully at the evidence? You would see one Bible line in history that bears the marks of God's hand upon it, with generations of people believing that Book, preaching from it, carrying it into great revivals, and even using it in public schools. On the other side, you would see the modern Bible line historically associated with Unitarians, doctrinal compromise, confusion, and other serious problems, followed by a repeated pattern of doctrinal weakenings and questionable changes in modern versions. When you put the historical and doctrinal patterns side by side, the contrast becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss.

If you had that much incentive to seriously examine the evidence instead of immediately rejecting it because accepting it might force you to abandon your team and or the popular accepted view, would you begin to understand why we believe what we do?

The Bible itself tells us that God's words are pure words and that He will preserve them. Revelation 22:18–19 also gives an explicit warning against adding to or taking away from the words of God.

How can that warning be taken seriously while also accepting a textual system in which words, phrases, and entire readings can continually be added, removed, questioned, or changed?

In your bubble world, that conclusion simply cannot be allowed to exist. So the verse has to be twisted like a pretzel while you perform backflips through hoops of fire trying to avoid what the passage so plainly declares.





....

Dino246 said:

This phrase by itself tells me that your argument has a false bias.

Click to expand...

Statements like this tell me that you have not really done your homework into this topic properly, and you have a false bias towards the Modern Bible Movement. Prove me wrong. Also, address the problems I brought up in the Critical Text Modern Bible Movement. If not, that just makes your argument all one sided.


....