Also Winer, "The indefinite use of the present participle occurs frequently in the case of ων from ειναι, which often stands in place of ὀς ην; e.g. John 1:18, 3:13, 9:25." (1825, p. 131).
Never suggested it wasn't so, except in the case of Paul's own epistles, where it isn't so. Two occurences of the present participle in all of his epistles confined to doxologies is not "often" by any definition of "often."
As I said, the article behaves like a relative pronoun in an attributive participle construction. The fact that you're saying this and The Real John Milton is cheerleading is highly suggestive to me that both of you are lacking in the fundamentals.
"Stands in place of" != "behave" when the words are considered in isolation. Thus, case in point, no-one has ever suggested that ὅς ἐστιν could stand in place of ὁ ων in Ex 3:14, except you inferrentially.
Did the Greels refer to God as ὅς ἐστιν, as you suggest they might have done?
As Mathewson and Emig note in their intermediate grammar,
"Technically, the term definite article is inaccurate in the case of Koine Greek . . . because the article traces its origin to the demonstrative pronoun, its essential function is deictic; that is, it points." (Mathewson, David L.; Emig, Elodie Ballantine. Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 107).
Thus immediately afterward they indicate many examples of ways it is translated: "the, a, this, these, that, those,
who, which, whose, my, our, your, his her, their." In addition, they utilize the article in the attributive participle ὁ ὢν in John 1:18 as an example of a "pronoun" (p. 89).
Köstenberger, Merkle and Plummer likewise note in their grammar that,
"While the article is not a pronoun as such, as mentioned above, it traces its origin back to the pronoun and in certain situations may function like a pronoun. Specifically, it may function as a (1) personal pronoun, (2) relative pronoun, (3) possessive pronoun, (4) demonstrative pronoun, or (5) alternate pronoun (this use is rare)." (Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition (pp. 159-160)).
From "A Grammatical Analysis of John I, I" (C. C. Caragounis):
"Because the Greek article originally (in Homeros, etc.) was a demonstrative
pronoun, which later came to lose much of its demonstrative
force, and to that extent assume the meaning of the article—especially in
Platon's writings, where the article achieved its richest and most varied
uses—it cannot be compared to nor can its uses be determined by the
way in which the English article is applied. If we want to understand the
ways in which the Greek article is used, it is important that we disregard
the uses of the English, German, etc. articles, and that we study the Greek
article against the background of its own usage in Greek literature. This
does not imply that there are no parallel uses of the article between Greek
and English, and German, etc., but that methodologically it is better to
dispense with reliance on the English, etc. article for determining the
meanings of the Greek article.
The article (in Koine Greek) ό, ή, τό has the quality of classifying and individualizing
substantives. In other words, the article can turn a substantive from being
general to particular and from being indefinite to definte. Already at this
point we see how the Greek article is different from the English article.
For example, whereas English would use the anarthrous "Man" or "Hu-
manity" to indicate class, the Greek would use the arthrous ό άνθρωπος
or ή άνθρωπότης to express the same idea. In other words, the uses of
the English article do not coincide with those of the Greek article, and
we would do well not to impose on NT articular or non-articular constructions
ideas based on the uses of the English article. Thus, when a
Hellene says ό άνθρωπος, the construction is not definite in the sense
that he is speaking of a particular man, but generic: through the use of
the article, he concretizes all men (i.e. humanity) in the arthrous singular
as representative of the entire class of men. In saying ό άνθρωπος the
Hellene thinks of all that belongs to the category of "man", but not of
beasts, etc., that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines man from
all other categories of creatures, that which belongs to the concept Man,39.
At the same time, the entire group of men (i.e. the whole of humanity) is
thought of as a concrete whole. Thus, ό άνθρωπος θνητός έστιν means
"all human beings [without exception] are mortal". The so-called indefinite
form άνθρωπος τις means "someone of the genus man", in other words, it
describes man as a substance limited, by itself, and as indefinite: "a certain
man". Thus, too, the abstract "man" by receiving the article becomes
concrete or definite: ό άνθρωπος δς ήλθεν έξ 'Αθηνών "the (particular)
man who came from Athens".
Many times the article is used in connection with a person that has
been mentioned before: Acts 4,22: ετών γάρ ήν ... ό άνθρωπος (cf. Acts
3,2, where the same person is described as τις άνηρ). Even though we
translate "the man was ..." in English the force is "i/iar man [of whom I
wrote earlier] was ..." In this capacity the article is used in its original
demonstrative force, rather than in its pure articular sense. But when the
subject is presented as a general concept, without any specification, classification,
etc., it is anarthrous. Thus Platon, Theaitetos 152 a: πάντιυν
χρημάτων με'τρον άνθρωπος means not so much "a man is the measure
of all things" but "anyone who is a man [i.e. who shares in all that makes
up a human being] is the measure of all things". From this it is a small
step to the question of the arthrous or anarthrous predicate."
So it acts on substantives. The only question in Rom 9:5 is, which substantive?
I have introduced no rule of grammar, but have stated the fundamentals you are both obviously lacking. Of all the grammars, I think Funk addresses the subject in a way that is best suited to addressing your line of questions and comments.
Anyway, here are some excerpts from Funk,
Lesson 53:
Section
672 (and the relevant 673), noted above, reads as follows:
I do hope this information is helpful. I had originally posted in full, but had to cut out less relevant portions in order to get this post published in under 10,000 characters.
To be honest, it's a lot of information which I don't disagree with, but I fail to see what point you're making in relatiion to this thread.
You're saying that in this particular case, the attributive participle is the exception to the established rule of Greek argument.
I'm not saying it's an exception to any rule. The attributive participle is just functioning with a different noun to the one you with your Trinitarian hat on have arbitrarily and pre-emptively decided upon, where there is, admittedly, a mild degree of ambiguity in the grammar, but not such as to occasion any doubt which grammatical form is correct, where the article naturally relates to θεός which comes after the article.
The grammatical issue here was never the participle (as you have made it out to be), but the article. Do you normally relate an article backwards, even where it precedes a noun of the same case and gender?
Of course not.
This is Special Pleading, which as we all know "is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard."
It is also circular reasoning, and the circularity is this: ὁ ὢν has to stand on its own without modifiers, otherwise it can't be an adjective, so when it has modifiers it must be appositional. Therefore it is always appositional, because it can't stand on its own.
This is pure sophistry. In response to this, I have noted that the attributive participle is relatival in function and (as a verbal adjective) in fact can be modified by a prepositional phrase and take an object. So yes, I have addressed your point, and you are appealing to the stone.
Nonsense. My argument is that the article mandates a substantival referent and the obvious referent is to the noun which follows the article, if there is one, and not to a noun which just happens to precede it and which is only by accident of the same case and gender.
From the same book of Winer that you quoted. p 49
"The Greek article o, ή, το, stands before a noun,
when a definite object is designated, or is distinguished
from all other similar objects."
Indeed if your contention were to hold true, there would have been another article placed before θεός in Rom 9:5. That there is no second article is conclusive of which noun the article refers to.