The above three examples (1 Peter 1:3, Mark 14:24, Matt. 6:4) are more naturally taken as substantives (with modifiers) in apposition . You will find that appositional phrases naturally lend themselves to substantives with modifiers, while the reverse is true with the second attributive position (the head noun vary rarely (if ever) likes modifiers. As I said, you need to read more GNT.
You basically are working from a very poor foundation, grammatically speaking.
That's funny, because they are all examples of Attributive Participles listed by grammarians and are found either in grammars or in grammatical studies. You're just creating another circular argument--so while you are asserting I am "working from a very poor foundation," your real problem is with the grammars and grammarians. Your restrictions are both arbitrary and ad hoc. Your view of the attributive participle is overly simplistic and far too restricted, so you think
I'm the one who is wrong.
τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is a modifier of ὁ Χριστὸς, and modifies it so substantially and precisely so as to be not just contrastive with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, but to be distinguishable from it. This usage of ὁ ὢν is reflected in John 3:31 (and in other places) to introduce sharp distinctions: i.e. what is of the earth from what is from above.
This is not an accurate statement. The usage of ὁ ὢν in John 3:31 is for didactic purposes. When the attributive participle ὁ ὢν operates substantively, the article is usually generic and refers to any one of the class of individuals involved in the expression (this is basically true of the broader context of attributive participles). Here, it is not contrasting two particular individuals (not
things here in 3:31), but anyone belonging to two different classes: ones who are of the earth, and ones who are of heaven. The only way the usage is "reflected" is if you take ὁ ὢν in a generic sense in Romans 9:5, which I trust is something you don't want to do, or take John 3:31 in a wholly particular sense, which is also something I trust you also wouldn't do.
May be the issue here is that the grammars are being over-precise about what is attributive and what is substantive,
More like the bare-bones formulas have been brought down to irreducible complexity.
or you are taking examples of what is only an attributive character to mean "attributive only".
No, I am not, and I am losing my patience with these types of comments.
FYI I don't
need to follow the grammar to recognize the examples, but TRJM's restrictions actually make it impossible to point them out, since he just argues they are a substantival apposition and the whole argument becomes circular. Most people who know better would call it rubbish and walk away, and combing through the GNT to find specific examples in this position or that is an unreasonable demand due to the amount of labor involved. Unfortunately because of these factors I have to pick most examples from grammars or grammatical analyses and I'm not picking them out
by mistake.
Where there is no head noun or a wholly incompatible head noun (as and if modified - such as ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) then we should define participles or adjectives that might otherwise appear to be in the second attributive position as substantival only.
Yes, very insightful comment. It is hardly possible to imagine that the following is a second attributive position construction -- ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. Rather the participle phrase starts a new sentence. This is just how the GNT writers write. On this score, just count the number of times that ὁ ὢν functions substantivally, as opposed to being in the second attributive position.
In no way is ὁ Χριστὸς is "a wholly incompatible head noun" because it is "modified." The accusative case is also identified as a limiting case, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα limits the scope of ἐξ ὧν, thus "from whom [is] . . . according to the flesh." This is just a normal function, and it is not a grammatical disassociater (I know, it's not really a word). Cf. (1) ἰδού, γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο
τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι ὑμᾶς (2 Cor. 7:11), where τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι emphasizes the godly manner of their sorrow and (2) τό τε πέλαγος τὸ
κατὰ τὴν Κιλικίαν καὶ Παμφυλίαν διαπλεύσαντες (Acts 27:5), which limits the area of the sea they traveled.
You should have already noted the articular accusative in the construction above:
Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς (1 Peter 1:3)
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again...
Hayes lists this as ASAP (
article-substantive-article-participle), which stands for an attributive participle in the 2nd attributive position (SAP for the third, etc.) and it is the most common position of the attributive adjective. Here, κατὰ
τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος (woodenly translated,
according to the abundance of his mercy) is simply a limiting factor to the attributive participle ὁ ἀναγεννήσας.
Again, in the above construction the genitive case modifies the nominative ὁ θεὸς:
Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς (1 Peter 1:3)
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again...
The same is true of this example I previously noted from the grammar:
Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. (Mark 14:24)
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
So what you are both saying about the modification of the head noun is incorrect. Here are some other examples of attributive participles (proper) referring to a modified head noun:
Ὁ δὲ θεὸς πάσης χάριτος ὁ καλέσας ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1 Peter 5:10)
But the God of all grace who has called you to his eternal glory by Jesus Christ...
τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ τῆς μελλούσης ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης (Revelation 3:10)
The hour of temptation which shall come upon the whole world
Ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 13:20)
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus up from the dead, etc.
Note that these are all examples found in grammars and grammatical studies. Both of you keep asserting things, but have not substantiated anything in any meaningful way. The burden actually isn't on me to provide examples, but for you both to substantiate the arbitrary rules being advocated.
I'm done with arguing this in circles.