My understanding from first year grammar is that Greek word order is fluid and words placed towards the beginning have emphasis. Are the phrases “μου εκ πιστεως” and “εκ πιστεως μου” equivalent in meaning, save that the former is just emphasizing the pronoun?
I was told that the former construction, understood in the way I’m presenting it, is impossible because μου cannot be separated from the noun by the preposition. But I’d like to see what other’s here think about this issue.
It would be pretty weird. I can’t imagine a context where you’d see it like that. Maybe something like this, but it’s obviously very artificial.
ἐκ σάκκου τίνος ἐστὶ τοῦτο; From whose sack is this?
ἐμοῦ! ἐκ θυλάκου. Mine! Out of my bag.
Agreeing with Joel here. You can have the possessive fronted for emphasis, e.g.,
Acts 23:2 ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς Ἁνανίας ἐπέταξεν τοῖς παρεστῶσιν αὐτῷ τύπτειν αὐτοῦ τὸ στόμα.
But fronted outside of a prepositional phrase? I don’t ever remember seeing that, and quick searches could find no examples.
εκ πιστεως μου is rather unusual Greek but unexceptional word order. μου εκ πιστεως is scarcely conceivable unless μου belongs to what precedes it. μου cannot be emphatic.
(PS I see εκ πιστεως μου is LXX.)
The Acts verse is a little more interesting. I don’t think the fronting of αυτου can be for emphasis, as a matter of fact I don’t think it’s fronted at all. The way I read it, τύπτειν αὐτοῦ τὸ στόμα functions as a self-contained unit, with unemphatic αυτου tucked behind τυπτειν rather than behind το στομα as it would be otherwise.
I suspect that the μου goes with a preceding noun in this case.
ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ.
BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.
That’s in line with what I wrote abut the position of μου.. It’s Habakkuk 2.4. I’ve only seen it with εκ πιστεως μου, where the μου must belong to εκ πιστεως, but I don’t have a proper LXX edition. ὁ δικαιος μου looks suspicious to me.
In the NT it’s quoted without μου at all (Rom.1.17, Gal.3.11, Hebr.10.38).
Incidentally I have Werner Jaeger’s personal copy of Nestle’s edition of the NT (revised 10th ed.)—without a single annotation. 
Yes, I noticed different versions of that passage.
But, in any case, it seems to me that a clitic form such as μου would not be used emphatically and would normally appear postpositive. If it were desired to emphasis the possessive, then I suppose that ἐμοῦ would be used.
Hab 2:3-4 (Robert Alter):
For there is yet a vision for the appointed time
and a witness for the end who is not false.
Though it tarries, wait for it,
for it shall surely come, it shall not delay.
Look, the spirit within him is callous, not upright,
but the righteous man lives through his faithfulness.
Hab 2:3-5 (LXX): διότι ἔτι ὅρασις εἰς καιρὸν καὶ ἀνατελεῖ εἰς πέρας καὶ οὐκ εἰς κενόν· ἐὰν ὑστερήσῃ, ὑπόμεινον αὐτόν, ὅτι ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ μὴ χρονίσῇ. ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται. ὁ δὲ κατοινωμένος καὶ καταφρονητὴς ἀνὴρ…
The apparatus states that ἐκ πίστεώς and μου are transposed in A (Codex Alexandrinus) and C and μου is removed by a corrector of W.
μου is removed entirely in Romans 1:17 and Galations 3:11, though the apparatus mentions that C* puts the μου back in after δίκαιος.
It’s Hebrews 4:38 where things get interesting (and perhaps explains the variants that show up above):
Heb 4:37-8: ἔτι γὰρ μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον, ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἥξει καὶ οὐ χρονίσει· ὁ δὲ δίκαιός μου ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, καὶ ἐὰν ὑποστείληται, οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ
Hopefully everybody has the apparatus for that, because I’m not going to copy all of it. I notice that א and A have the text as given, but that there is a fair about a variation around the μου, either removing it or presumably correcting it back to the LXX text.
So my read of this is that the LXX version made the Hebrew version rather “Messianic”. (Barry or someone will have to comment on whether Alter gets it right or not, I don’t understand Hebrew and only have the English) What I notice is masculine αὐτόν and ἐρχόμενος, referring to a man rather than to the ὅρασις. It is possible that this is a possible and valid interpretation of the Hebrew being brought out by the LXX translator at the cost of the Greek. I have no idea.
Whether the LXX author meant ὁ δίκαιος to continue that Messianic interpretation, or to be taken to represent the class of just men in contrast to ὁ κατοινωμένος καὶ καταφρονητὴς ἀνὴρ, I don’t know. Or is the LXX translator suggesting an anti-Christ figure with ὁ κατοινωμένος καὶ καταφρονητὴς ἀνὴρ? Alter’s footnote on verse 5 mentions that in the Hebrew text the “referent of the insatiable figure is the Babylonian empire”. Yet the δέ before δίκαιος does suggest a contrast versus the ὁ ἐρχόμενος individual. So two classes or two individuals?
It would seem that the Hebrews author chooses to make his interpretation very explicit with the μου following δίκαιος. This definitely makes it refer to a single individual. Explicitly Jesus. And then…verse 39 seems to walk that back entirely: ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς. So in verse 39 the Hebrews author appears to be reading verse 38 as referring to two classes. Does this make the Hebrews 10:38 text a (very) early error? An insertion of a Messianic prophecy into the Hebrews text?
Finally, I have no idea what ἐκ πίστεως μου is meant to represent in the LXX version. “He lives by faith in me”? “He lives through my faith”? “He lives as a result of my faith”? I don’t see how it could be the same thing as Alter’s “through his faithfulness”.
ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται (future) presumably means “shall have life as a result of faith/trust in me” (μου objective gen.). I don’t see any difficulty about that.
I still think the position of αυτου in the Acts passage is more interesting and more pertinent to this thread, see my first post above.
Reasonable to me, but it may be worth Googling “Πίστις Χριστοῦ” for the rather copious debate on objective genitives with πίστις.
Though the Hab/Heb variation of εκ πιστεως μου and μου εκ πιστεως was the implicit question of the thread, the Acts passage is interesting too. τὸ στόμα can’t be an accusative of respect, though I’d think that the word order seems to press for that. Maybe αὐτοῦ comes up because τοῖς παρεστῶσιν αὐτῷ τύπτειν τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ would sound clunky with the αὐτῷ/αὐτοῦ repetition.
Alter’s rendering seems quite in the ballpark here. I’ll only respond to this one point. The Hebrew:
וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה
According to HALOT, אֱמוּנָה means faithfulness, not what we mean by “faith” in the sense of belief, which is what the Greek could imply. The noun uses the third person possessive suffix – it can only mean something like “his faithfulness.”
אֱמוּנָה and אֱמֻנָה 2K 12:16 †, f. of I אֵמוּן; MHb., Pun. Poenulus 937 emanethi, OSArb. ʾmnt reliability: אֱמוּנַת, אֱמוּנָֽתְכָ/תֶֽךָ, אֱמוּנוֹת; בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ Jerome baemunatho, → Brönno 167f; Bultmann ZNW 27:123ff, → אֱמֶת): —1. steadfastness וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱ׳ remained motionless (GK §141b, c) Ex 17:12; —2. trustworthiness, faithfulness a) of people 1S 26:23 Is 11:5 Ps 119:30 (alt. truth) 2C 19:9; בֶּאֱ׳ Hos 2:22 Hab 2:4 (1QpHab 718-82 :: Gal 311 Rom 117); אֱמוּנוֹת loyally אִישׁ אֱ׳ trustworthy Pr 28:20; of the Messiah Is 11:5; b) of God Dt 32:4 Is 25:1 Ps 33:4 36:6 40:11 88:12 89:2f, 6, 9, 25, 34, 50 92:3 96:13 98:3 100:5 119:90, 138 143:1 La 3:23; c) commandments are אֱ׳ Ps 119:86, statements Pr 12:17, actions 12:22 (GK §141b, c); —3. honesty (:: שֶׁקֶר) Is 59:4 Jr 5:1, 3 7:28 9:2 Pr 12:22; —4. permanent official duty (:: Rudolph Chr. 88 as 2a) 1C 9:22, 26, 31 2C 31:18 (rd. בַּאֲבוֹתָם Rudolph); —5. adv. a) בֶּאֱ׳ conscientious 2C 31:12, 15; with עָשָׂה deal honestly and faithfully 2K 12:16 22:7 2C 34:12; b) אֱ׳ (adverbial acc. GK §100c) in faithfulness Ps 119:75 —6. security Is 33:6 (?, cj. אֱמוּנֹת loyally, v.s. 2a, ZAW 42:178) Ps 37:3; —Ps 89:9 rd. אֵימָֽתְךָ and 119:90 אִמְרָֽתְךָ
Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed., pp. 62–63). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
However, the verb form in the hifil stem means “believe, place one’s trust in…” See Gen 15:6.
The Greek is more ambiguous, as you point out, and the NT authors go to town with it.
Most of those debates are heavily influenced by theological commitment. With Michael I seen no problem with an objective genitive.
If “πίστις” were used in Hab 2:4 in the sense of “religion” (or similar), then it would completely explain the Habakuk translator’s thought process here, which is otherwise a mystery.
An extremely late witness, but the LSJ addendum lists “creed, belief” in its πίστις article, citing the Justinian Code. Lampe, lists this sense as πίστις II and III and gives a number of early Christian references.