Burk: (Greek rewritten without diacritics because of technical difficulties in copying)
This observation (found here and there in the standard NT grammars) is good so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Exegetes (and some grammarians) sometimes make the mistake of thinking that verbal ideas inhere in any noun that has a cognate verb related to it.
I would suggest, however, that the implied verbal idea does not rely on whether or not the noun in question has a verbal ‘cognate’. The primary issue is whether the noun in question derives from a verb. This is why Richard Young’s (1994: 29) recommendations for identifying verbal nouns are particularly insightful: ‘Discerning what should be considered verbal nouns in a particular text is not simple. Nouns with endings that name actions (-σις, -μος) or agents (-της, -τηρ, -τωρ, -τευς) are usually verbal nouns. Those which are built of verb stems...are often verbal nouns.’ As far as the δικ- word group goes, there is a nominalized form of the verb δικαιοω, but it is not δικαιοσυνη. The nominalized form of δικαιοω is δικαιοωσις. Nouns terminating with the -σις suffix derive from verbal forms and they denote the nominalization of verbal action. Nouns that end with the -συνη suffix (like δικαιοσυνη) do not derive from verbs nor do they denote verbal action.
What do you say about this? (I recommend reading the whole article, it's not too long.)
And the next question is of course: what does this mean for πιστις του Χ? (This phrase, but not the restrictions or explanations of the rule, was discussed in Mounce's blog, http://www.teknia.com/blog/how-can-geni ... 9D-gal-216.)