Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Simple question,

For those who say that ὁ ὢν is part of an attributive expression describing Christ (which does seem sensible despite many objections here) why not simply except the attribute as "is over all", ἐπὶ πάντων. Why do you try to shoehorn θεὸς as an apposition attribute?

It look like θεὸς εὐλογητὸς is part of an independent phrase, with two possible meanings (Christ is God blessed, or a doxology to God. "God is blessed") that should not be broken up. (See the posts above about the "natural association" of θεὸς and εὐλογητὸς and the grammatical connection.)

Thanks!

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.
 

brianrw

Member
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:
Again, you are restricting the attributive participle usage to merely that of the adjective. That tells me you are fundamentally misunderstanding the usage of the attributive participle. You actually need to go to a grammar and find out what it says about attributive participles.

[cjab:]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).

Yes, it is special pleading nonsense.
In many places the article has the force of a relative pronoun. That's not even in dispute and is part of a basic understanding of the language itself.

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.
But that's not actually what Ehrman is saying at all, is it? Again, I quote:

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)

Ehrman is disputing that some were splitting the clause into a series of (three) appositions (1) the unique one (2) who is also God (3) who is in the bosom of the Father. This requires that μονογενὴς be taken as a substantive, to which he responds, "when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?"

It doesn't look good for you that you couldn't properly follow the discussion, but you could have admitted you misread it. Worse yet, rather than being corrected you're using that misunderstanding to arbitrarily place another restriction on the attributive participle, this time on the third attributive position. Ehrman's actual translation, “the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father,” is essentially equivalent to the example Wallace has in his grammar, "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father." There is no reason whatsoever why μονογενὴς has to be a substantive in order for ὁ ὢν to be in the third attributive position when the head noun is υἱός, not μονογενὴς.

No grammar would assert that ὁ ὢν is equivalent to ὅς ἐστι .
The longer you type, the larger the whole you are digging for yourself. Since the attributive participle would normally take the form of a relative clause, there's no arbitrary reason why ὁ ὢν would be the only exception to the rule.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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.

Wallace's grammar at John 1:18 is a truly bizarre one.

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

He actually argues that μονογενὴς here is not an attributive adjective modifying the noun that immediately follows it, namely θεὸς, but that this adjective (μονογενὴς) is being used substantivally, i.e. it is acting as a noun, and that θεὸς ὁ ὢν.... is a construction with ὁ ὢν being in the third attributive position and itself being an appositive to μονογενὴς. Needless to say, there is so much wrong with this concoction . the reason he wants μονογενὴς here to be a substantive is so that he would be able to call Jesus θεὸς here. He is not looking at natural flow of the grammar here but looking for a way to manipulate the grammar in order to fit his Deity of Christ a priori into it. Ehrman discusses his grammar here in some detail in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Again, you are restricting the attributive participle usage to merely that of the adjective. That tells me you are fundamentally misunderstanding the usage of the attributive participle. You actually need to go to a grammar and find out what it says about attributive participles.


In many places the article has the force of a relative pronoun. That's not even in dispute and is part of a basic understanding of the language itself.

I must conclude at this point that you are either deliberately misrepresenting me or else not able to read my simple English, or else you do not know that a participle functions in one of three ways, (1) attributively, or else (2) substantivally or else (3) as a predicate. My argument is not that "the attributive participle usage is restricted to that of the adjective" but that the participle ὁ ὢν is never used in the GNT attributively, i.e. no. (1) use above. Are you aware that you are using ὁ ὢν in Romans 9:5 attributively (no. (1) use above) and not substantivally or else as a predicate ?

But that's not actually what Ehrman is saying at all, is it? Again, I quote:

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)

Ehrman is disputing that some were splitting the clause into a series of (three) appositions (1) the unique one (2) who is also God (3) who is in the bosom of the Father. This requires that μονογενὴς be taken as a substantive, to which he responds, "when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?"

It doesn't look good for you that you couldn't properly follow the discussion, but you could have admitted you misread it. Worse yet, rather than being corrected you're using that misunderstanding to arbitrarily place another restriction on the attributive participle, this time on the third attributive position. Ehrman's actual translation, “the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father,” is essentially equivalent to the example Wallace has in his grammar, "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father." There is no reason whatsoever why μονογενὴς has to be a substantive in order for ὁ ὢν to be in the third attributive position when the head noun is υἱός, not μονογενὴς.


The longer you type, the larger the whole you are digging for yourself. Since the attributive participle would normally take the form of a relative clause, there's no arbitrary reason why ὁ ὢν would be the only exception to the rule.

You just don't comprehend what Ehrman is saying above even though you are quoting him. I'm going to spoon feed you once more, and take this step by step, perhaps this time you will get it.

Question 1: Do you understand / agree that at John 1:18 Wallace's argument is that the adjective μονογενὴς is not modifying θεὸς but it is functioning substantivally and in apposition to θεὸς ὁ ὢν ?
 

brianrw

Member
Question 1: Do you understand / agree that at John 1:18 Wallace's argument is that the adjective μονογενὴς is not modifying θεὸς but it is functioning substantivally and in apposition to θεὸς ὁ ὢν ?
That's not Wallace's argument. This is insane. You're literally not making any sense at all. You're contending as if Wallace says, "the unique one, God who is." Wallace translates "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father," where "unique" is an adjective.

He actually argues that μονογενὴς here is not an attributive adjective modifying the noun that immediately follows it, namely θεὸς, but that this adjective (μονογενὴς) is being used substantivally,
It's not what he's saying at all. You're either flat out making things up, or you simply don't have enough capacity in the language to understand what you are reading.

I've addressed this twice now above, but I'll try to put it in as simple terms as possible: Ehrman is saying the reading, involving a series of (three) appositions--(1) the unique one (2) who is also God (3) who is in the bosom of the Father--is impossible because it forces an unprecedented substantival usage of μονογενὴς. Hence "the unique one," which is substantival. How is μονογενὴς substantival in "the unique God" or "Son"? It's literally an adjective.

Ehrman's accepted reading of that variant, which he actually shows us, is "the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father." Wallace translates, "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father." In fact, I ran a search--Ehrman does not even mention the name "Wallace" in the book at all. So you're literally making this part up (link to my search).

He states specifically, about the translation (1) the unique one (2) who is also God (3) who is in the bosom of the Father, "no Greek reader would construe such a construction as a strong of substantives, and no Greek writer would creat such an inconcinnity." (p. 81) Ehrman goes on affirm that

...there seems little reason any longer to dispute the reading found in virtually every witness outside the Alexandrian tradition. The prologue ends with the statement that "the unique Son who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known." (p. 82).

I must conclude at this point that you are either deliberately misrepresenting me or else not able to read my simple English, or else you do not know that a participle functions in one of three ways, (1) attributively, or else (2) substantivally or else (3) as a predicate. My argument is not that "the attributive participle usage is restricted to that of the adjective" but that the participle ὁ ὢν is never used in the GNT attributively, i.e. no. (1) use above. Are you aware that you are using ὁ ὢν in Romans 9:5 attributively (no. (1) use above) and not substantivally or else as a predicate ?
Please. Just. Stop.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
That's not Wallace's argument.
It certainly is.

This is insane. You're literally not making any sense at all.

It certainly is insane. But that is his argument.

It's not what he's saying at all. You're either flat out making things up, or you simply don't have enough capacity in the language to understand what you are reading. Your approach suggests to me the latter is the case, and if it is you really should spend more time learning the language and less time commenting on it.

Sure he is. He is using μονογενὴς at John 1:18 substantivally. Here is Bart Ehrman:

It is true that μονογενής can elsewhere be used as a substantive (= the unique one, as in v. 14); all adjectives can. But the proponents of this view have failed to consider that it is never used in this way when it is immediately followed by a noun that agrees with it in gender, number, and case. Indeed one must here press the syntactical point: when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection? No Greek reader would construe such a construction as a string of substantives, and no Greek writer would create such an inconcinnity. To the best of my knowledge, no one has cited anything analogous outside of this passage.

The result is that taking the term μονογενὴς θεός as two substantives standing in apposition makes for a nearly impossible syntax, whereas construing their relationship as adjective-noun creates an impossible sense.




I've addressed this twice now above, but I'll try to put it in as simple terms as possible: Ehrman is saying the reading, involving a series of (three) appositions--(1) the unique one (2) who is also God (3) who is in the bosom of the Father--is impossible because it forces an unprecedented substantival usage of μονογενὴς. Hence "the unique one," which is substantival.

Correct.

How is μονογενὴς substantival in "the unique God"? Unique in this translation is literally an adjective.

Ehrman's accepted reading, which he actually shows us, is "the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father." Wallace translates, "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father."


Please. Just. Stop.

μονογενὴς is not substantival in the expression μονογενὴς θεὸς, if , like any normal person, you take μονογενὴς attributively modifying θεὸς. But Wallace does not take the grammar here in this way. He construes μονογενὴς as a substantive in apposition to θεὸς. This is clearly bizarre. An adjective is never used in this way when it is immediately followed by a noun that agrees with it in gender, number, and case.

I get the distinct feeling that you are incapable of following the various grammatical arguments here properly.
 

brianrw

Member
But Wallace does not take the grammar here in this way. He construes μονογενὴς as a substantive in apposition to θεὸς.
No, Wallace doesn't. I have his grammar right in front of me and he translates the passage "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father" (p. 307), which is for all intents and purposes no different than how Ehrman understands that variant ("the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father").

Ehrman's argument is against the translation “the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father," where ὁ μονογενὴς actually is taken as substantival in apposition to θεὸς, and the participial phrase that follows forms a third distinct apposition as well. Despite being corrected on this three times, you're still not getting it.

I get the distinct feeling that you are incapable of following the various grammatical arguments here properly.
Not at all. The problem here is all you, for both mischaracterizing Wallace as well as Ehrman in a series of posts and refusing to be corrected.

Sure he is. He is using μονογενὴς at John 1:18 substantivally. Here is Bart Ehrman:
Is it the best you can do, to take a paragraph and a half out of context then load it up with your own meaning?

Here is Bart Ehrman:

It is true that μονογενής can elsewhere be used as a substantive (= the unique one, as in v. 14); all adjectives can. But the proponents of this view have failed to consider that it is never used in this way when it is immediately followed by a noun that agrees with it in gender, number, and case. Indeed one must here press the syntactical point: when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection? No Greek reader would construe such a construction as a string of substantives, and no Greek writer would create such an inconcinnity. To the best of my knowledge, no one has cited anything analogous outside of this passage.

The result is that taking the term μονογενὴς θεός as two substantives standing in apposition makes for a nearly impossible syntax, whereas construing their relationship as adjective-noun creates an impossible sense.

So let's add in the necessary context you've omitted in this quotation:

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,” [they say] 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)

And then let's look at the remainder of the paragraph after "creates an impossible sense":

Given the fact that the established usage of the Johannine literature is known beyond a shadow of a doubt, there seems little reason any longer to dispute the reading found in virtually every witness outside the Alexandrian tradition. The prologue ends with the statement that, "the unique Son who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known." (p. 82)

You're missing the point entirely and think he's talking about one translation when he's talking about another. And you keep insisting he's disputing with Wallace, when he's not. Wallace's name is nowhere mentioned in that book.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Wallace's grammar at John 1:18 is a truly bizarre one.

He actually argues that μονογενὴς here is not an attributive adjective modifying the noun that immediately follows it, namely θεὸς, but that this adjective (μονογενὴς) is being used substantivally, i.e. it is acting as a noun, and that θεὸς ὁ ὢν.... is a construction with ὁ ὢν being in the third attributive position and itself being an appositive to μονογενὴς. Needless to say, there is so much wrong with this concoction . the reason he wants μονογενὴς here to be a substantive is so that he would be able to call Jesus θεὸς here. He is not looking at natural flow of the grammar here but looking for a way to manipulate the grammar in order to fit his Deity of Christ a priori into it. Ehrman discusses his grammar here in some detail in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
I have read Ehrman's account in pages 160-170 of his thesis, and could agree with his overall conclusion "This Alexandrian reading derives from an anti-adoptionistic context, and therefore represents an orthodox corruption [by high Christologists]." For the "orthodox" at that time really believed in an "only begotten God" per the Greek philosophical idea of gods begettings gods.

Where I take issue with Erhman is in his facile and unreasoned assumption that monogenes just means "unique". By extension to inanimate objects, it has that inference, but surely its primary animate meaning, as Harris has extensively argued, is "only begotten." That the orthodox understood μονογενὴς Θεὸς as "only begotten God" I have no doubt.

As for Wallace, I agree with Erhman that he is wrong to make μονογενὴς a substantive, and that his translation of Θεὸς in apposition to μονογενὴς is wrong, and I also think that given the introduction of Πατρὸς in the same verse, it is incontestible that υἱός should be read for Θεὸς.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
I have read Ehrman's account in pages 160-170 of his thesis, and could agree with his overall conclusion "This Alexandrian reading derives from an anti-adoptionistic context, and therefore represents an orthodox corruption [by high Christologists]." For the "orthodox" at that time really believed in an "only begotten God."

Where I take issue with Erhman is in his facile and unreasoned assumption that monogenes just means "unique". By extension to inanimate objects, it may take that inference, but surely its primary animate meaning, as Harris has extensively argued, is "only begotten." That the orthodox read μονογενὴς Θεὸς as "only begotten God" I have no doubt.

As for Wallace, I agree with Erhman that he is wrong to make μονογενὴς a substantive, and that his translation of Θεὸς in apposition to μονογενὴς is wrong.
I agree with you on the definition of μονογενὴς. There are other reasons that may account for the corruption in John 1:18. The most ancient Alexandrian texts are of unknown provenance, there was never any guarantee that they were Orthodox to begin with.

On the latter point, The Real John Milton is misrepresenting the argument presented in Ehrman's book, and he's characterizing it as a dispute with Wallace when Wallace is not mentioned. Wallace, at least in his grammar, takes μονογενὴς adjectivally--not substantively in apposition to Θεὸς. But TRJM seems to have no interest in being corrected. TRJM seems to be using a source other than Ehrman's book for his quotations, since Wallace actually responded to Ehrman after the book was published. I have not read that article.

The reading Ehrman is addressing is actually different, "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father." "The unique one" is the problematic substantival usage of μονογενὴς Ehrman is specifically referring to. I do agree, it is not substantival.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
TRJM seems to be using a source other than Ehrman's book for his quotations, since Wallace actually responded to Ehrman after the book was published. I have not read that article.
I assumed that TRJM was deferring to the NET bible translation (also NIV) which seems to generally bear the hallmark of the "Wallace" high Trinitarian flavor. I wasn't aware that Wallace saw a problem with its translation of Jn 1:18.

For me the KJV/NKJV etc is fine. Seems to me the modern translations are regressing, in falling over themselves to become ever more ridiculous.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
No, Wallace doesn't. I have his grammar right in front of me and he translates the passage "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father" (p. 307), which is for all intents and purposes no different than how Ehrman understands that variant ("the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father").

Ehrman's argument is against the translation “the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father," where ὁ μονογενὴς actually is taken as substantival in apposition to θεὸς, and the participial phrase that follows forms a third distinct apposition as well. Despite being corrected on this three times, you're still not getting it.


Not at all. The problem here is all you, for both mischaracterizing Wallace as well as Ehrman in a series of posts and refusing to be corrected.


Is it the best you can do, to take a paragraph and a half out of context then load it up with your own meaning?



So let's add in the necessary context you've omitted in this quotation:

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,” [they say] 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)

And then let's look at the remainder of the paragraph after "creates an impossible sense":

Given the fact that the established usage of the Johannine literature is known beyond a shadow of a doubt, there seems little reason any longer to dispute the reading found in virtually every witness outside the Alexandrian tradition. The prologue ends with the statement that, "the unique Son who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known." (p. 82)

You're missing the point entirely and think he's talking about one translation when he's talking about another. And you keep insisting he's disputing with Wallace, when he's not. Wallace's name is nowhere mentioned in that book.
You are accusing Wallace of changing his grammar on John 1:18 in his grammar book (which I also have) and in his Net Bible notes. That is false. He has the same argument in both. You just have a reading comprehension problem, and also an ego problem. Instead of conceding that you initially misunderstood his grammar, you are essentially accusing him of contradicting himself / changing his position from one to the next.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I agree with you on the definition of μονογενὴς. There are other reasons that may account for the corruption in John 1:18. The most ancient Alexandrian texts are of unknown provenance, there was never any guarantee that they were Orthodox to begin with.

On the latter point, The Real John Milton is misrepresenting the argument presented in Ehrman's book, and he's characterizing it as a dispute with Wallace when Wallace is not mentioned. Wallace, at least in his grammar, takes μονογενὴς adjectivally--not substantively in apposition to Θεὸς. But TRJM seems to have no interest in being corrected. TRJM seems to be using a source other than Ehrman's book for his quotations, since Wallace actually responded to Ehrman after the book was published. I have not read that article.

The reading Ehrman is addressing is actually different, "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father." "The unique one" is the problematic substantival usage of μονογενὴς Ehrman is specifically referring to. I do agree, it is not substantival.
You are just betraying more of your reading comprehension problems and ignorance of this issue (which I have studied quite carefully) with that comment in red. Although Wallace is not directly mentioned in that section of Ehrman's book, Wallace certainly took it as a dispute with him. In a later article after the publication of Ehrman's book, Wallace responded to Ehrman's specific observation concerning the μονογενὴς issue -- that an adjective is never used as a substantive when immediately followed by a noun of the same number, case and gender. Wallace in his on-line article (“The Text and Grammar of John 1:18”) , mentioning Ehrman directly, proceeds to cite eleven (11) examples to counter Ehrman's observation, but which he (Wallace) admits (and which can be shown plainly) are “not exactly the same."


If you had just conceded that you initially mis-read Wallace's grammar, you would not have been in this situation. I tried to reason with you.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
As for Wallace, I agree with Erhman that he is wrong to make μονογενὴς a substantive, and that his translation of Θεὸς in apposition to μονογενὴς is wrong, and I also think that given the introduction of Πατρὸς in the same verse, it is incontestible that υἱός should be read for Θεὸς.

Agreed.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The Wallace and Ehrman discussion on John 1:18 is a very slippery wicket, since they are disagreeing on the texts and then coming up with dubious translations, followed by conjectural textual histories.

And I put some of the discussion on a page:

John 1:18 - Ehrman and Wallace ultra-modern competitive confusions
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
This won't work and shows that you depend on the English, not the Greek (although I think the English does not bear this interpretation either). "Blessed, " εὐλογητός, is passive in sense and must refer to nominative subject.
Well, the text doesn't exactly say that, does it? And remember I'm a member of the God squad -- I think the more natural reading is that all the nominatives have the same referent, who is Christ.

The English of the AV clearly does bear that interpretation, very smoothly.

Christ ... who is over all,
(Christ who is) God blessed for ever.

Romans 9:5 (KJV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

In this understanding, It looks to me that "God blessed" does refer to the nominative subject Christ.

If you feel that does not work, please share away more excellently.

Thanks!
 

brianrw

Member
Although Wallace is not directly mentioned in that section of Ehrman's book, Wallace certainly took it as a dispute with him.
That's not what you were saying before:
All I can say is that you have poor reading comprehension. Ehrman definitely says that Wallace understands the adjective μονογενὴς in John 1:18 substantivally.

And you're only correcting yourself now after I made this comment elsewhere:
The Real John Milton is misrepresenting the argument presented in Ehrman's book, and he's characterizing it as a dispute with Wallace when Wallace is not mentioned. Wallace, at least in his grammar, takes μονογενὴς adjectivally--not substantively in apposition to Θεὸς. But TRJM seems to have no interest in being corrected. TRJM seems to be using a source other than Ehrman's book for his quotations, since Wallace actually responded to Ehrman after the book was published.
Now you pretend after the fact that's what you were saying all along, while again attacking my "reading comprehension." I guess that's your way of admitting I was correct.

You are accusing Wallace of changing his grammar on John 1:18 in his grammar book
I didn't say he changed his grammar, since I have no later edition than 1996 and that was well after Ehrman published his book. I did say on p. 307 of his grammar (mine is from 1996), he translates "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father" and follows with the comment,

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.

That is not a substantival usage of μονογενὴς. That particular edition, which is the one I quoted, can be referenced online here.

Your nonsensical argument that follows is a direct consequence of you failing to comprehend what Ehrman was actually writing:
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.
In fact, the reading "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father," is a series of appositions, which aims to make θεὸς an apposition to the "substantival" μονογενὴς.

Wallace's grammar (1996 edition), which I quoted, does not use that reading. Maybe you are having trouble seeing the difference, but it's pretty clear.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
That's not what you were saying before:


And you're only correcting yourself now after I made this comment elsewhere:

Now you pretend after the fact that's what you were saying all along, while again attacking my "reading comprehension." I guess that's your way of admitting I was correct.


I didn't say he changed his grammar, since I have no later edition than 1996 and that was well after Ehrman published his book. I did say on p. 307 of his grammar (mine is from 1996), he translates "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father" and follows with the comment,

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.

That is not a substantival usage of μονογενὴς. That particular edition, which is the one I quoted, can be referenced online here.

Your nonsensical argument that follows is a direct consequence of you failing to comprehend what Ehrman was actually writing:

In fact, the reading "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father," is a series of appositions, which aims to make θεὸς an apposition to the "substantival" μονογενὴς.

Wallace's grammar (1996 edition), which I quoted, does not use that reading. Maybe you are having trouble seeing the difference, but it's pretty clear.
Is your argument that Wallace is not taking μονογενὴς substantivally and in apposition to Θεὸς in John 1:18 in his grammar ( GGBB) but he is doing precisely that in his Net Bible notes ? Yes or No ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I didn't say he changed his grammar, since I have no later edition than 1996 and that was well after Ehrman published his book. I did say on p. 307 of his grammar (mine is from 1996), he translates "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father" and follows with the comment,

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.
That is not a substantival usage of μονογενὴς. That particular edition, which is the one I quoted, can be referenced online here.

See, you are again not understanding what you are quoting. That quote ( red above) has nothing to do with whether μονογενὴς is being used as a substantive or not in John 1:18 but with Wallace arguing that Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς is the participle apparently being used in the third attributive position at John 1:18.
 

Anthony

Active member
Yes they are taking artistic license with the Greek again as is their wicked habit but you don't even need to know a speck of Greek to figure that one out. Paul is talking about the origin of the Christ from the nation of Israel. The Eternal Living God did not originate out of the people of Israel. Christ the son of David originated in Israel and the God of Israel, Jesus Christ's God, is blessed to the ages. This does not take great powers of thinking and it only takes a feeble mind to see the Trinitarian claim here is complete nonsense. But they never seem to care about the absurdities of their claims. They somehow figure their posturing routines will take care of those absurdities.
You guys are not qualified to interpret scriptures as being ignorant of the true gospel message.
 

brianrw

Member
See, you are again not understanding what you are quoting. That quote ( red above) has nothing to do with whether μονογενὴς is being used as a substantive or not in John 1:18 but with Wallace arguing that Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς is the participle apparently being used in the third attributive position at John 1:18.
I am understanding it perfectly, and it's essentially what I've been noting contrary to you. It's you arguing that Wallace here is treating μονογενὴς as substantival in apposition to Θεὸς, not me. I simply quoted everything Wallace wrote in his grammar pertaining to John 1:18 in response to the following comments:
Wallace's grammar at John 1:18 is a truly bizarre one . . . He actually argues that μονογενὴς here is not an attributive adjective modifying the noun that immediately follows it, namely θεὸς, but that this adjective (μονογενὴς) is being used substantivally, i.e. it is acting as a noun, and that θεὸς ὁ ὢν.... is a construction with ὁ ὢν being in the third attributive position and itself being an appositive to μονογενὴς.
But he's not arguing that in his grammar (which I had just quoted), and:
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.​
You've confused Wallace's earlier position in his grammar with his later position in the NET. I'm saying you had the translation Ehrman was disputing (and who he was disputing) mixed up in several posts. "The only one, Himself God, who is..." (NET) treats μονογενὴς as substantival in apposition to θεὸς. "The unique God who is" uses μονογενὴς as an attributive adjective modifying θεὸς. It seems to me quite apparent that you have the two readings confused and have applied the wrong argument to the wrong reading. But because you dug in so firmly you now have to backtrack and seem to feel the best way to walk back your comments is to pretend I'm not reading anything correctly. To reiterate an earlier point:
All you've been doing thus far is just weasel wording.

I suspect a newly coined rule is inbound to clarify how a noun can't be modified by an adjective as well as an attributive participle.

Again, I'll note that I agree with Ehrman here that "The prologue ends with the statement that 'the unique Son who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known.'" (p. 82).
 
Last edited:
Top