You present a valid argument but are making accusations about me that are not true, such as the following :ok, my apologies Christophany, those were not definitive Scriptures declaring the faith of Jesus, that undermine your premise.
But, the reason that I may have been a bit impetuous in using them as support against your thesis, is because I don't believe that the specific and explicit delineation of Christ's faith is required to define the Atonement - understanding the Atonement eg; Christ's passion, precludes your entire premise. For, I have always said that the minute an exegete is required to perform an etymology on a word, it somewhat invariably denotes that they've entirely missed the context. No one principle in all of Christendom, should ever be adjudicated by a single word.
In other words, to understand the dynamics of the Atonement, and as to why God was pleased with Christ, unequivocally defines Christ's obedience, and invariably his faith (for one cannot please God otherwise). That is, understanding that Jesus had a mission, of which the fulfillment of it was not guaranteed - otherwise his actions and sufferings would just be a farce, as would God's judicial integrity - implies immediately that Jesus attained to perfection, which requires faith. This is the over-arching principle of the Atonement. Christ succeeded, where Adam and man failed, and all men are exonerated for the convictions of Jesus. He loved God with all his heart mind and soul.
Thus, why in the world does one need to delve into the etymology of the word faith, in order to understand the disposition of Christ?
As @john t said, your argument is based on silence or the absence of evidence, meanwhile the entire pericope of Christ's mission and obedience has completely eluded you.
"meanwhile the entire pericope of Christ's mission and obedience has completely eluded you."
I addressed His obedience earlier in the thread and have not denied it.