Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
And look at Acts 8:25, it even has the same preposition (ἐπὶ) and adjective (πάσης) as Romans 9:5. How does the apostle say “X, who is / was over all “ here . See for yourself:

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ Αἰθίοψ εὐνοῦχος δυνάστης Κανδάκης βασιλίσσης Αἰθιόπων, ὃς ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης αὐτῆς
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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.
If the above was original ( which it isn’t) ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ would be an appositive, ὁ ὤν here would not be in the second attributive position. So even the fake example does not work.
 

cjab

Well-known member
If the above was original ( which it isn’t)
No-one knows, but the text is certainly omitted in important manuscripts.

ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ would be an appositive, ὁ ὤν here would not be in the second attributive position. So even the fake example does not work.
ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is a dependent clause and could never stand on its own, which is surely why it may be deemed second attributive (unlike ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς in Rom 9:5 which technically could be appositive, but isn't, which is why some early manuscripts have breaks).

Rom 9:5 would never have been worded with ὤν if there was any relation back to Christ. Here Paul would have used ὅς ἐστιν due to the noun ὁ Θεὸς.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Rom 9:5 would never have been worded with ὤν if there was any relation back to Christ. Here Paul would have used ὅς ἐστιν due to the noun ὁ Θεὸς.
Θεὸς, not Θεὸς. It makes a difference.

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. If you knew how to read it, rather than just blindly chop & parse it, you would understand.
None of the above statements is accurate. Again, ὁ ὢν and ὅς ἐστιν are functionally equivalent. I'll add that the participle is usually restrictive, whereas the relative would be nonrestrictive. Also again, Metzger addresses this point in his Textual Commentary:

The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause . . . and thus describes ὁ Χριστὸς as being "God over all." (2nd Ed. p. 461)

Again,

Here the expression ὁ ὢν is obviously relatival in character and equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. (New Testament Studies - Philological, Versional, and Patristic, p. 67)

This is in addition to the grammarians Wallace, Mathewson and Emig. It's also noted in the Greek text of Beza more than four hundred years ago,

Et nemo qui vel a limine Graecam linguam salutarit, ignorat articulum praepositiuum cum participio saepe construi loco provocabuli cum verbo finito: ut ὁ ὢν nihil aliud declaret quam ὅς ἐστι.
And no one who meets the Greek utterance afresh is unaware that the article placed before the participle is often constructed in place of a pronoun together with a finite verb, so that ὁ ὢν means nothing else than ὅς ἐστι.

All of the grammars within my reach will tell you that the attributive participle would usually be translated as a relative clause (Robertson; Smyth, Funk; Black; Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plummer; Mathewson and Emig, Mounce). The rules do not suddenly change when dealing with a participle form of εἰμί.

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.
And yet despite your objections the host of English translators do render ὁ ὢν attributively, after the pattern "X who is Y." The Latin does the same. You're stumbling block is reading the Greek from an English perspective. The participle is represented by the nearest English equivalent.

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. If you knew how to read it, rather than just blindly chop & parse it, you would understand.
Imprecise, but it was inevitable that you would eventually refute yourself, as you just did.

The participle is accompanied by modifers, in the case of Romans 9:5 a prepositional phrase, because the modifiers restrict the scope of the participle. But you seem to miss the fact that an attributive participle can take an object or be modified by a prepositional phrase.

If the above was original ( which it isn’t) ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ would be an appositive, ὁ ὤν here would not be in the second attributive position. So even the fake example does not work.
And that's not the case here, is it, where ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is indeed in the second attributive position, as it stands in most manuscripts: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. I digress that it is missing in Egyptian texts, and appears to me a regional omission, since very it is attested in writings more ancient than they.

I’m going to try to make this clear again, that Substantival is a subset of the attributive participle when it subject is implied:

“When the article is used there is no doubt about the participle being adjective . . . All articular participles are, of course, attributive.” (Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament pp. 1105, 1106)​

“The attributive participle, with or without the article, modifies a substantive like any other adjective . . . An attributive participle with the article does duty as a substantive when the noun with which it directly agrees is omitted.” (Smyth, Herbert H, A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges - Google Books, p. 312) A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges - Google Books

But the noun with which it agrees (ὁ υἱὸς) is not omitted, is it?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Θεὸς, not Θεὸς. It makes a difference.
No difference whatsoever, because God is a person in Pauline theology, not a designator for a type of (Trinitarian) being.

In any case Θεὸς is present in Rom 9:5 , is it not?

Also the phrase "who is God" only occurs in one place in the Trinitarian NT. If it were really so as a point of doctrine, it would occur much more often, and not be confined to a suspect interpretation in a doxology.
 

brianrw

Member
In any case Θεὸς is present in Rom 9:5 , is it not?
What I meant was that Romans 9:5 has θεὸς, not ὁ θεὸς--ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. It makes a difference grammatically. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Metzger addresses this point in his Textual Commentary:

The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause . . . and thus describes ὁ Χριστὸς as being "God over all." (2nd Ed. p. 461)
Again,

Here the expression ὁ ὢν is obviously relatival in character and equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. (New Testament Studies - Philological, Versional, and Patristic, p. 67)

... And no one who meets the Greek utterance afresh is unaware that the article placed before the participle is often constructed in place of a pronoun together with a finite verb, so that ὁ ὢν means nothing else than ὅς ἐστι. [Beza]
Let me add two examples to my above comment regarding the relative usage of the attributive participle ὁ ὤν from the Greek OT:

Exodus 3:14 - ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν for אֶֽהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה. The attributive participle stands for the relative construction אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה.​
1 Kings 16:22 - λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι, "The people who are with Omri" translates the attributive participle ὁ ὢν where the Hebrew has a relative אֲשֶׁר.​
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
What I meant was that Romans 9:5 has θεὸς, not ὁ θεὸς--ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. It makes a difference grammatically. I'm sorry for the confusion.
Still confused. ὁ (ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων) θεὸς in standalone form is still ὁ θεὸς by the ordinary rules of grammar.

Let me add two examples to my above comment regarding the relative usage of the attributive participle ὁ ὤν from the Greek OT:

Exodus 3:14 - ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν for אֶֽהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה. The attributive participle stands for the relative construction אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה.​
1 Kings 16:22 - λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι, "The people who are with Omri" translates the attributive participle ὁ ὢν where the Hebrew has a relative אֲשֶׁר.​
Oh yes, The famous ὁ ὤν which is reputed to have given rise to the record in several ancient authors that the Jews worshiped a donkey or ass, that is, that they practiced onolatry (ὄνος/ass). "The one who is."

However there is no noun after ὁ ὤν in your examples.

ὁ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς taken on its own, doesn't mean "the one who is above all God" but "the God who is above all".
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Θεὸς, not Θεὸς. It makes a difference.



None of the above statements is accurate. Again, ὁ ὢν and ὅς ἐστιν are functionally equivalent. I'll add that the participle is usually restrictive, whereas the relative would be nonrestrictive. Also again, Metzger addresses this point in his Textual Commentary:

The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause . . . and thus describes ὁ Χριστὸς as being "God over all." (2nd Ed. p. 461)

Again,

Here the expression ὁ ὢν is obviously relatival in character and equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. (New Testament Studies - Philological, Versional, and Patristic, p. 67)

This is in addition to the grammarians Wallace, Mathewson and Emig. It's also noted in the Greek text of Beza more than four hundred years ago,

Et nemo qui vel a limine Graecam linguam salutarit, ignorat articulum praepositiuum cum participio saepe construi loco provocabuli cum verbo finito: ut ὁ ὢν nihil aliud declaret quam ὅς ἐστι.
And no one who meets the Greek utterance afresh is unaware that the article placed before the participle is often constructed in place of a pronoun together with a finite verb, so that ὁ ὢν means nothing else than ὅς ἐστι.

All of the grammars within my reach will tell you that the attributive participle would usually be translated as a relative clause (Robertson; Smyth, Funk; Black; Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plummer; Mathewson and Emig, Mounce). The rules do not suddenly change when dealing with a participle form of εἰμί.


And yet despite your objections the host of English translators do render ὁ ὢν attributively, after the pattern "X who is Y." The Latin does the same. You're stumbling block is reading the Greek from an English perspective. The participle is represented by the nearest English equivalent.


Imprecise, but it was inevitable that you would eventually refute yourself, as you just did.

The participle is accompanied by modifers, in the case of Romans 9:5 a prepositional phrase, because the modifiers restrict the scope of the participle. But you seem to miss the fact that an attributive participle can take an object or be modified by a prepositional phrase.


And that's not the case here, is it, where ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is indeed in the second attributive position, as it stands in most manuscripts: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. I digress that it is missing in Egyptian texts, and appears to me a regional omission, since very it is attested in writings more ancient than they.

I’m going to try to make this clear again, that Substantival is a subset of the attributive participle when it subject is implied:

“When the article is used there is no doubt about the participle being adjective . . . All articular participles are, of course, attributive.” (Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament pp. 1105, 1106)​

“The attributive participle, with or without the article, modifies a substantive like any other adjective . . . An attributive participle with the article does duty as a substantive when the noun with which it directly agrees is omitted.” (Smyth, Herbert H, A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges - Google Books, p. 312) A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges - Google Books

But the noun with which it agrees (ὁ υἱὸς) is not omitted, is it?

What does ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν mean, assuming that ὁ ὢν is in the second attributive position ? Third request.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Still confused. ὁ (ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων) θεὸς in standalone form is still ὁ θεὸς by the ordinary rules of grammar.


Oh yes, The famous ὁ ὤν which is reputed to have given rise to the record in several ancient authors that the Jews worshiped a donkey or ass, that is, that they practiced onolatry (ὄνος/ass). "The one who is."

However there is no noun after ὁ ὤν in your examples.

ὁ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς taken on its own, doesn't mean "the one who is above all God" but "the God who is above all".
That’s one legitimate way of reading the grammar here!
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Exodus 3:14 - ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν for אֶֽהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה. The attributive participle stands for the relative construction אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה.

In Exodus 3:14 ὁ ὤν is functioning substantially, not attributively. In other words it is in the predicate position, NOT in the attributive position. In other words it is a predicate nominative in the first use (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ), and the subject of a sentence in the second ( ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με..)
See bold above.

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῗς τοῗς υἱοῗςΙσραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

This fella’s Koine is just hopeless.
 

brianrw

Member
This fella’s Koine is just hopeless.
You feel this way because you're both taking a very novice approach to the participle, by simply treating ὁ as a substantivizer rather than acknowledging the function is actually relatival. So you think I'm the one who is confused. Neither of you seem to recognize that Koine Greek is a participle loving language and that it prefers an attributive participle construction over a relative clause. So let me reiterate that ὁ ὢν is functionally equivalent to ὅς ἐστι:

1. Metzger​


The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause . . . and thus describes ὁ Χριστὸς as being "God over all." (Textual Commentary, 2nd Ed. p. 461)​

Again,

Here the expression ὁ ὢν is obviously relatival in character and equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. (New Testament Studies - Philological, Versional, and Patristic, p. 67)

2. Harris​


c. ὁ ὢν as Relatival ("who is" = ὅς ἐστι)
The relatival use of an articular participle is common in NT Greek (see BDF §412) and I have cited above (n. 37) the eight NT uses of ὁ ὢν in this sense. But why is this the preferable way to construe this phrase in verse 5b and why does the burden of proof rest with those who would construe it otherwise? First, a proper name (ὁ Χριστὸς) precedes and agrees with ὁ ὢν, so that a change of subject is antecedently improbable. (Jesus as God, p. 159)​

3. Beza​


Et nemo qui vel a limine Graecam linguam salutarit, ignorat articulum praepositiuum cum participio saepe construi loco provocabuli cum verbo finito: ut ὁ ὢν nihil aliud declaret quam ὅς ἐστι.

And no one who meets the Greek utterance afresh is unaware that the article placed before the participle is often constructed in place of a pronoun together with a finite verb, so that ὁ ὢν means nothing else than ὅς ἐστι. (Annotation on Romans 9:5)​

4. Meyer​


"ὁ ὢν, which must be taken as an attributive definition of ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀνθρ. . . . is equivalent to ὅς ἐστι" (Commentary on John 3:13)​

5. Wallace​

This is noted in his examples of adjectives in the Third Attributive Position (incidentally, I don't agree with this variant or the translation of μονογενὴς, and would prefer to translate it in the present due to the Jewish idiom of rest)

John 1:18 μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο​
the unique God who was near the heart of the Father​
More frequent than the adj. in the third attributive positions is the participle. When a participle is used, the article should normally be translated like a relative pronoun. (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 307)​

6. Mathewson and Emig​

2.25. Analyze the pronouns (in bold) according to their kind, their antecedent (or postcedent), and function in the following NT texts.​
...ἐγένετο. 18θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (Intermediate Greek Grammar pp. 88-89, emphasis theirs)​

7. Hellenisticgreek.com (Professor Palmer)

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.​

8. A.T. Robertson​

Among the attributive participles, he quotes (p. 1108, noting also the agreement of Moulton, Sanday, and Headlam),

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (Ro. 9:5)​

What does ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν mean, assuming that ὁ ὢν is in the second attributive position ? Third request.
ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν means, "Christ, who is." This participle construction is modified by a prepositional phrase ἐπὶ πάντων ("over all"), which limits the scope of the participle to "Christ, who is over all." I did answer that.

In Exodus 3:14 ὁ ὤν is functioning substantially, not attributively. In other words it is in the predicate position, NOT in the attributive position. In other words it is a predicate nominative in the first use (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ), and the subject of a sentence in the second ( ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με..)
You mean substantively. Rather, it is an attributive participle serving as a predicate in an equative clause.

The real problem here is that you have taken the position that a substantival participle is neither attributive nor adjectival. This error is straight out of a misunderstanding of the Blog site you claimed was a "Grammar," which contrasted "substantival" with "adjectival." Grammars don't divide them that way, but treat substantival as a subset of attributive under the class of adjectival participles. Some newer grammars may split them as attributive and substantival under adjectival, but this is for clarity of instruction. Note, again, that:

All articular participles are, of course, attributive (A.T. Robertson, pp. 1106, 1108).​

and

The first question one needs to ask when attempting to determine the nuance of a particular participle is, Does it have the article? If the answer is yes, it is adjectival . . . The adjectival participle may occupy any of the three attributive positions and both predicate positions. (Wallace, p. 617)​
The same is true in the broader scope of Attic Greek (on which Koine is based), "The attributive Participle is often used without a noun, thus becoming a noun itself" (Goodell, Thomas D., A School Grammar of Attic Greek)."A Little Greek is a Dangerous Thing"

My actual point, which you did not address at all, is that it stands in place of the original (Hebrew) relative construction.

Still confused. ὁ (ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων) θεὸς in standalone form is still ὁ θεὸς by the ordinary rules of grammar.
I'm not. You are oversimplifying the function of the article here as merely a substantivizer, when the usage is actually relatival. In other words, ὁ behaves like a pronoun. You are confusing this construction with ὁ (ἐπὶ πάντων) θεὸς. The same is noted by Metzger and Harris.

The attributive participle ὁ ὢν is not only adjectival in nature but also equative, and thus when placed between two nouns it does not have an ambiguous function. The default in this case would be to look for a prior noun as the antecedent (as it is as we would say relatival in function). This is why both Metzger and Harris state it would be unnatural for ὁ ὢν to refer to θεὸς rather than its natural antecedent, ὁ Χριστὸς.

Μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν οὐχὶ ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
I'm not. You are oversimplifying the function of the article here as merely a substantivizer, when the usage is actually relatival. In other words, ὁ behaves like a pronoun. You are confusing this construction with ὁ (ἐπὶ πάντων) θεὸς. The same is noted by Metzger and Harris.


The attributive participle ὁ ὢν is not only adjectival in nature but also equative, and thus when placed between two nouns it does not have an ambiguous function. The default in this case would be to look for a prior noun as the antecedent (as it is as we would say relatival in function). This is why both Metzger and Harris state it would be unnatural for ὁ ὢν to refer to θεὸς rather than its natural antecedent, ὁ Χριστὸς.

Μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν οὐχὶ ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται
ὁ is a pronoun in Epic Greek. Epic Greek is not Koine. In Koine ὁ functions as an article (which it doesn't in Epic).

In any case, for the reasons I have stated, which include making ὢν a special case, and also for reasons in the other thread, it would be even more unnatural for Paul to label Christ as God above all by this tawdry method, when he has elsewhere used that of the Father alone.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
"ὁ ὢν, which must be taken as an attributive definition of ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀνθρ. . . . is equivalent to ὅς ἐστι" (Commentary on John 3:13)​



ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν means, "Christ, who is." This participle construction is modified by a prepositional phrase ἐπὶ πάντων ("over all"), which limits the scope of the participle to "Christ, who is over all." I did answer that.

If ὁ ὢν is equivalent to ὅς ἐστι why can you not find a single irrefutable example of it being used in this way in the GNT? Please do not use John 1:18 as an example, as Bart Ehrman explains so well in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture how Wallace gets the grammar wrong here.

You mean substantively. Rather, it is an attributive participle serving as a predicate in an equative clause.

You just copied what I said, and reworded it. My words: "In other words it is a predicate nominative in the first use (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ),.."


The real problem here is that you have taken the position that a substantival participle is neither attributive nor adjectival. This error is straight out of a misunderstanding of the Blog site you claimed was a "Grammar," which contrasted "substantival" with "adjectival." Grammars don't divide them that way, but treat substantival as a subset of attributive under the class of adjectival participles. Some newer grammars may split them as attributive and substantival under adjectival, but this is for clarity of instruction. Note, again, that:

Nonsense. The real problem here is that you like to keep mis-representing me, even while plagiarizing some of my comments. I have never taken the position that a substantival participle is "neither attributive nor adjectival." The substantival use of the participle is a subset of the adjectival use. No one denies this. I am not talking about a substantival participle not being a subset of the attributive, but rather saying that an attributive participle in the second position, as you are asserting that ὁ ὤν is in Romans 9:5, is an adjectival use of the participle. Do you understand that statement ? This use is different than either a substantival or adverbial use. Do you understand this ? Do you not understand that an adjectival participle, is not a substantival participle ? That it is a different category of use ? That's all I am asserting. Basic grammar:

The participle can be used in one of three major categories of use:

  1. Adjectivally
    A participle can be used as an adjective to modify a noun or assert something about it. This is a common use of the adjective in Greek.
    E.g. Colossians 1:12 "to the Father who made us sufficient". The word 'made sufficient' is a participle in Greek, but it needs to be translated into a relative clause in English to make sense.
  2. Substantively (This category is really a subset of the adjectival use.)
    A participle can be used as a 'substantive' to take the place of a noun.
  3. Adverbially
    Participles can also be used in the same way that an adverb is, to modify a verb. There are different classifications and uses of adverbial participles. (These are also referred to as 'Circumstantial participles'.) One of the most exciting and enlightening areas of Greek grammar for the student of the New Testament comes in identifying the use of these adverbial participles. Listed below are some of the most common uses found in the New Testament. For a complete list of all adverbial participles (and all non-adjectival uses),

---

All articular participles are, of course, attributive (A.T. Robertson, pp. 1106, 1108).​

No kidding.

---

You are creating a distraction in order to not deal with the elephant in the room ,your false, unproven assertion which declares that -- ὁ ὢν is equivalent to ὅς ἐστι .

EDITED RULE 22 VIOLATION
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brianrw

Member
Please do not use John 1:18 as an example, as Bart Ehrman explains so well in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture how Wallace gets the grammar wrong here.
What are you trying to do here? Ehrman is actually disputing a particular appositional assertion involving μονογενὴς:

The more common expedient for those who opt for ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς, but who recognize that its rendering as “the unique God” is virtually impossible in a Johannine context, is to understand the adjective substantivally, and to construe the entire second half of John 1:18 as a series of appositions, so that rather than reading “the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father,” the text should be rendered “the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father.” There is something attractive about the proposal. It explains what the text might have meant to a Johannine reader and thereby allows for the text of the generally superior textual witnesses. Nonetheless, the solution is entirely implausible. (p. 81, emphasis mine)

But that's not what we find in Wallace's grammar, is it?

Nonsense. The real problem here is that you like to keep mis-representing me, even while plagiarizing some of my comments.
And what comments are those? That's a very bold accusation. You're comment was imprecise. I quote:
In Exodus 3:14 ὁ ὤν is functioning substantially, not attributively. In other words it is in the predicate position, NOT in the attributive position.​
My initial post called ὁ ὤν an attributive participle, to which you responded above equivocally. I clarified that it's in the predicate position of the equative clause and that ὁ ὤν is still an attributive participle even though it's functioning substantively (the head noun is implied). You missed my point also, that it was used to translate a relative clause in the Hebrew.

I have never taken the position that a substantival participle is "neither attributive nor adjectival." The substantival use of the participle is a subset of the adjectival use. No one denies this. I am not talking about a substantival participle not being a subset of the attributive, but rather saying that an attributive participle in the second position, as you are asserting that ὁ ὤν is in Romans 9:5, is an adjectival use of the participle.
Your anonymous source is NTgreek.org (https://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/participles.htm).

You started your quotation right after, "The translation may have to be as an English relative clause when used adjectivally in Greek," which would have specifically addressed the topic of the OP and would not have been beneficial to your comments in this thread. Is there a reason why you left it out?

What you are saying is as follows:
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.
We are not talking about adjectives, but the adjectival use of the attributive participle. Your wording suggests that you interpret the use of the attributive participle as purely adjectival, and that it cannot in the 2nd Attributive position receive modifiers. To which I have responded that you are incorrect. In fact, the most common position of the attributive participle is in the 2nd Attributive position, and it can take an object and it can specifically take a prepositional phrase to modify the scope of the participle.

Do you understand that statement ? This use is different than either a substantival or adverbial use. Do you understand this ? Do you not understand that an adjectival participle, is not a substantival participle ? That it is a different category of use ? That's all I am asserting. Basic grammar:
I never said all adjectival participles are substantival. I said all substantival participles are adjectival, which you said above that "No one denies this." Also, where did "adverbial" come from in the discussion?

You are creating a distraction in order to not deal with the elephant in the room ,your false, unproven assertion which declares that -- ὁ ὢν is equivalent to ὅς ἐστι .
I actually provided sources and grammars; you on the other hand have been the one providing the assertions, so the burden is on you to support them.

[Brianrw:] All articular participles are, of course, attributive (A.T. Robertson, pp. 1106, 1108).

No kidding.
Then what was this about?:
The bottom line is that a substantival participle is not an attributive participle.​

ὁ is a pronoun in Epic Greek. Epic Greek is not Koine. In Koine ὁ functions as an article (which it doesn't in Epic).
I didn't say it was a pronoun. I said in the attributive participle construction it has a relatival function; in many places it takes the force of a relative pronoun, which is very basic Koine Greek.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I didn't say it was a pronoun. I said in the attributive participle construction it has a relatival function; in many places it takes the force of a relative pronoun, which is very basic Koine Greek.
It may introduce the possibility of apposition, I will agree, but OTOH it may not, as it may also commence a sentence without apposition.

Where it is capable of apposition, other rules of grammar may still displace it. One such rule is the attributive rule applying to absolutely anything placed in between an article and its following noun.

Any suggestion that a rule exists that ὁ ὢν must be relativized in translation, whenever it can be, is just plain wrong, because Greek does have such a relative pronoun for just such a purpose, and which wasn't used in Rom 9:5, but where it could have been had a relation been intended: as it was intended in Rom 1:25 τὸν Κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν.

Rom 1:25 is critical here. The refusal of Paul to employ ὅς ἐστιν in Rom 9:5 is so conspicuous as to be indicative of a 100% certainty that apposition leading to the inference of relation to a preceding subject wasn't intended by the noun clause commencing with ὁ ὢν (which if it can begin a sentence, can also begin a noun clause).
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I actually provided sources and grammars; you on the other hand have been the one providing the assertions, so the burden is on you to support them.
You actually did not. You provided one or two trinitarian commentatories. No grammar would assert that ὁ ὢν is equivalent to ὅς ἐστι . But more importantly, you have no example from the GNT which proves your point.

We are not talking about adjectives, but the adjectival use of the attributive participle. Your wording suggests that you interpret the use of the attributive participle as purely adjectival, and that it cannot in the 2nd Attributive position receive modifiers. To which I have responded that you are incorrect. In fact, the most common position of the attributive participle is in the 2nd Attributive position, and it can take an object and it can specifically take a prepositional phrase to modify the scope of the participle.

Nonsense. This is a distraction I am no longer indulging, as it is designed to take focus from your main problem. I have already told you multiple times that I am not doing that.


What are you trying to do here? Ehrman is actually disputing a particular appositional assertion involving μονογενὴς.


Correct, which goes to my point. Can't you think critically ? Wallace can only argue that ὁ ὢν is in the third attributive position if his proposition that μονογενὴς is being used as a substantive at John 1:18 is infact true. But he has not been able to show a single example of an adjective being used as a substantive when immediately followed by a noun that agrees with it in gender, number and case, let alone of an example involving μονογενὴς for the same : μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν. Here μονογενὴς is modifying a noun, namely Θεὸς, it is not standing in place of a noun, it is not functioning substantivally. So it is impossible for ὁ ὢν to be in the third attributive position.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
ὁ is a pronoun in Epic Greek. Epic Greek is not Koine. In Koine ὁ functions as an article (which it doesn't in Epic).

In any case, for the reasons I have stated, which include making ὢν a special case, and also for reasons in the other thread, it would be even more unnatural for Paul to label Christ as God above all by this tawdry method, when he has elsewhere used that of the Father alone.

Yes, it is special pleading nonsense. The articular ὢν is never used attributively in the GNT. Adjectives can perform three functions. Following is from Mounce:

(1) An attributive adjective gives a quality -- an attribute to the word it is modifying. "She learned modern Greek." The term it modifies is called the head noun.

(2)A substantival adjective functions as if it were a noun. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly are all welcome here." In this case the adjective does not modify anything. 1. In a sense you could say the noun it modifies is assumed, and the substantive function is really a subset of the attributive.

(3)A predicate adjective asserts something about the subject, and the verb "to be" is either stated or implied. "The students are good."

The Trinitarian argument is that ὁ ὢν in John 1:18 is being used attributively (use no. 1). But in the GNT ὁ ὢν is never used in this fashion. Therefore it is hard to imagine that the apostle would use it in this way in Romans 9:5.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
And look at 2 Cor. 11:31. Here ὁ ὢν is being used substantivally. And notice the word εὐλογητὸς applied to the Father:

ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οἶδεν, ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι.

This seals the deal..
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
And Romans 1:25. When apostle Paul wants to say “..who is blessed to the ages” he uses ὅς ἐστιν, never ὁ ὢν:

οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει, καὶ ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν Κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The Trinitarian argument is that ὁ ὢν in John 1:18 is being used attributively (use no. 1). But in the GNT ὁ ὢν is never used in this fashion. Therefore it is hard to imagine that the apostle would use it in this way in Romans 9:5.
In John 1:18, ὁ ὢν heads a dependent clause, which of itself (i.e. the clause considered as a whole), could be imputed as de facto attributive in the second position, by reason of its dependency on what proceeds it. As for ὁ ὢν, considered without reference to its clause (if any), it must in the first instance be predicate or appositional due to ὁ ὢν being inherently substantival - but with the possibility of attributing a secondary character relating to its associated clause (if any).

I think the Trinitarians have confounded the grammatical character of dependent clauses with the grammatical character of ὁ ὢν considered on its own.

The argument that ὁ ὢν, on its own and considered in isolation, is attributive to what preceeds it, must be grammatically untrue, both because ὁ ὢν is substantival and because that would be to dictate the grammar of the clause or sentence to which ὁ ὢν relates, which may indicate the beginning of a new sentence or noun clause relating to a new sentence.
 
Last edited:
Top