When did "faith" first become a hot topic for religion/philosophy/theology?

[Lumpenproletariat]

When did philosophers or theologians or religionists first begin speaking about "faith"? or preaching it or expounding on it?

Proposed theory: "Faith" was NOT a topic of discussion for philosophy or religion or theology before Jesus Christ. The concept existed, but it was not discussed as an issue by philosophers or theologians or anyone.

Is there any example from literature before the New Testament in which "faith" is made an issue or is promoted as some kind of object or good to be pursued, or a form of behavior to be practiced?

In the New Testament there are 2 very prominent greek words that are basic to this:

PISTEUO and PISTIS. They have the same meaning, except that pisteuo is a verb (believe) and pistis is a noun (faith, belief). Presumably there were similar Aramaic words, which JC probably spoke.

It is interesting that in the NT, these 2 words seem to be more common than any other words except the very frequent words like for "go" and "come" and "be" or "is" and so on, as well as the definite articles and conjunctions, etc. E.g., each of these 2 words is far more common in the NT than words like "God" or "love" or "commandment" or "obedience" and so on.

What we have in the NT is a real explosion of this word, on page after page, whereas in all the previous literature this word (or similar ones in other languages) are of little importance and rather infrequent.


An exception to this rule?

In the Hebrew Bible there was a similar word, not used much, and which did not have the significance of the pisteuo and pistis words in the NT.

And yet there is one reference in Genesis which seems to make "faith" into something important. This reference might be an exception to my suggestion that this idea was not important or not discussed prior to the NT.

Gen. 15:6 -- "Abram put his faith in Yahweh and this was reckoned to him as uprightness."

So my theory for now is that this one verse in the Hebrew Bible is the only place in all of literature prior to the New Testament where "faith" is spoken of as something good or required or necessary or praiseworthy in some way.

And if it's the only exception, then my theory can stand on the principle that "the exception makes the rule" since this might be the only reference in all the ancient texts where "faith" is spoken of in these terms as some kind of good or moral imperative or rule advanced for humans to follow.

Clarification: the word does not mean "faithfulness" or "loyalty" or "obedience" and so on, which is a different concept, though maybe similar. The word for "faith" or "belief" did exist (probably in most of the languages) and maybe in some cases did have the related meaning of "loyalty" or "faithfulness," and so might be emphasized in a text with that meaning.

Also this word/concept is not the Latin "fides" (loyalty, devotion, etc.).

Rather, "faith" means belief, in the sense of believing that something is true (Latin "credo"). Taken in this sense, I am suggesting the above theory, that JC is the one who introduced "faith" or "believing" into philosophy/theology/religion as some kind of good or recommended behavior or mental state to adopt, and that it was in the early 1st century A.D. that this concept or word first became an issue for religion or philosophy or theology.

And all the subsequent emphasis on "faith" (belief) stems from that historical origin.

Are there any other references in the ancient literature, in any language, in addition to that one Genesis verse, where "faith" or "belief" is spoken of in this way? I.e., any other exceptions to the rule? any example that would explode my theory?

There were teachers, philosophers, sages, epic poets, etc., who were published or quoted. Did any of them speak of the need for "faith" or "belief"?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Read Plato's "Laws - Book X". Plato recommends we all have faith. Repeat offenders of atheism are to be executed.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Read Plato's "Laws - Book X". Plato recommends we all have faith. Repeat offenders of atheism are to be executed.

Is this text from Plato the best example of a pre-Christian sermon on the topic of faith? Perhaps it weakens my theory slightly.

In addition to "believing" there are words like "opinion" and "notion" which are almost synonyms for "belief."

However, in the NT there is a kind of focus on "faith" in some abstract sense, without identifying what is the object of the "faith."

The quotes attributed to Jesus are mostly ones which call for "faith" without saying that he is the object of the faith. And likewise many of the "faith" references in the epistles. And the word "faith" or "believe" is repeated over and over again.

Whereas the references in the Plato text are extremely few, and they're all involved with the object of the faith, i.e., the believing in the gods. None of the Plato "faith" sentences use the "faith" or "believe" word without saying what is the object of the faith or the believing.

And for 2000 years there has been this "faith" talk, where believing or faith in the abstract is made into some kind of religious object, and even is eulogized in literature, philosophy, and poetry. (I wonder if anyone believes it was really St. Paul who originated this "faith" talk.)

Plato couldn't be the origin of it, because he did not speak of "faith" abstractly, but only mentioned "faith" in connection with the object of the faith. And it was the object, the gods, or the good nature of the gods, that he directs attention to and upon which he develops a long argument.

But in the NT, there is some kind of "faith" per se theme which pops up again and again, usually without naming explicitly the object of the faith. And in the epistle to the Hebrews, there is a long dissertation on "faith" per se, defining it and giving many examples of faith.

Wasn't this, making "faith" per se an object of discussion, something entirely new in history? And rather abrupt?

Repeat offenders of atheism are to be executed.

Although Plato seems to say this, he does not apply it to "unbelievers" unless they also have a malicious or impious nature, and so it seems that it's more than the unbelief that he wishes to punish with death.

And in any case it is clear that he identifies what it is that these ones don't believe. He requires them to believe that 1) the gods do exist, that 2) the gods do care about human behavior and welfare, and that 3) they cannot be bribed by humans praying to them or performing rituals to appease them.

He never condemns "unbelief" except when also naming what is the required object of the belief.

Another comparison of this Plato text to the NT "faith" references is the vast use of the words "believe" and "faith" in the NT.

Plato gives far more reference to words like "good" and "evil" and "justice" and "heaven" and "god" or "gods" than to the "faith" and "believe" words.

Whereas in the NT, the words pisteuo and pistis each one alone far outnumber any of the above words or any other words used in philosophy or theology.

Is there any pre-Christian literature that has any resemblance to this, giving such high priority to the "faith" or "believe" language?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is this text from Plato the best example of a pre-Christian sermon on the topic of faith? Perhaps it weakens my theory slightly.

In addition to "believing" there are words like "opinion" and "notion" which are almost synonyms for "belief."

However, in the NT there is a kind of focus on "faith" in some abstract sense, without identifying what is the object of the "faith."

The quotes attributed to Jesus are mostly ones which call for "faith" without saying that he is the object of the faith. And likewise many of the "faith" references in the epistles. And the word "faith" or "believe" is repeated over and over again.

Whereas the references in the Plato text are extremely few, and they're all involved with the object of the faith, i.e., the believing in the gods. None of the Plato "faith" sentences use the "faith" or "believe" word without saying what is the object of the faith or the believing.

And for 2000 years there has been this "faith" talk, where believing or faith in the abstract is made into some kind of religious object, and even is eulogized in literature, philosophy, and poetry. (I wonder if anyone believes it was really St. Paul who originated this "faith" talk.)

Plato couldn't be the origin of it, because he did not speak of "faith" abstractly, but only mentioned "faith" in connection with the object of the faith. And it was the object, the gods, or the good nature of the gods, that he directs attention to and upon which he develops a long argument.

But in the NT, there is some kind of "faith" per se theme which pops up again and again, usually without naming explicitly the object of the faith. And in the epistle to the Hebrews, there is a long dissertation on "faith" per se, defining it and giving many examples of faith.

Wasn't this, making "faith" per se an object of discussion, something entirely new in history? And rather abrupt?

Repeat offenders of atheism are to be executed.

Although Plato seems to say this, he does not apply it to "unbelievers" unless they also have a malicious or impious nature, and so it seems that it's more than the unbelief that he wishes to punish with death.

And in any case it is clear that he identifies what it is that these ones don't believe. He requires them to believe that 1) the gods do exist, that 2) the gods do care about human behavior and welfare, and that 3) they cannot be bribed by humans praying to them or performing rituals to appease them.

He never condemns "unbelief" except when also naming what is the required object of the belief.

Another comparison of this Plato text to the NT "faith" references is the vast use of the words "believe" and "faith" in the NT.

Plato gives far more reference to words like "good" and "evil" and "justice" and "heaven" and "god" or "gods" than to the "faith" and "believe" words.

Whereas in the NT, the words pisteuo and pistis each one alone far outnumber any of the above words or any other words used in philosophy or theology.

Is there any pre-Christian literature that has any resemblance to this, giving such high priority to the "faith" or "believe" language?

While we are speaking of Plato, I do note earlier Greeks outlawed atheism. Strangely enough, the Bible disparages atheists, The fool in his heart" etc, but does not condemn that, while repeatedly condemning worshipping other Gods. In 1 kings 18, Elijah has 400 priests of Baal slain. I cannot recall any killing of atheists.

Plato states his reasons for anti-atheism. Not all atheists are morally bad, but he fears widespread atheism will lead to bad moral behavior on part of many. He also dislikes those who think to Gods do not care what we do, or those who think the Gods are swayed by cheap sacrifices or ceremonies, so its not a case just of disbelief per se, with Plato its more nuanced.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

When did philosophers or theologians or religionists first begin speaking about "faith"? or preaching it or expounding on it?

Proposed theory: "Faith" was NOT a topic of discussion for philosophy or religion or theology before Jesus Christ. The concept existed, but it was not discussed as an issue by philosophers or theologians or anyone.

Is there any example from literature before the New Testament in which "faith" is made an issue or is promoted as some kind of object or good to be pursued, or a form of behavior to be practiced?

In the New Testament there are 2 very prominent greek words that are basic to this:

PISTEUO and PISTIS. They have the same meaning, except that pisteuo is a verb (believe) and pistis is a noun (faith, belief). Presumably there were similar Aramaic words, which JC probably spoke.

It is interesting that in the NT, these 2 words seem to be more common than any other words except the very frequent words like for "go" and "come" and "be" or "is" and so on, as well as the definite articles and conjunctions, etc. E.g., each of these 2 words is far more common in the NT than words like "God" or "love" or "commandment" or "obedience" and so on.

What we have in the NT is a real explosion of this word, on page after page, whereas in all the previous literature this word (or similar ones in other languages) are of little importance and rather infrequent.


An exception to this rule?

In the Hebrew Bible there was a similar word, not used much, and which did not have the significance of the pisteuo and pistis words in the NT.

And yet there is one reference in Genesis which seems to make "faith" into something important. This reference might be an exception to my suggestion that this idea was not important or not discussed prior to the NT.

Gen. 15:6 -- "Abram put his faith in Yahweh and this was reckoned to him as uprightness."

So my theory for now is that this one verse in the Hebrew Bible is the only place in all of literature prior to the New Testament where "faith" is spoken of as something good or required or necessary or praiseworthy in some way.
And if it's the only exception, then my theory can stand on the principle that "the exception makes the rule" since this might be the only reference in all the ancient texts where "faith" is spoken of in these terms as some kind of good or moral imperative or rule advanced for humans to follow.

The translation you are using provides the word "faith" in this verse, whereas most other commonly available English translations consistently render this particular Hebrew word as "believed"
"And he believed (Yahweh); and He counted it to him for righteousness." more accurately follows the original Hebrew composition (_note the name "Abram" is not even present within the Hebrew text of this particular verse.)
The version you are employing is rather more 'free' in rendering the text to ease a 'modern English' reading.
Not that this rendering alters the sense of the verse dramatically, but you are, based upon this idiosyncratic rendering reading something into that text not supported by a closer examination of the underlying Hebrew texts.

The word under consideration here is the Hebrew triliteral root word אמן 'aman' (the familiar 'amen' with a slightly variant vowel pointing) and is akin to 'ameth' ('truth') and occurs in over 108 places in the 'Received' OT texts, and much more if its various constructs, derivatives, and Deutercanonical usages are considered.

Clarification: the word does not mean "faithfulness" or "loyalty" or "obedience" and so on, which is a different concept, though maybe similar. The word for "faith" or "belief" did exist (probably in most of the languages) and maybe in some cases did have the related meaning of "loyalty" or "faithfulness," and so might be emphasized in a text with that meaning.

Commonly rendered "faithful" as in in Num 12:7, 1 Sam 2:35, 22:14 or "stedfast" as in Psalm 78:8, 78:37 _hard to be 'stedfast' without being 'loyal'.

Also this word/concept is not the Latin "fides" (loyalty, devotion, etc.).

Hebrew before Greek or Latin.

Rather, "faith" means belief, in the sense of believing that something is true

Not 'rather', but the Hebrew root word for 'faith' is אמן 'aman'. _as in Deut 32:20, Hab 2:4

(Latin "credo"). Taken in this sense, I am suggesting the above theory, that JC is the one who introduced "faith" or "believing" into philosophy/theology/religion as some kind of good or recommended behavior or mental state to adopt, and that it was in the early 1st century A.D. that this concept or word first became an issue for religion or philosophy or theology.

Based on my familiarity with the Hebrew texts, I must strongly disagree with this proposition. JC used the words 'amen', 'ameth', and 'amoo'neem' Heb. אמנים (the 'faithful' plural) words which his audience were through The Scriptures familiar with, extensively.
In the Hebrew and Aramaic languages his usages would have been ten times more prominent than is evident from any English (or Greek or Latin) translations, and he (and his audience) were informed of its sense and conformity to The Scriptures from its many usages within the Hebrew 'OT' texts.
He did not need 'make up' or invent the concept of 'faith' as it was integral to the Scriptural texts upon which the Hebrew religion was established.

It was this particular word that led me into the study of Hebrew near 40 years ago, and I still have my notes recording every verse, variation, and application of this word. (hundreds of texts)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#5

Sheshbazzar

"And he believed (Yahweh); and He counted it to him for righteousness." more accurately follows the original Hebrew composition (note the name "Abram" is not even present within the Hebrew text of this particular verse.)

The version you are employing is rather more 'free' in rendering the text to ease a 'modern English' reading.

Not that this rendering alters the sense of the verse dramatically, but you are, based upon this idiosyncratic rendering reading something into that text not supported by a closer examination of the underlying Hebrew texts.

I've always assumed it meant that Abram believed what Yahweh told him. I.e., he believed it was true what Yahweh spoke to him just prior. Is that the correct meaning?

JC used the words 'amen', 'ameth', and 'amoo'neem' Heb. אמנים (the 'faithful' plural) words which his audience were through The Scriptures familiar with, extensively.

But did he use an Aramaic word equivalent to the Greek pisteuo? Meaning to believe that something is true?

Does the word "amen" etc. have that as one of its meanings?

In the Hebrew and Aramaic languages his usages would have been ten times more prominent than is evident from any English (or Greek or Latin) translations, and he (and his audience) were informed of its sense and conformity to The Scriptures from its many usages within the Hebrew 'OT' texts.

If I look up "believe" and "faith" in a Bible concordance, there are hundreds of citations in the NT, but less than 50 in the Hebrew Bible (which is 3 times as long as the NT).

None of the Hebrew citations speak of "faith" or "believe" as something people are urged to do. Rather, there are statements saying that someone didn't "believe" what someone else said, but not anything calling upon people to believe something or "believe in" someone or something, such as we find repeatedly in the NT.

So I draw the conclusion that the NT writers are focusing on this "believing" or "faith" in a way that the Hebrew writers did not.

Where do the Hebrew writers make an issue out of "believe" or "faith" in the same sense as the Greek pisteuo meaning to believe that something is true?

He did not need to 'make up' or invent the concept of 'faith' as it was integral to the Scriptural texts upon which the Hebrew religion was established.

But does that concept in Hebrew include the meaning of "believing that" something is true?

Here is a verse from the NT which contains both the pisteuo and pistis words. Could JC have spoken this way in the language of the Hebrew Bible?

When he entered the house, the blind men approached him and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" "Yes, Lord," they said to him. Then he touched their eyes and said, "Let it be done to you according to your faith."
Matthew 9:28-29

Where are words like this "believe" and "faith" used in the Hebrew Bible in a way that admonishes people to believe or have faith?

There must be a Hebrew word for "believe that . . ." because there are several Hebrew verses that are rendered this way, but not in a way as to admonish people to believe or scold them for not believing.

I don't doubt your claim that "faith" is in the Hebrew Bible, but I doubt that it is found in the kind of sense that we see here, and in dozens of other NT verses that use "believe" (pisteuo) and "faith" (pistis) in this way. I.e., listeners or readers are admonished to "believe" in this sense of believing that something is true.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that there was an Aramaic word for "believe" that had this matter-of-fact sense of believing that something is true, just as there was a Hebrew word for this, and that this Aramaic word was used by JC?

Or do you think JC never said anything of this kind and that all the pisteuo words were added by later Greek writers who created a different "faith" notion alien to the inhabitants of Judaea and Galilee who spoke Aramaic?

 

[Horatio Parker]

In the Republic, Plato lists the four prime virtues: justice, reason, courage and temperance.

Courage is the equivalent of faith in that courage is adhering to the "highest vision" through fear, pleasure, pain and desire.

What is the highest vision? Not forcing yourself to believe what you know t'aint so(paraphrasing Mark Twain):

Well, but can you imagine that God will be willing to lie, whether in word or deed, or to put forth a phantom of himself?

I cannot say, he replied.

Do you not know, I said, that the true lie, if such an expression may be allowed, is hated of gods and men?

What do you mean? he said.

I mean that no one is willingly deceived in that which is the truest and highest part of himself, or about the truest and highest matters; there, above all, he is most afraid of a lie having possession of him.

Still, he said, I do not comprehend you.

The reason is, I replied, that you attribute some profound meaning to my words; but I am only saying that deception, or being deceived or uninformed about the highest realities in the highest part of themselves, which is the soul, and in that part of them to have and to hold the lie, is what mankind least like; --that, I say, is what they utterly detest.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

#5

Sheshbazzar

I've always assumed it meant that Abram believed what Yahweh told him. I.e., he believed it was true what Yahweh spoke to him just prior. Is that the correct meaning?

Yes. Abram 'amened' = believed- -accepted- -had faith in- the performance of those future blessings Yahweh his Elohim had promised.

JC used the words 'amen', 'ameth', and 'amoo'neem' Heb. אמנים (the 'faithful' plural) words which his audience were through The Scriptures familiar with, extensively.

But did he use an Aramaic word equivalent to the Greek pisteuo? Meaning to believe that something is true?
Does the word "amen" etc. have that as one of its meanings?

Yes. Abram 'amen'ed' = believed- -accepted- -had faith in- -and verbally affirmed- the future blessings which Yahweh his Elohim had promised.

JC used the words 'amen', 'ameth', and 'amoo'neem' Heb. אמנים (the 'faithful' plural) words which his audience were through The Scriptures familiar with, extensively.

But did he use an Aramaic word equivalent to the Greek pisteuo? Meaning to believe that something is true?

For the purposes of the NT narrative the answer would be yes. However as I view both character, plot situations, and all of the alleged dialogue utterly fictional literary compositions, in reality, outside of NT fiction writing 'he' the fictional protagonist never spoke a word.
That little detail aside, if there had been an actual Jesus as the Bible presents him, it would not have been beyond his ability to speak in any language.

And yes, the Aramaic equivalent of pisteuo would be 'aman' meaning to believe something is true;
To 'amen' a matter, is understood as the one so doing affirms accepts, and believes, what one has affirmed with an 'amen'.
The sense of the word is integral with the actual doing. One does not 'amen' a thing in truth simply by speaking the word 'amen', but by the reality of actually believing what one has 'amen'ed'. The 'amen' of the unbelieving and unfaithful is not an amen in truth, and thus is without value being sans that actual belief and stedfast commitment that is implicit in an ameth amen, a sincere and true 'amen'.
(there really is no distinction between the words/spellings/pronunciations 'amen' and 'aman'. The vowel points are latter added introductions.)

In the Hebrew and Aramaic languages his usages would have been ten times more prominent than is evident from any English (or Greek or Latin) translations, and he (and his audience) were informed of its sense and conformity to The Scriptures from its many usages within the Hebrew 'OT' texts.

If I look up "believe" and "faith" in a Bible concordance, there are hundreds of citations in the NT, but less than 50 in the Hebrew Bible (which is 3 times as long as the NT).

Only because the foreign translations do not render the terms used in the Hebrew Bible (TaNaKh) by the same terms consistently.
The Hebrew trilateral roots amen and ameth occur in hundreds of verses of the Hebrew Bible.
That translators into other languages employed a wide variety of other languages synonymous terms such as 'assurance', 'faithful', 'sure', 'established', 'trust', 'verified', 'stedfast', 'trusty', 'stand fast' (or pisteuo, or pistis) depending on context, normative foreign syntax, or an arbitrary whim, does not remove the fact that the underlying Hebrew makes no such differentiation, the 'amen' root idiom apparent and encompassing of all of these foreign language synonyms.

None of the Hebrew citations speak of "faith" or "believe" as something people are urged to do. Rather, there are statements saying that someone didn't "believe" what someone else said, but not anything calling upon people to believe something or "believe in" someone or something, such as we find repeatedly in the NT.

You are perhaps unfamiliar with the injunction and the urging of this ancient Hebrew verse?

האמינו ביהוה אלהיכם ותאמנו האמינו בנביאיו והצליחו׃

"Ha'am'een'nu ba'Yahweh Elohey'kem, veh'ta'amein'nu.
Ha'amein'nu beh'ne'vee'ah, veh ha'tzlakha:"

"BELIEVE in Yahweh your Elohim, and so shall you be ESTABLISHED.
BELIEVE His prophets, so shall you prosper:" (2 Ch 20:20, compare Isa 17:9)

So I draw the conclusion that the NT writers are focusing on this "believing" or "faith" in a way that the Hebrew writers did not.

No offense intended, but given the account of The Scriptures I cannot accept this as being a valid conclusion.

He did not need to 'make up' or invent the concept of 'faith' as it was integral to the Scriptural texts upon which the Hebrew religion was established.

But does that concept in Hebrew include the meaning of "believing that" something is true?

Here is a verse from the NT which contains both the pisteuo and pistis words. Could JC have spoken this way in the language of the Hebrew Bible?

When he entered the house, the blind men approached him and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" "Yes, Lord," they said to him. Then he touched their eyes and said, "Let it be done to you according to your faith."
Matthew 9:28-29

Yes. As a matter of fact, I have Hebrew language translations of The NT where he does just that, employing the ancient Scriptural Hebrew terms for 'believe' and 'faith'. _Greek, Latin, and English are not everything.

Where are words like this "believe" and "faith" used in the Hebrew Bible in a way that admonishes people to believe or have faith?

I have here given you an example.
It is also implicit in the totality of the texts that men are admonished and ought to 'believe', throughout Moses' and the prophets struggles to get the people to 'believe', and to accept to 'amen' (in spirit and in truth) the words and the prophecies of Yahweh throughout The Hebrew Bible.

There must be a Hebrew word for "believe that . . ." because there are several Hebrew verses that are rendered this way, but not in a way as to admonish people to believe or scold them for not believing.

Certainly there is, and it is a word that covers the entire range of foreign synonyms employed in our translations.
"BELIEVE in Yahweh your Elohim, and so shall you be ESTABLISHED.
BELIEVE His prophets, so shall you prosper."

I don't doubt your claim that "faith" is in the Hebrew Bible, but I doubt that it is found in the kind of sense that we see here, and in dozens of other NT verses that use "believe" (pisteuo) and "faith" (pistis) in this way. I.e., listeners or readers are admonished to "believe" in this sense of believing that something is true.

Your doubt in this matter simply is not consistent with the accounts given in the Hebrew Scriptures. You need to deal with that discrepancy within yourself.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that there was an Aramaic word for "believe" that had this matter-of-fact sense of believing that something is true, just as there was a Hebrew word for this, and that this Aramaic word was used by JC?

No need at all to assume. STUDY. The Aramaic word for 'believe', for 'faith', and for the affirming of such belief and faith was and is the very same three letter word as the Hebrew. The well established and worldwide known Amen.

Or do you think JC never said anything of this kind /////
and that all the pisteuo words were added by later Greek writers who created a different "faith" notion alien to the inhabitants of Judaea and Galilee who spoke Aramaic?

Different matters.
I think, ...in fact I am absolutely persuaded that there never was any actual 'Jesus of Nazareth', any more than there was ever a real Godzilla. Batman or Sherlock Holms.

Hellenist Jewish writers wrote the NT, their usages of words for 'believe' and 'faith' were consistent with long established Hebrew usage and understanding of the terms.

 

[boneyard bill]

When did philosophers or theologians or religionists first begin speaking about "faith"? or preaching it or expounding on it?

Proposed theory: "Faith" was NOT a topic of discussion for philosophy or religion or theology before Jesus Christ. The concept existed, but it was not discussed as an issue by philosophers or theologians or anyone.

Is there any example from literature before the New Testament in which "faith" is made an issue or is promoted as some kind of object or good to be pursued, or a form of behavior to be practiced?

In the New Testament there are 2 very prominent greek words that are basic to this:

PISTEUO and PISTIS. They have the same meaning, except that pisteuo is a verb (believe) and pistis is a noun (faith, belief). Presumably there were similar Aramaic words, which JC probably spoke.

It is interesting that in the NT, these 2 words seem to be more common than any other words except the very frequent words like for "go" and "come" and "be" or "is" and so on, as well as the definite articles and conjunctions, etc. E.g., each of these 2 words is far more common in the NT than words like "God" or "love" or "commandment" or "obedience" and so on.

What we have in the NT is a real explosion of this word, on page after page, whereas in all the previous literature this word (or similar ones in other languages) are of little importance and rather infrequent.


An exception to this rule?

In the Hebrew Bible there was a similar word, not used much, and which did not have the significance of the pisteuo and pistis words in the NT.

And yet there is one reference in Genesis which seems to make "faith" into something important. This reference might be an exception to my suggestion that this idea was not important or not discussed prior to the NT.

Gen. 15:6 -- "Abram put his faith in Yahweh and this was reckoned to him as uprightness."

So my theory for now is that this one verse in the Hebrew Bible is the only place in all of literature prior to the New Testament where "faith" is spoken of as something good or required or necessary or praiseworthy in some way.

And if it's the only exception, then my theory can stand on the principle that "the exception makes the rule" since this might be the only reference in all the ancient texts where "faith" is spoken of in these terms as some kind of good or moral imperative or rule advanced for humans to follow.

Clarification: the word does not mean "faithfulness" or "loyalty" or "obedience" and so on, which is a different concept, though maybe similar. The word for "faith" or "belief" did exist (probably in most of the languages) and maybe in some cases did have the related meaning of "loyalty" or "faithfulness," and so might be emphasized in a text with that meaning.

Also this word/concept is not the Latin "fides" (loyalty, devotion, etc.).

Rather, "faith" means belief, in the sense of believing that something is true (Latin "credo"). Taken in this sense, I am suggesting the above theory, that JC is the one who introduced "faith" or "believing" into philosophy/theology/religion as some kind of good or recommended behavior or mental state to adopt, and that it was in the early 1st century A.D. that this concept or word first became an issue for religion or philosophy or theology.

And all the subsequent emphasis on "faith" (belief) stems from that historical origin.

Are there any other references in the ancient literature, in any language, in addition to that one Genesis verse, where "faith" or "belief" is spoken of in this way? I.e., any other exceptions to the rule? any example that would explode my theory?

There were teachers, philosophers, sages, epic poets, etc., who were published or quoted. Did any of them speak of the need for "faith" or "belief"?

What you seem to be suggesting is that the term "faith" in the Christian religion takes on a new and unique meaning, and that this term seems to have a more holistic meaning than a mere belief in the truth or falsity of any particular, concrete assertion.

If that's the case, it seems to me that one shouldn't expect to find the same specific Greek word used in other cultures to carry the same meaning. They would have a different vocabulary and a different context and hence would use some other word besides "faith" to carry the same holistic meaning, and that word wouldn't be easily translatable into another language. In China the Taoist acolyte is urged to "follow the tao" and this term "tao" (literally the way or the path) has a holistic meaning that is not directly translatable into other languages. The same could be said for the Sanskrit term "dharma", (literally "virtue") and for the Greek term "logos" (literally "word").

I'm hardly an expert on language so I can only suggest that these three terms in Chinese, Sanskrit, and Greek mean something very similar, and might be translated as "holistic truth" in the sense of a sudden realization of the true nature of existence (and/or of the self) that can't be conveyed to another person through language. Jesus may well have used the term "faith" in much the same sense but as this holistic truth came to be more and more personified in Jesus the individual, it became less abstract and Jesus ultimately became the "logos" itself and one now had to have faith or belief in the very concrete existence of the "way, the truth, and the life."

In India a similar movement arose that claimed that "the Buddha IS the dharma," but it was ultimately rejected by early Buddhist theologians.

So, the idea of a holistic knowledge of the true nature of existence (which is ultimately grounded in self-knowledge) has many expressions even in the same religion so that it could "zen" in Japanese or "satori." And in Sanskrit it could be "dharma" or "nirvana" and in Greek it could be "pistis" or "logos."

It is the idea of a true knowledge of the ultimate nature of the self and its relationship to the whole of existence which therefore, means an knowledge of the whole of existence as well.

When Jesus discusses the "kingdom of God" in the synoptics, it usually relates to a state of mind. Likewise, Paul says that the Christian must "take on the mind of Christ." So Christ is personified by Paul as the true understanding, the correct state of mind that leads to the kingdom of heaven. But John is even more direct in proclaiming Christ to be the logos itself.

Of course, I'm no expert on any of this stuff so I'm just throwing out some suggestions.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#8

Sheshbazzar


Shesh -- Though I'm still licking my wounds, I want to forge ahead with my main point, even if I have to modify it a bit:

If I look up "believe" and "faith" in a Bible concordance, there are hundreds of citations in the NT, but less than 50 in the Hebrew Bible (which is 3 times as long as the NT).

Only because the foreign translations do not render the terms used in the Hebrew Bible (TaNaKh) by the same terms consistently.

The Hebrew trilateral roots amen and ameth occur in hundreds of verses of the Hebrew Bible.

That translators into other languages employed a wide variety of other languages synonymous terms such as 'assurance', 'faithful', 'sure', 'established', 'trust', 'verified', 'stedfast', 'trusty', 'stand fast' (or pisteuo, or pistis) depending on context, normative foreign syntax, or an arbitrary whim, does not remove the fact that the underlying Hebrew makes no such differentiation, the 'amen' root idiom apparent and encompassing of all of these foreign language synonyms.

Nevertheless, it seems that the meaning of believing that something is true is not the usual meaning of this Hebrew word, because it does have those other meanings and usually they translate it according to those other meanings.

Shouldn't we assume that the translators usually render the word correctly, in the context, and that the translation is reliable?

So my point is that it seems the Hebrew writers did not devote much attention to this meaning of the "amen" word, or that they did not focus on the question of "believing that" something is true in the way that the NT writers did.

Isn't that a reasonable conclusion, from the fact that this particular meaning occurs so seldom in the Hebrew Bible? (i.e., compared to the NT)


If instead of my misstatement, "None of the Hebrew citations speak of 'faith' or 'believe' as something people are urged to do . . ." etc., I had said "Few Hebrew citations . . . " etc. wouldn't that have been correct? I.e., with the "amen" having the "believe that" meaning?

Although "the underlying Hebrew makes no such differentiation" in the meanings of this "amen" word, isn't there still a difference in the meanings?

A good test of this would be to retranslate other occurrences of the "amen" word (where it's not currently translated as "believe that") and try to impose the "believe that" meaning to it to see if it fits the context. I'm guessing it usually would not fit, or rather, usually it would significantly miss the intended meaning. Am I right, or do you think it would still fit nicely to convey the same meaning as it is now translated?

"BELIEVE in Yahweh your Elohim, and so shall you be ESTABLISHED. BELIEVE His prophets, so shall you prosper."

Yes, admonitions like these obviously contain the "believe that" meaning, i.e, believe what Yahweh says or what the prophets say.

But most of these quotes also might contain a larger meaning, such as to be loyal or obedient or faithful or even courageous, etc.

Are there instances where the meaning seems to be ONLY that of "believing that" or rather "believing what" Yahweh or the prophets say?

There are several cases of the New Testament pisteuo and pistis where the context makes it clear that it is only the "believing that" that is intended.

Perhaps there are interpretation problems, but at least in the healing accounts, where someone is healed, it seems very clear that the "believing that" is the only condition that was met by the one who appeals to JC for healing. At least these examples are cases where the "believing that" meaning is the only meaning and nothing else is mixed in with this as part of the "faith" shown by the believing one. All the "believer" in this case can be credited with is "believing that" Jesus could heal him/her, plus also a hope for this healing. But the context makes it pretty clear that there is no other virtue performed by such a "believer."

Are there examples in the Hebrew Bible where this meaning, of "believing that" something is true, is the only meaning?

It's interesting also in the Epistle of James how "believing that" is indicated as the only meaning, absent any other virtue, when he says "The Deveils believe and tremble" (James 2:19). So it is clear that sometimes this word pisteuo sometimes means to "believe that" and nothing else.

In James there is a polemic against "faith" alone and a demand that it be accompanied by good deeds. There obviously is no such debate in the Hebrew Bible.

Is there any such debate in any of the Jewish writings, the Talmud, etc., making "faith" into an issue and speaking of "faith" abstractly?

Is "faith" ever spoken of in an abstract manner so that there is no object of the "faith" mentioned? There are many NT quotes where "faith" is urged without naming who or what the believer is supposed to have faith in. But don't all the Hebrew quotes name the object of the "faith" in each case? Is there an example where the object is not named?

It's because of this difference between the NT writers and the Hebrew writers that I still think my main point is correct, that a new "faith" or "believe" issue was introduced by the NT writers which did not exist before.

Hellenist Jewish writers wrote the NT, their usages of words for 'believe' and 'faith' were consistent with long established Hebrew usage and understanding of the terms.

Yet it appears that they added something new. Or gave a new emphasis to something that had previously not received much attention. Even if it's true that the "amen" word is widespread throughout the Hebrew Bible, it usually had other meanings than the "believe that" meaning. By comparison to the NT writers, this meaning got little attention.

Not only from the Jewish prophets but also from the Greek writers. I notice that this pisteuo word was rather uncommon before the NT, by comparison, and is totally absent from Homer. It existed but was not given special attention.

And I wonder how much emphasis there was on this word, i.e., its equivalents, in the other cultures farther east. Today "faith" is a regular topic in all the religious traditions, and frequently also in philosophy. But I still suggest that it's in the first century NT writings that we find the origin of the "faith" topic, i.e., "believing that . . ." as something to be expounded upon.

And especially when it's separated from the object, referred to abstractly, and yet there still has to be a something to "believe in" or a "that" which is the object, because that's basic to the meaning. Isn't this a peculiarity that Christianity has introduced, however you want to explain it?

 

[DBT]

Verses on the 'benefits' of faith in the OT;


Gave them help. And the Agarites were delivered into their hands, and all that were with them, because they called upon God in the battle: and he heard them, because they had put their faith in him. 1Ch 5:20

He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house: but he that hateth bribes shall live. By mercy and faith sins are purged away: and by the fear of the Lord every one declineth from evil. Pr 15:27

Go about through the streets of Jerusalem, and see, and consider, and seek in the broad places thereof, if you can fins a man that executeth judgement, and seeketh faith: and I will be merciful unto it. Jer 5:1

And thou shalt say to them: This is a nation which hath not hearkened to the voice of the Lord their God, nor received instruction: Faith is lost, and is carried away out of their mouth. Jer 7:28

And I will espouse thee to me in faith: and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. Ho 2:20

Behold, he that is unbelieving, his soul shall not be right in himself: but the just shall live in his faith. Hab 1:4

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#4

Cheerful Charlie

While we are speaking of Plato, I do note earlier Greeks outlawed atheism. Strangely enough, the Bible disparages atheists, The fool in his heart" etc, but does not condemn that, while repeatedly condemning worshipping other Gods. In 1 kings 18, Elijah has 400 priests of Baal slain. I cannot recall any killing of atheists.

These negative anti-atheist and anti-Baal and anti-pagan themes are not the kind of pisteuo or "faith"/"believe" assertions in the NT that I'm referring to.

These pisteuo passages are not usually negative in tone, calling for punishment or condemnation of "unbelievers" (which also exist but are fewer in number), but are positive admonitions to "believe" in order to gain salvation or healing, or in some cases with no mention of any results but just an expression of disappointment that people don't have this "faith" or "belief" like they should.

Obviously in those times and for centuries beyond there were persecutions of atheists and heretics and others, and calls for these to be condemned and crucified or burned at the stake and so on. That isn't the phenomenon I'm referring to. I'm referring to several NT passages which focus on "faith" or "believe" in a way that seems unique in the religious/philosophical literature of the 1st century and earlier.

Sheshbazzar quoted some Jewish prophet examples that might be comparable. To be comparable they have to be positive quotes, making an affirmative appeal for people to "believe" rather than negative demands to execute someone for not believing in the gods.

Plato states his reasons for anti-atheism. Not all atheists are morally bad, but he fears widespread atheism will lead to bad moral behavior on part of many. He also dislikes those who think the Gods do not care what we do, or those who think the Gods are swayed by cheap sacrifices or ceremonies, so its not a case just of disbelief per se, with Plato its more nuanced.

I think this extreme emphasis on "DISbelief" and the dangerous results "disbelief" leads to is of a different nature than the NT passages in question, though of course a call for people to "believe" might logically also imply a condemnation of non-believers. But that Plato's language is always this negative atheist-bashing language I think puts it into a different category.

Also, to repeat, all those Plato quotes clearly identify what the object of the belief is -- the gods, or the good nature of the gods. Whereas in many of the NT passages there is an abstract "faith" or "believe" spoken of which omits the object of the "faith" and speaks of "faith" in a disconnected way. So I suggest there is a new or unique "faith" talk going on in the NT which is something new in the language of philosophy/religion.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#7

Horatio Parker

In the Republic, Plato lists the four prime virtues: justice, reason, courage and temperance.

Courage is the equivalent of faith in that courage is adhering to the "highest vision" through fear, pleasure, pain and desire.

That has a good "ring" to it. But in the NT there is a language of "faith" which does not fit this definition of "faith." This pisteuo word might have some of the elements common to "courage" and other virtues, but it is used in the NT many times with a meaning that does not include anything other than simply that of "believing that" something is true.

Again, the healing stories usually have a statement that the "faith" of the one being healed was essential to making the healing happen. And yet there is no indication that this one being healed exhibited any meritorious behavior, such as courage. So virtues outside the simple "believing that" seem to not be a part of the meaning of pisteuo. And so this NT kind of "faith" doesn't seem to have anything to do with courage or temperance or other lofty virtues.

There could be an element of "reason" or "vision" in the meaning, but it's really all contained in the simple "believe that" element, and doesn't seem to require any meritorious or praiseworthy high-character elements.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#9


boneyard bill

What you seem to be suggesting is that the term "faith" in the Christian religion takes on a new and unique meaning . . .

Yes, though Sheshbazzar gave some examples to show that the meaning is not totally new or unique. However, I think there is a very jarring change in emphasis that takes place in the NT writings (while Sheshbazzar says in effect "ho-hum, nothing really new here").

. . . and that this term seems to have a more holistic meaning than a mere belief in the truth or falsity of any particular, concrete assertion.

What I'm saying is that the NT writers seem to put forth the latter, i.e., belief THAT something is true, as the primary meaning, and this is something new, or rather, it is a new emphasis on the "believe that" meaning of "faith" or "belief" and that previously the other meanings had much greater emphasis.

In fact, because of the healing stories, as I mentioned before, the pisteuo word seems to have ONLY the "believe that" meaning and no other meaning. I believe this is quite new in the "faith" talk up to the period in question (1st century AD).

If that's the case, it seems to me that one shouldn't expect to find the same specific Greek word used in other cultures to carry the same meaning. They would have a different vocabulary and a different context and hence would use some other word besides "faith" to carry the same holistic meaning, and that word wouldn't be easily translatable into another language.

There's a little confusion here. I'm saying the Greek pisteuo word often has ONLY the "believe that" meaning and that this was primarily how the NT writers used that word. If there were other meanings, like the Hebrew "amen" word had other meanings, those other meanings were largely disregarded by the NT writers, or at least those meanings often don't fit their usage of the word, and most occurrences of that word could easily be understood as having ONLY the "believe that" meaning.

In China the Taoist acolyte is urged to "follow the tao" and this term "tao" (literally the way or the path) has a holistic meaning that is not directly translatable into other languages. The same could be said for the Sanskrit term "dharma", (literally "virtue") and for the Greek term "logos" (literally "word").

And I wonder if the idea "believe that" something is true is expressed in those cultures in a way that admonishes listeners or readers to "believe" in the way the NT writers urged it. Are there admonishments to "believe" God or the gods or Brahma or the Bodhisatva or someone, or believe certain truth claims?

Such "faith" talk seems to be absent from those cultures, or maybe rare, which agrees with my main point, that the NT writers seem to have introduced a new kind of "faith" talk which might have been alien to most cultures up to that time, and I think also much less common in the earlier Jewish culture (the point of disagreement with Sheshbazzar who says it's not new).

I'm hardly an expert on language so I can only suggest that these three terms in Chinese, Sanskrit, and Greek mean something very similar, and might be translated as "holistic truth" in the sense of a sudden realization of the true nature of existence (and/or of the self) that can't be conveyed to another person through language. Jesus may well have used the term "faith" in much the same sense . . .

I'm suggesting the opposite, that maybe he used the term (or at least the NT writers did) in the simple sense of "believing that" something is true, and this is the "faith" that is usually talked about, because many of the examples fit only this meaning, and not the other mystical meanings you might have in mind.

. . . but as this holistic truth came to be more and more personified in Jesus the individual, it became less abstract and Jesus ultimately became the "logos" itself and one now had to have faith or belief in the very concrete existence of the "way, the truth, and the life."

In India a similar movement arose that claimed that "the Buddha IS the dharma," but it was ultimately rejected by early Buddhist theologians.

So, the idea of a holistic knowledge of the true nature of existence (which is ultimately grounded in self-knowledge) has many expressions even in the same religion so that it could "zen" in Japanese or "satori." And in Sanskrit it could be "dharma" or "nirvana" and in Greek it could be "pistis" or "logos."

It is the idea of a true knowledge of the ultimate nature of the self and its relationship to the whole of existence which therefore, means an knowledge of the whole of existence as well.

The trouble with all the above is that it does not fit the simple example of a woman reaching up and touching Jesus' garment as he went by, thinking, "If I just touch his clothing I can be healed," and JC turns and tells her that her "faith" healed her. Where is the "dharma" in that, or the grounded self-knowledge or zen or satori or knowledge of the ultimate nature of the self and the relationship to the whole of existence etc.? She just wanted to be healed -- she didn't know any of that mystical stuff.

So I think the NT meaning of pistis or pisteuo is something different than all those meanings and just refers to a simple "believing that" something is so, because that's the meaning that fits the scenario.

When Jesus discusses the "kingdom of God" in the synoptics, it usually relates to a state of mind.

And I'm suggesting that the "state of mind" he meant might really be just a simple one of believing that something is so, a "believing that" rather than something profound or mystical.

Likewise, Paul says that the Christian must "take on the mind of Christ." So Christ is personified by Paul as the true understanding, the correct state of mind that leads to the kingdom of heaven. But John is even more direct in proclaiming Christ to be the logos itself.

Yes, the mystical elements find their way into the mix. I'm wondering if those mystical elements might be the aberration, or the development into something different than the original message, and the original "faith" message was an appeal to "believe that" something was true, i.e., probably that JC had power. Maybe that he was God, although the healing stories don't say that the ones healed believed he was God, but only that he had power to heal them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

#11

DBT

Verses on the 'benefits' of faith in the OT:

Gave them help. And the Agarites were delivered into their hands, and all that were with them, because they called upon God in the battle: and he heard them, because they had put their faith in him. 1Ch 5:20

He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house: but he that hateth bribes shall live. By mercy and faith sins are purged away: and by the fear of the Lord every one declineth from evil. Pr 15:27

Go about through the streets of Jerusalem, and see, and consider, and seek in the broad places thereof, if you can fins a man that executeth judgement, and seeketh faith: and I will be merciful unto it. Jer 5:1

And thou shalt say to them: This is a nation which hath not hearkened to the voice of the Lord their God, nor received instruction: Faith is lost, and is carried away out of their mouth. Jer 7:28

And I will espouse thee to me in faith: and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. Ho 2:20

Behold, he that is unbelieving, his soul shall not be right in himself: but the just shall live in his faith. Hab 1:4

Obviously you're contradicting my remark: "None of the Hebrew citations speak of 'faith' or 'believe' as something people are urged to do."

I grant this was a misstatement, but I still make my point that the NT writers, or perhaps originally Jesus, changed the nature of the "faith" talk, even though I have to grant that there was already some "faith" talk within the earlier Jewish prophets.

One change is the frequency of such language. Those Hebrew quotes are possibly a few dozen in number, while in the NT there are hundreds of them.

But there's a greater difference than just the number of references. The MEANING of the word gets a changed emphasis.

In the NT "faith" quotes, there are several times when there is only one meaning that fits the context, and that is the meaning of "believing that" something is true. And all the other meanings are excluded.

This cannot be said of most of the Hebrew quotes about "faith" or "believing" in God.

The first quote above -- "they called upon God in the battle: and he heard them, because they had put their faith in him." 1 Ch 5:20 -- is the only one which might require the "believing that" meaning of "faith." The others all have one of the other meanings of "faith" ("amen"), and fit better into one of those other meanings.

Even if it's true that the prophets and their audience didn't distinguish the different meanings, these differences were there, and in the NT the "believing that" meaning is the only one that fits in many of the examples where the pisteuo word is used. And this meaning fits virtually ALL the NT occurrences of this word, though one could claim the other meanings also could fit.

So it's clear that the NT examples give much greater emphasis to the "believing that" meaning than the OT prophets did.

Some of the OT examples above speak of "faith" abstractly without naming the object of the faith. I believe these are exceptional and that this was not common. Most of the "amen" quotes name the object of the "faith" or "belief" if that is the meaning of the word in that quote. The NT uses of pisteuo very frequently use the word in this abstract manner which omits mention of the object of the faith, whereas in the Hebrew examples that abstract use of the "amen" word is irregular. This is another difference, though the examples above are in the uncommon category where the object of "faith" is omitted. The norm is for the object, e.g., God or Yahweh or the prophet etc., to be identified as part of the admonition to believe.

This emphasis on "faith" in an abstract manner is part of the change in tone by the NT writers.

So you're right that the "faith" talk did exist among the Hebrew prophets, but I'm suggesting the NT writers made a major change in the nature of the "faith" talk, greatly increasing the frequency of this talk and changing the emphasis and shifting the meaning of it.

 

[DBT]

So you're right that the "faith" talk did exist among the Hebrew prophets, but I'm suggesting the NT writers made a major change in the nature of the "faith" talk, greatly increasing the frequency of this talk and changing the emphasis and shifting the meaning of it.

I think that's a reasonable assessment. Perception and dialogue concerning faith had evolved over time, but the implicit nature of faith, believing something is true without sufficient evidence, remains constant. The OT verses may not be as explicit and defined as the those in the NT, nevertheless the implications of faith are present.

 

[Horatio Parker]

#7

Horatio Parker

In the Republic, Plato lists the four prime virtues: justice, reason, courage and temperance.

Courage is the equivalent of faith in that courage is adhering to the "highest vision" through fear, pleasure, pain and desire.

That has a good "ring" to it. But in the NT there is a language of "faith" which does not fit this definition of "faith." This pisteuo word might have some of the elements common to "courage" and other virtues, but it is used in the NT many times with a meaning that does not include anything other than simply that of "believing that" something is true.

Again, the healing stories usually have a statement that the "faith" of the one being healed was essential to making the healing happen. And yet there is no indication that this one being healed exhibited any meritorious behavior, such as courage. So virtues outside the simple "believing that" seem to not be a part of the meaning of pisteuo. And so this NT kind of "faith" doesn't seem to have anything to do with courage or temperance or other lofty virtues.

There could be an element of "reason" or "vision" in the meaning, but it's really all contained in the simple "believe that" element, and doesn't seem to require any meritorious or praiseworthy high-character elements.

The influence of Plato is in the importance of looking inward instead of outward. The OT Yahweh was an external force that had to be appeased, or else bad things would happen. The NT recognized the importance of looking inward.

But there are multiple ways of interpreting the NT, which also isn't consistent within itself. The orthodoxy that won out was based on apostolic succession. No one was saved unless Jesus or one of his Authorized Representatives, whose authority could be traced back to Peter, said so. What's left to the layman? Faith. AS succession also locked the church into an empirical and historical view of the Gospels.

If the Gnostics had prevailed, western religion might more resemble eastern religions, and faith would not play such a central role.

Belief has a place in Plato as well, and the Greek is pistis, but it's a lower form of reality, essentially nonreasoned opinion about sensory images. The Divided Line analogy is a bit long it quote here, but basically the lowest reality are images or shadows(imagining), next are sensory impressions(opinion), then reasoning(eg mathematics), then knowledge.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

Lumpenproletariat

I think the key to that difference or distinction of emphasis that you are detecting and arguing for lies in those many NT verses that are translated as "THE Faith".

The earliest 'christian' > 'Redeeming Christ believing' form of the Jewish religion adopted the specific term "THE Faith" (τῆς πίστεως) as their identifying 'shingle', thus identifying and recognizably differentiating themselves from 'traditional' or 'conventional' Jewish (Temple) beliefs long before the foreign epithet 'Christian' was given or adopted. (Acts 11:26)

In this sense they elevated and separated 'THE Faith', as being a sect distinct from all conventional Judaism, and as the Jewish community did not generally apply or employ this designation for its self, it was heavily emphasized in the early separatist 'Christ crucified as mankind's Redeemer' form of religion.

To become a member of 'THE Faith' was to explicitly accept 'The gospel of Jesus Christ' as the Son of God (Yahweh), and as His promised Redeemer, and those teachings found within "The New Testament/Covenant'.
No one not accepting these significant theological points was, or could be in or among that select (elect) group identified as being 'THE Faith'.

It is also noteworthy to know that the Hebrew plural term for the 'believers' and/or 'the faithful' is אמונים 'amoo'neem'(ex. Ps 31:23)
In Hebrew, the title or name "THE FAITH" is האמונים 'HA'Amoo'neem, being 'THE Believing/Faithful' _literally 'the amen-ing ones'.
Much like the title 'The Way', it identifies an exclusive cult group that rejecting Jewish 'legalism' accepts the 'saved by grace' doctrines of the 'christian' form of religion.
Thus there is a unique and heavy emphasis on the use of the words 'believe', 'Believers" and 'The Faith';

4:12 μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω ἀλλὰ τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν ἐν λόγῳ ἐν ἀναστροφῇ ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐν πνεύματι, ἐν πίστει ἐν ἁγνείᾳ

'Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of THE Believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.' (1Ti 4:12)

Its not just 'believers' in any general sense, as in 'be thou a believer...' but a recognized firm member of a specific set/cult of Believers endorsing and holding to a specific set of beliefs. They didn't use new words but laid a new kind of, and heavy emphasis, upon the old words for entrance into a New testament.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There is little in the Bible against disbelief, much about worshipping other Gods. The early Yahweists were determined to stamp out rival cults. Why. Herem, the ban. Ethnic cleansing. Destroying entire towns and villages, killing all the inhabitants. The Mesha stone makes chilling reading. The idea was to have, one God, one cult to weld a population into a unit with no divided loyalties, no weak points, no unsure members of a population, nobody who might abandon a coalition for religious reasons.

The problems of belief were different for the Israelites than for the Greeks or us. Much of the OT was written in a time of incessant, bitter warfare and reflects that. The Yahweists wrote the OT with an agenda.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

The Yahweists wrote the OT with an agenda.

And 'THE Believers' in 'THE WAY' (or 'that 'Way') who eventually came to be called 'christians' also wrote with an agenda. One determined to undermine, call into question, modify, overthrow, and replace the teachers and teachings of the so called OT.
We, the world, have seen, and inherited the results of that.