I think you lost me when you assumed "faith" ought to be a meaningful word with a coherent definition.

I didn't read the article as doing that, nor any of the four hypotheses at the end. But I do read Phil's response to you as doing so. Huh.

I think the best definition to give for faith is a practical one: faith is the word people use as a combination semantic stop-sign and applause light when asked why they believe in religion. If someone then goes all philosophical on them and asks them what exactly they mean, they then use whatever plausible explanation seems appropriate.

That is pretty close to be Phil's first hypothesis "Faith as reaction to theory"

But Phil is saying that this is not an individual reaction, but a historical reaction. Protestants go on about faith all the time on their own, without any philosophers present.