Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

Steven Avery

Well-known member
We know the Patripassions were abusing it to say Jesus was the Father in the second century. We know that Hippolytus who refuted them nevertheless indicates it does refer to Jesus as God, only that he is not the Father.

If not God the Father, then what God was Christ?

At that time I am not sure if anyone even spoke of “God the Son”. (Modern ECW translations have to be approached with caution, they can flip Son of God to God the Son.

Hippolytus seems to have a real problem with Romans 9:5.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Hippolytus seems to have a real problem with Romans 9:5.
You seem ignorant of the writings of the Greek Fathers, who frequently spoke of Christ as God.

Hippolytus writes, "Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, All things are delivered unto me of my Father. He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. And well has he named Christ the Almighty.” (Against Noetus, 6)

What problem, exactly, do you see in this?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You seem ignorant of the writings of the Greek Fathers, who frequently spoke of Christ as God.

My primary source is the New Testament.

Any church writer who uses the expression that Christ is God, in NT extrapolation, should deal with the question:

“What God is it, if not God the Father?”

This is even more a problem if he is writing from the perspective of three God-persons.

Be careful of the bandwagon fallacy.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
How often do you read the Greek NT? What you're saying is gibberish, and you should be looking beyond a "1st year Grammar book," since your understanding of the participle seems far too narrow. The participle is after all still a verb and can still form clauses in the attributive position, and that clause is adjectival and modifies the head noun. This is particularly expected when utilizing the participle forms of εἰμί, and it functions like a relative (a.k.a. adjective) clause in English. And since you've chosen to disregard the fact that a substantival participle is itself an attributive usage, only the noun is implied, you're effectively cutting off your own hands and feet in this discussion. But you don't seem to realize that. When the article stands before the participle, and refers to a previously mentioned noun in the sentence, it is not independent, but dependent, and is therefore attributive.


My cause is fine, it seems both of you disputing with me have not advanced far enough in the language to understand the precise usage of the participle; Gryllus rightly answered you at the beginning of the forum but you disregarded it:

Feel free to check the intermediate grammars I sent, I'm sure those that address the attributive participle will be saying the same thing. But instead you are feeding off The Real John Milton, who despite spouting out a bunch of terminology and attempting to sound knowledgeable is turning out arguments that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue in question.


It does support it. For instance, what was the Arian reply? It was not, "You're reading it wrong" or "there should be punctuation." It was to say that Jesus is "God" in the same sense that God said he had made Moses "a god" to Pharaoh--not, "you're reading it wrong/you're not following the punctuation/it's a doxology to the Father." And in the end, they lost the argument and that sect essentially died out. In Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, neo-Arians, Unitarians, and Socinians were still using that argument, with some advancing conjectural emendations of the passage. This is all very damning. No one before Erasmus that I am aware of understood ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν as a doxology to the Father. And he came to this conclusion by a faulty reading of an author he mistook as Ambrose, but was an interpolator we now refer to as Ambrosiaster.

Abbot did about as best a Unitarian could do in this situation, but he scarcely turned up any negative evidence at all. All he really managed to turn up as anything we might even consider negative evidence was the interpolator of Ignatius, but that reference was against the Patripassions who were stating that Christ himself was also the Father. Since the interpolator also refers to Christ as God, it seems Abbot missed that point or (as he does in other places) concealed it altogether. He tried also Eusebius, who never actually quotes the verse. In other words, the extant Greek fathers lend no real support at all to the notion that a doxology to the Father was read here.
I see lots of panicked ad hominems and false accusations. But you did not address the question I asked you.

Again, just show us an example of an attributive adjective / participle in the 2nd position, from the GNT , which cannot / does not by itself modify its own head noun, as you are proposing at Romans 9:5.

I gave you examples of actual attributive adjectives from the GNT. They are nothing like what you are proposing for at Romans 9:5. Here they are again — Matt 5:29 (ὁ ὀφθαλμός [σου ] ὁ δεξιὸς), Acts 11:15 ((τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον), Hebrews 6:4 (τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου), Rev. 19:2 (τὴν πόρνην τὴν μεγάλην), etc..

Next post, I just want a verse & chapter from you. Not lots of empty talk, as you are prone to do when you wish to evade the issue.
 

cjab

Well-known member
My cause is fine, it seems both of you disputing with me have not advanced far enough in the language to understand the precise usage of the participle; Gryllus rightly answered you at the beginning of the forum but you disregarded it:
I am very weary of those who pretend that great learning is needed to understand a language. If it could be used by the common man, it can't be that complex. Complexity is introduced by grammarians to pervert doctrine to for their own purposes.

Here is a list of "fathers" (from Abbot) who do see God the Father as exclusively "God over all" (taken from Abbot - not that I count myself a unitarian):

Eusebius uses ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς as a title exclusively belonging to the Father, and insists upon this against the Sabellians (doesn't explicitly refer to Rom 9;5).

Const. Apost. iii. I7:--"The Father is the God over all ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς; Christ is the only-begotten God, the beloved Son, the Lord of glory."

Throughout his work against Heresies, and very often, Irenaeus uses the title "the God over all" as the exclusive designation of the Father." Only exception is a Latin translation where Greek is lost.

Origen, Cont. Cels. viii. 14, who says:--" Grant that there are some among the multitude of believers, with their differences of opinion, who rashly suppose that the Saviour is the Most High God over all; yet certainly we do not, for we believe him when he said, The Father who sent me is greater than I."

Also Diodorus (of Antioch and- Tarsus) and Photius refer ὁ ὢν to God.

Also (per Westcott and Hort) 'Melito p. 413 Otto,' i. e. to his Apol. fragm. 2; comp. Routh, i. 118 ed. alt.

Of these Eusebius is by far the most important, and sufficient to controvert all the rest of the 'fathers' on his own.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
I don't find that convincing, the most natural reading is the connection with the subject, ὁ Χριστὸς. Romans 9:5 is probably one of the most well attested passages of scripture in the New Testament, and honestly none of the solutions being presented here are recognized in the writings of the Greek fathers and unequivocally the ancient versions.

One of the earliest extant Christian writers, who learned from John's disciple Polycarp, uses the scripture when commenting on Christ as both perfect man and perfect God. We know the Patripassions were abusing it to say Jesus was the Father in the second century. We know that Hippolytus who refuted them nevertheless indicates it does refer to Jesus as God, only that he is not the Father. In the third century also Novatian noted it in his work On the Trinity. We are told the same thing by Origen in his commentaries on the Romans. Athanasius employed it against the Arians.

Basil of Caesarea even goes so far concerning the passage to admonish his readers, "Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour 'God over all,' describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd . . . When the apostle said of the Son, we look for 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he think of Him as greater than the Father?" (On John, 17.3)

We know from Gregory of Nyssa that the passage was being widely employed against the heterodox of his day.

John Chrysostom uses it to demonstrate that the same appellations that belong to the Father belong also to Christ.

Zechariah of Myteline probably best preserves an explanation of how ὁ ὢν was understood (unfortunately it is from a Syriac translation of the original Greek, so some nuance is undoubtedly lost):

"Paul also, who learned by revelation from the Father concerning the Son, and says, 'When God Who separated me from my mother's womb and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son by my means.' This Paul has truly taught you who Jesus Christ is when he cries and says, 'Of whom is Christ in the flesh, Who is God over all, blessed for ever.' What occasion of calumny does not the word of Peter and Paul drive away from those who love calumny! for he called Him 'Christ' to show that He truly became man ; he said of Him, 'Who is of the Jews in the flesh,' to show that His existence does not date only from the time when He became incarnate; he said of Him, 'He is,' to tell us by his mode of expression that He is without beginning; he said of Him, 'Who is over all,' to proclaim Him Lord of created things; he said of Him, 'Who is God,' that we should not be drawn aside by the outward appearance and sufferings so as to deny his incorruptible Nature; he said of Him, 'blessed,' that we should worship Him as the Ruler of all, and not regard Him as a fellow-slave; he said of Him, 'Who is for ever,' to show that it is He Who by His word created all things, visible and invisible, whereby His Godhead is glorified. We have, then, Christ Who is God over all, Whom we shall worship, and we shall say to the heretics, 'In whomsoever the Spirit of Christ is not, he is none of His.' For we have the mind of Christ, and therefore we look for the revelation of God our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ," (The Syriac Chronicle, 2.5)​

Theodoret utilizes it among a number of passages that demonstrate Christ is God.

Cyril of Alexandria comments simply, "And in another sense Christ is the glory of Israel, for He came of them according to the flesh, though He be 'God over all,' and 'blessed for evermore, Amen.'" (The Gospel of Luke, Sermon 4)

All these give insight into how the Greek was read by the native speakers

This would be inexplicable, had the passage grammatically really formed a doxology to the Father. And the silence of the adversaries on it, who otherwise only needed to say they're reading it wrong, is nowhere to be found.
Those are interesting quotes by the ECF's but the last part in bold blue...sometimes contrary things happened to the adversaries that kept them from speaking their hearts. Just because it wasn't written down (as opposed to being burned or squelched in some way) doesn't mean there wasn't an opposing point of view. It also doesn't mean that the majority view was correct.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I don't find that convincing, the most natural reading is the connection with the subject, ὁ Χριστὸς. Romans 9:5 is probably one of the most well attested passages of scripture in the New Testament, and honestly none of the solutions being presented here are recognized in the writings of the Greek fathers and unequivocally the ancient versions.

One of the earliest extant Christian writers, who learned from John's disciple Polycarp, uses the scripture when commenting on Christ as both perfect man and perfect God. We know the Patripassions were abusing it to say Jesus was the Father in the second century. We know that Hippolytus who refuted them nevertheless indicates it does refer to Jesus as God, only that he is not the Father. In the third century also Novatian noted it in his work On the Trinity. We are told the same thing by Origen in his commentaries on the Romans. Athanasius employed it against the Arians.
From John 10:34,35 we know that "God" was also used of those to whom the word of God came, i.e. it denoted agency of God/God in action by his Spirit. And in this sense "God" was used in Jn 1:1c.

But what the Greeks did with "God," was to translate it from the monotheistic Jewish agency meaning, where the Father was acknowledged to be at the top, into being adjectival in a personal sense, so as to rival the Father and create a Trinity. This was consequent on the infusion of Greek philosophy, of gods begetting gods in heaven, which we know was the foundational theorem underpinning the Trinity.

This led to problems with identifying which versions of the newfangled "Tinity" were orthodox, and which were heterodox. Hence passages like Rom 9:5 were brought in to try to resolve Greek philsophical disputes.

Basil of Caesarea even goes so far concerning the passage to admonish his readers, "Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour 'God over all,' describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd . . . When the apostle said of the Son, we look for 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he think of Him as greater than the Father?" (On John, 17.3)


We know from Gregory of Nyssa that the passage was being widely employed against the heterodox of his day.
Precisely. Employed for political and philosophical reasons, not linguistic reasons.

John Chrysostom uses it to demonstrate that the same appellations that belong to the Father belong also to Christ.
Which goes against all apostolic teaching, which elsewhere sharply distinguishes the Father from Christ, as does Christ himself, by the Son (Kyrios)/Theos distinction.

Zechariah of Myteline probably best preserves an explanation of how ὁ ὢν was understood (unfortunately it is from a Syriac translation of the original Greek, so some nuance is undoubtedly lost):

"Paul also, who learned by revelation from the Father concerning the Son, and says, 'When God Who separated me from my mother's womb and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son by my means.' This Paul has truly taught you who Jesus Christ is when he cries and says, 'Of whom is Christ in the flesh, Who is God over all, blessed for ever.' What occasion of calumny does not the word of Peter and Paul drive away from those who love calumny! for he called Him 'Christ' to show that He truly became man ; he said of Him, 'Who is of the Jews in the flesh,' to show that His existence does not date only from the time when He became incarnate; he said of Him, 'He is,' to tell us by his mode of expression that He is without beginning; he said of Him, 'Who is over all,' to proclaim Him Lord of created things; he said of Him, 'Who is God,' that we should not be drawn aside by the outward appearance and sufferings so as to deny his incorruptible Nature; he said of Him, 'blessed,' that we should worship Him as the Ruler of all, and not regard Him as a fellow-slave; he said of Him, 'Who is for ever,' to show that it is He Who by His word created all things, visible and invisible, whereby His Godhead is glorified. We have, then, Christ Who is God over all, Whom we shall worship, and we shall say to the heretics, 'In whomsoever the Spirit of Christ is not, he is none of His.' For we have the mind of Christ, and therefore we look for the revelation of God our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ," (The Syriac Chronicle, 2.5)​
This is a synthetic attempt to misuse a simple passage for a purpose for which it wasn't intended. A doxology only has one purpose, and we know what Rom 9:5 really means from other related passages such as Eph 4:4-6, with which it is closely aligned.


Theodoret utilizes it among a number of passages that demonstrate Christ is God.

Cyril of Alexandria comments simply, "And in another sense Christ is the glory of Israel, for He came of them according to the flesh, though He be 'God over all,' and 'blessed for evermore, Amen.'" (The Gospel of Luke, Sermon 4)

All these give insight into how the Greek was read by the native speakers
There was clearly no consensus amongst "Greek native speakers" on Rom 9:5, judging from Eusebius.

This would be inexplicable, had the passage grammatically really formed a doxology to the Father. And the silence of the adversaries on it, who otherwise only needed to say they're reading it wrong, is nowhere to be found.
Puff. What was active at the time was the ruthless suppression of those who disagreed with the orthodox philosophy. We don't know what others were saying of Rom 9:5.

Even the writings of someone as important as Nestorius were completely erased from history, except that we have one of his books Bazaar of Heracleides handed down from a single translation in Syriac. One thing we can credit the "orthodox" with doing is ruthlessly suppressing all dissenting opinions. They were in the business of imprisoning and exiling their opponents too.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Again, just show us an example of an attributive adjective / participle in the 2nd position, from the GNT , which cannot / does not by itself modify its own head noun, as you are proposing at Romans 9:5.
And by far the biggest problem with taking ὁ ὢν in Romans 9:5 in the second attributive position is that there is no such thing in all of the GNT where such an attributive adjective fails to modify the head noun by itself: ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. In other words, ὁ Χριστὸς [τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ]ὁ ὢν is gibberish.

You are equivocating over adjectives and adjectival participles. Ibiblio.org has published Robert W. Funk's A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek online. As Funk notes,
The attributive participle in complex n-clusters may theoretically take any of the complements or adjuncts the corresponding finite verb may take. The participles in (12), (13), and (14) take direct objects.​
The examples cited are (12) John 8:18 (ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ), (13) 5:23 (τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν), and (14) Romans 2:14 (ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα). He goes on to note τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι in Galatians 2:9 where the participle takes an indirect object. Two of these examples are in the "2nd position."

As I have said before, the substantival participle is a subset of the attributive, and both are adjectival. A.T. Robertson notes, "All articular participles are, of course, attributive," and, "It is a very common thing in the N. T., as already noted, to have ὁ and the participle where a relative clause is possible." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In the Light of Historical Research, pp. 1106, 1108). He also notes that "For a long passage . . . The order of the words is not insisted on." (p. 1107). For this, he offers (among others) the fine example of:

κράζοντες Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται βοηθεῖτε· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ τόπου τούτου πάντας πανταχοῦ διδάσκων ἔτι τε καὶ Ἕλληνας εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ κεκοίνωκεν τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον​
Also among the attributive participles, he quotes (p. 1108, noting also the agreement of Moulton, Sanday, and Headlam),

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (Ro. 9:5)​

Your own example in John 1:18 turned out to be a textbook example of the Attributive Participle in the 3rd Attributive Position, and it very clearly forms an adjectival clause (Wallace) followed by the resumptive ἐκεῖνος. (Cf. Robertson, A Grammar..., p. 707). You chose rather to attack the grammarian.

Actually, I'm being kind. The alternative to the Alexandrian μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν variant is μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν (source: UBS4). You omitted the article before μονογενὴς and claimed it's not "in the first or second attributive position," (the actual reading is) and did not disclose your reading was in the third. Why?

I believe that answers all your "objections"/questions. But some other examples of Attributive Participles given in grammars are as follows (emphasis sometimes mine, translations and comments theirs) :

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.​
Mathewson, David L.; Emig, Elodie Ballantine. Intermediate Greek Grammar (p. 266)

ἄρτος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων (John 6: 50)​
the bread that comes down from heaven.​
οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι οἱ προάγοντες αὐτόν (Matt 21: 9)​
And the crowds that went ahead of him​
Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition (p. 327)

The following grammarians have also written examples of the attributive participle, though not specifically using examples from the NT:

ἄνθρωπος ὁ λέγων ταῦτα may be translated “the man who is saying these things” or “the man who says these things.”​
Black, David Alan. Learn to Read New Testament Greek (p. 150)
ἄνθρωπος λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ ἐστίν ὁ διδάσκαλός – “the man speaking to the crowd is my teacher.”​
Hubner, Jasmin A. A Concise Greek Grammar (p. 180)

I will add, in response to some remarks above by you and Cjab above, that immediately when you accuse someone of something, you open yourself up to the same criticism. So when it comes, there's no reason to complain about it.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Any church writer who uses the expression that Christ is God, in NT extrapolation, should deal with the question:
“What God is it, if not God the Father?”
This is even more a problem if he is writing from the perspective of three God-persons.

Thomas L. Hubeart, writing from the Trinitarian position, points out the problem for the Trinitarian if Jesus Christ is God over all.

Romans 9:5 (KJV vs. NIV) Notes © 1998, 1999
Thomas L. Hubeart
http://www.pennuto.com/bible/rom9_5.htm

The plain fact is that the NIV's translation, in calling Christ "God over all," confuses the Persons of the Godhead and is thus theologically unsound....
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
John 8:18 (ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ), (
That’s not an attributive participle in the second attributive position.



13) 5:23 (τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν),
τὸν πέμψαντα is able to modify τὸν πατέρα by itself without the pronoun.

and (14) Romans 2:14 (ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα).
This is the third attributive position and even so makes perfect sense without the words μὴ νόμον.

He goes on to note τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι in Galatians 2:9 where the participle takes an indirect object. Two of these examples are in the "2nd position."
Same here. The attributive does not need μοι to make sense.


κράζοντες Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται βοηθεῖτε· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ τόπου τούτου πάντας πανταχοῦ διδάσκων ἔτι τε καὶ Ἕλληνας εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ κεκοίνωκεν τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον​
Same. ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ διδάσκων is perfectly legible.​

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (Ro. 9:5)​
Not sure what you are doing with this clause. The Trinitarian argument is that ὁ ὢν is in the second attributive position modifying the apparently head noun ὁ χριστὸς. So you should be printing out the following: ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν..


Your own example in John 1:18 turned out to be a textbook example of the Attributive Participle in the 3rd Attributive Position,
Nonsense. But we are talking about the second attributive position.

I believe that answers all your "objections"/questions.
You wish. I need to see substance. Not just lots of empty talk.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Thomas L. Hubeart, writing from the Trinitarian position, points out the problem for the Trinitarian if Jesus Christ is God over all.
If fact Trinitarians (after the Greek tradition) don't care that their interpretation of Rom 9:5 is polytheistic. If they did they wouldn't be Trinitarians after the Greek tradition.
 

brianrw

Member
I need to see substance. Not just lots of empty talk.
Please list your source for asserting that ὁ ὢν cannot function as an attributive participle, because thus far I've noted two grammarians who clearly disagree (a third source is noted below).

Also, please list your source for asserting that an attributive participle in the 2nd Attributive Position cannot receive an object or prepositional phrase, and that when it receives "modifiers" in this place it can only do so appositionally. I've noted multiple grammarians that provide examples that show this is not the case.

All you've been doing thus far is just weasel wording.

That’s not an attributive participle in the second attributive position.
I never said it was.

Same here. The attributive does not need μοι to make sense.
It's an example of an attributive participle taking a direct object.

τὸν πέμψαντα is able to modify τὸν πατέρα by itself without the pronoun.
Same as above.

This is the third attributive position and even so makes perfect sense without the words μὴ νόμον.
I never offered it as a 2nd Attributive construction.

You're avoiding the issue by mischaracterizing what I wrote. I was not using ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ and ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα as examples of attributive participles in the 2nd Attributive Position. Rather, Funk is using them as examples where the attributive adjective takes a direct object, and in the third instance an indirect object. That is, by the way, something you seem to be denying. I wrote:
You are equivocating over adjectives and adjectival participles. Ibiblio.org has published Robert W. Funk's A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek online. As Funk notes,

"The attributive participle in complex n-clusters may theoretically take any of the complements or adjuncts the corresponding finite verb may take. The participles in (12), (13), and (14) take direct objects."

The examples cited are (12) John 8:18 (ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ), (13) 5:23 (τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν), and (14) Romans 2:14 (ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα). He goes on to note τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι in Galatians 2:9 where the participle takes an indirect object. Two of these examples are in the "2nd position."
You seem to have a habit of handling things misleadingly.

Same. ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ διδάσκων is perfectly legible.
Lol. You were saying elsewhere this type of thing couldn't happen with an attributive participle in the 2nd Attributive Position.

As I said already, ὁ ὢν can function like an adjective when it is modifying a noun. I've supported that already from Wallace and Robertson. You can note that the same is indicated over at Hellenisticgreek.com:
The participle of εἰμί could be used like an adjective to modify a noun. To represent this usage in English, we often need to use a relative clause with who, which, or that.

Source: https://hellenisticgreek.com/28.html

Participles can take an objects and be modified by adverbs and prepositional phrases, and ὁ ὢν is no exception. They don't lose this function when they operate in the attributive position, only in that sense their adjectival quality is emphasized. Since both attributive (and its subset of substantival) uses are considered "adjectival participles," you cannot get around the fact that ὁ ὢν has this function, whether it makes sense to you or not.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Please list your source for asserting that ὁ ὢν cannot function as an attributive participle, because thus far I've noted two grammarians who clearly disagree (a third source is noted below).

Also, please list your source for asserting that an attributive participle in the 2nd Attributive Position cannot receive an object or prepositional phrase, and that when it receives "modifiers" in this place it can only do so appositionally. I've noted multiple grammarians that provide examples that show this is not the case.

All you've been doing thus far is just weasel wording.


I never said it was.


It's an example of an attributive participle taking a direct object.


Same as above.


I never offered it as a 2nd Attributive construction.

You're avoiding the issue by mischaracterizing what I wrote. I was not using ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ and ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα as examples of attributive participles in the 2nd Attributive Position. Rather, Funk is using them as examples where the attributive adjective takes a direct object, and in the third instance an indirect object. That is, by the way, something you seem to be denying. I wrote:

You seem to have a habit of handling things misleadingly.


Lol. You were saying elsewhere this type of thing couldn't happen with an attributive participle in the 2nd Attributive Position.

As I said already, ὁ ὢν can function like an adjective when it is modifying a noun. I've supported that already from Wallace and Robertson. You can note that the same is indicated over at Hellenisticgreek.com:


Participles can take an objects and be modified by adverbs and prepositional phrases, and ὁ ὢν is no exception. They don't lose this function when they operate in the attributive position, only in that sense their adjectival quality is emphasized. Since both attributive (and its subset of substantival) uses are considered "adjectival participles," you cannot get around the fact that ὁ ὢν has this function, whether it makes sense to you or not.
What does ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν mean, assuming that ὁ ὢν is in the second attributive position ?

Also I have not said that an attributive participle in the 2nd Attributive Position cannot receive an object or prepositional phrase. I have said rather that every legitimate attributive participle or adjective in the 2nd attributive position in the bible makes sense even without any of it’s accompanying object or prepositional phrase. Please stop misrepresenting my position. It betrays either a lack of reading comprehension skills or desperation, or both.

Lol. You were saying elsewhere this type of thing couldn't happen with an attributive participle in the 2nd Attributive Position.
Misrepresentation..ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ διδάσκων ( the man who is teaching) makes perfect sense even without it’s modifiers , In other words, it is able to stand on its own in its clause.. ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν cannot. It is rather a senseless expression without its modifiers . That is a big clue that ὁ ὢν with is modifiers is an appositive.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Sorry, I meant It's an example of an attributive participle taking an indirect object. The direct object was listed below it. I edited the post incorrectly.
 

brianrw

Member
Bold above is wrong. I meant to say rather the following: “That is a big clue that ὁ ὢν with is modifiers starts a new sentence.”
We all make mistakes :)

Again I'd like your source. None of this has anything to do with the function of ὁ ὢν as an attributive participle; Wallace, Robertson, the author of Hellenisticgreek.com--and I'll now add Mathewson and Emig (Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 89)--do not agree with your opinion. Wallace, Mathewson and Emig clearly understand an attributive usage of ὁ ὢν in John 1:18. A.T. Robertson lists Romans 9:5 as an example of an attributive participle..

The participle is in an attributive position, which has the article and does refer to a noun previously mentioned in the sentence, so there is no reason to insist on a substantival usage and claim it is "independent." Since the attributive participle can take an object or prepositional phrase, there is again no reason to judge it stands or should stand independently but that objects and prepositional phrases will be inserted as the sentence requires. Since ὢν is an equative verb, we naturally expect words to follow. That does not mean it cannot be an attributive participle.

Misrepresentation..ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ διδάσκων ( the man who is teaching) makes perfect sense even without it’s modifiers.
Also I have not said that an attributive participle in the 2nd Attributive Position cannot receive an object or prepositional phrase.
But that's not what you wrote, is it? What you wrote was more absolute:

Another point to note is that when an adjective has modifiers, it is rarely if ever in the second attributive position. In such cases the adjective with modifiers is an appositive. In other words, the second attributive position is article + noun + article + adjective, not article + noun + article + adjective and it’s modifiers.
I've never heard of such a rule, so without a source I'll take it as your own assertion. And again, you keep saying adjective when we are dealing with adjectival participles. Is there a reason for this? And do you have a source?

The passage in question here is

κράζοντες Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται βοηθεῖτε· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ τόπου τούτου πάντας πανταχοῦ διδάσκων ἔτι τε καὶ Ἕλληνας εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ κεκοίνωκεν τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον​

Robertson specifically provides as an example of an attributive participle and it is in the second attributive position. That does contradict what you wrote. The other examples presented were in response to this "rule."
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
What does ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν mean, assuming that ὁ ὢν is in the second attributive position ?

Simple question.

If you want the text to say “and out of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all..” the GNT has a proven way of saying precisely such a thing . It is as follows — ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς lτὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὅς ἐστιν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. Look at
Luke 2:11 for this precedent: ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον Σωτήρ, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς Κύριος, ἐν πόλει Δαυείδ.

The GNT never uses the articular ὢν in the second attributive position to say “X,who is Y.” I don’t think even Koine ever does. For starters ὁ ὢν in the second attributive position does not mean “ who is” but “ the one who is existing.” What you are proposing is not acceptable Greek at all. EDITED
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cjab

Well-known member
κράζοντες Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται βοηθεῖτε· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τοῦ τόπου τούτου πάντας πανταχοῦ διδάσκων ἔτι τε καὶ Ἕλληνας εἰσήγαγεν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ κεκοίνωκεν τὸν ἅγιον τόπον τοῦτον​

Robertson specifically provides as an example of an attributive participle and it is in the second attributive position. That does contradict what you wrote. The other examples presented were in response to this "rule."
Seems to me John 3:13 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is the best argument for your translation, as the biblical passage that is most closely aligned to Rom 9:5. Yet here there is no noun following the ὁ, so the ὁ must relate to υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

But in Rom 9:5 ὁ sticks to Θεὸς more closely than it sticks to ὢν, where ὢν ἐπὶ άντων is attributive of Θεὸς.

So going on about ὁ ὤν to the exlusion of ὁ Θεὸς just doesn't hit the mark, where if ὁ is referring forward at all, it's going to refer to Θεὸς.

Articles relate to nouns more than they do noun modifiers.
 
Top