Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

Anthony

Active member
Paul specifically notes that Christ comes from the Fathers "according to the flesh". The implication is that Jesus existed before he became human. (And Paul makes this clear in some of this other epistles.) If he had omitted the phrase "according to the flesh" the meaning of the passage could be understood in the manner you suggest.
Yes, He did exist before but not as an Angelic being but as The WORD in the form of invisible Spirit - expressing in duality of powers. That's why YHWH is also presented as a Man - Exod 15:3 and even before in Gen 3: 8 - YHWH walking in the Garden and also having a voice.

What does John in his gospel mean that no one has seen God at any time. Why does Paul say that there is a image of The INVISIBLE GOD? Why did Christ tell the Jews that they have never seen The Father's form nor heard His voice?

This is the clue that God operates in two distinct dimensions - Transcendence and Immanent creation.

Because these distinctions are not acknowledged in Christendom, there is so much confusion over Theology and Christology.

John 1:1 provides distinction - God and The WORD. John's context of the whole chapter is about The WORD and not The God He was with. God is utter transcendent.

He also shows that God is one and The WORD is not another distinct Person called God. He is One but works in two dimensions. If this is not understood then there will be total confusion and arrive at false doctrines that are rampant in these boards. No knowledge of Biblical languages will ever lead anyone to truth but it's The Spirit behind the scriptures matters. The ample evidence of confusion between the posters is the disagreement despite reading the same language. This shows that something must be wrong. Instead of showing some humility, each one trying to demonstrate their superiority over the languages. This should end.

The titles - Father and Son is only relevant to covenant relationship with Israel. Israel is the heir to the promises of God as first the gospel message was taught to Abraham when he was a heathen. His crossing over after his calling makes him a Hebrew. It's not that gospel message wasn't there before him (Gen 1:2-3) but God was working towards building His Assembly (as Adam and Eve taken out of him prefigured) which is Israel built from 12 tribes. There was however falling and rising of many in Israel as it was transitioning from fleshly elements of Torah of sin and death to the Torah of the Spirit of life in Messiah (New Covenant).

So Messiah not only came to represent Israel as the firstborn Son but also mediate for Israel. - Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1; Mat 2:15; Gal 4:1-4; Rom 8:29 and more.

These scriptures and many more show the evidence that Messiah came as a representative and Mediator of Israel. He came by His own choice - Heb 2:11-16.

Btw, Who spoke as The Father of Israel in OT when God is utter transcendent? Why was there a need for YHWH to reveal Himself in duality of powers in OT.

The same is true in the NT. As the Ordinal First, He is The Father and as the Ordinal Last, He is The Son. - The Aleph and Tav.

Anyway, The Son will be subject to the Father at the end of the age (1Cor 15:28) as All Israel would have been delivered and He will establish His Tabernacle with men - Rev 21:3; 7.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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:

But he's not arguing that in his grammar (which I had just quoted), and:

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:


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).
Please do not try to bluff your way out of this. You quoted the following from Wallace:
  • John 1:18
  • μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός
  • the unique God who was near the heart of the Father

[More frequent than the adj. in third attributive positions is the participle. When a participle is used, the article should normally be translated like a relative pronoun.]

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament ( (Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1999; 2002)), 306.


And then asserted that μονογενὴς here in John 1:18 in Wallace’s grammar is not being used substantivally but attributively . Please explain how you came to this conclusion ?
 

brianrw

Member
And then asserted that μονογενὴς here in John 1:18 in Wallace’s grammar is not being used substantivally but attributively . Please explain how you came to this conclusion ?
I've already addressed this numerous times. Let's look first at the obvious, that his translation takes the attributive adjective μονογενὴς into English as an attributive adjective. That's pretty much a dead giveaway, but apparently not good enough for you.

This is your original point:
The Real John Milton said:
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.
That is not what's happening in "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father." The attributive participle, ὁ ὢν is not being treated here as "an appositive to μονογενὴς," but modifies θεὸς, which is the head noun. It's "bizarre" to you because you don't understand how the attributive participle really operates.

I have no idea where you even get this idea from, that (as you say) μονογενὴς must be substantival in order for ὁ ὢν to operate in the third attributive position. It's literally another arbitrary rule you made up, just like you say an attributive participle (you said "adjective," actually) can't have modifiers in the 2nd attributive position. You would literally have Ehrman undercutting his own argument, then, because he translates, "the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father" and "the unique Son who is in the bosom of the Father."

So my prophecy was true. You think a noun cannot be modified by an attributive adjective and an attributive participle. Or, as I said earlier, you applied Ehrman's argument to the wrong translation.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I've already addressed this numerous times. Let's look first at the obvious, that his translation takes the attributive adjective μονογενὴς into English as an attributive adjective. That's pretty much a dead giveaway, but apparently not good enough for you.
This sort of statement further confirms that you are totally lost here. Just because you imagine his translation is taking μονογενὴς attributively , does not mean that he is actually doing so. He clearly says that ὁ ὢν is in the third attributive position, so it is impossible for him to be taking μονογενὴς here attributively . Do I have to spell this out for you ? I guess I have to. The third attributive position is noun-article-adjective. What is the noun in John 1:18 ? Θεὸς. What is the article ? ὁ. What is the “adjective” ? ὢν (εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός). If μονογενὴς is modifying Θεὸς, then it is not possible for ὁ ὢν to be in the third attributive position, since you would then have an adjective - noun -article-adjective construction. The fact that he translates μονογενὴς with the article “ The” should tell you that he is taking it substantivally, so μονογενὴς = “The unique,” so he is taking the Greek here as follows: “The unique (one), God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father.” You probably got confused because he did not have the word “one” ( as in “ The unique one) in his translation. But this merely betrays the fact that you were not following the Greek grammar here, just looking at the English translation.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Smyth is very instructive on this score:

1159. (3) Least often, the noun takes no article before it, when it would have none if the attributive were dropped: ἀνὴρ ὁ σοφός the wise man (lit. a man, I mean the wise one). Thus, ““μάχαις ταῖς πλείοσι” in the greater number of battles” T. 7.11, σύνειμι μὲν θεοῖς, σύνειμι δὲ ἀνθρώποις τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς I associate with gods, I associate with good men X. M. 2.1.32. In this arrangement the attributive is added by way of explanation; as in the last example: with
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
John 1:18 (KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

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).

So you no longer agree with the AV text that has the only begotten Son.
Interesting.
 

brianrw

Member
If μονογενὴς is modifying Θεὸς, then it is not possible for ὁ ὢν to be in the third attributive position, since you would then have an adjective - noun -article-adjective construction. The fact that he translates μονογενὴς with the article “ The” should tell you that he is taking it substantivally, so μονογενὴς = “The unique,” so he is taking the Greek here as follows: “The unique (one), God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father.” You probably got confused because he did not have the word “one” ( as in “ The unique one) in his translation. But this merely betrays the fact that you were not following the Greek grammar here, just looking at the English translation.
Yep, I was right. On both points. You just converted Wallace's "The unique God who was near the heart of the Father" into "The unique (one), God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father" so you could make μονογενὴς a substantive and apply Ehrman's argument with it. The trouble is, Ehrman notes the correct translation of this variant as "The unique God who is in the bosom of the Father," which is essentially what Wallace has. So you now have Ehrman taking μονογενὴς as substantival in apposition to another noun, while at the same time arguing it's never used as a substantive in apposition to another noun. I think we can take the simpler approach, and just state outright that you're clearly out of your depth.

You're not saving face here, it would have been better to just own up to your mistake. How much further do you want to shred your credibility on this point?

There's no rule in the Greek language that states a noun cannot be modified by an adjective as well as an attributive participle (again, "attributive participle," not "adjective")

Smyth is very instructive on this score:
1159. (3) Least often, the noun takes no article before it, when it would have none if the attributive were dropped: ἀνὴρ ὁ σοφός the wise man (lit. a man, I mean the wise one). Thus, ““μάχαις ταῖς πλείοσι” in the greater number of battles” T. 7.11, σύνειμι μὲν θεοῖς, σύνειμι δὲ ἀνθρώποις τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς I associate with gods, I associate with good men X. M. 2.1.32. In this arrangement the attributive is added by way of explanation; as in the last example: with
There's nothing here that supports what you are asserting about your "adjective - noun -article-adjective" prohibition. Note you made the mistake again of labeling the attributive participle as a simple adjective.

So you no longer agree with the AV text that has the only begotten Son.
Interesting.
I actually do still agree with "only begotten" and find "unique" a stretch. I just can't add a mile long list of caveats to every argument, or hire a lawyer to go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure Steven Avery doesn't open up a new thread in his forum about it. When cjab noted disdain for "unique" instead of "only begotten," I already said,
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.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
There's nothing here that supports what you are asserting about your "adjective - noun -article-adjective" prohibition. Note you made the mistake again of labeling the attributive participle as a simple adjective.

The grammars all explicitly state that the third attributive construction is as follows: noun-article-attributive. Show us an example from any Greek grammar ( without arguing in circles) of a third attributive construction as follows: attributive-noun-article-attributive . You won’t find it.

You are accusing Wallace of something serious — You are charging him with taking μονογενὴς attributively at John 1:18 in his grammar book ( GGBB) but substantivally in his Net Bible notes. On what real basis ? The mere fact that you think his English translation of the verse in his grammar is taking μονογενὴς attributively ? That is not good enough.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
If we are honest about what Wallace is saying in his grammar book, that ὁ ὢν is in the third attributive position , then we have to read his English as follows— “The unique , God , who was near the heart of the Father…”

This reading would also be consistent with what he says in his Net Bible notes.
 

brianrw

Member
The grammars all explicitly state that the third attributive construction is as follows: noun-article-attributive. Show us an example from any Greek grammar ( without arguing in circles) of a third attributive construction as follows: attributive-noun-article-attributive . You won’t find it.
Grammars show you how the construction itself works using simple examples for clarity. Once you put it into a sentence, you identify the construction within the broader context. Having an adjective before a noun and an attributive participle after the same noun is entirely acceptable Greek.

Your argument involves the following contradiction:
  • "The unique God who was..." (Wallace) = substantival use of μονογενὴς
  • "The unique God who is..." (Ehrman) = not a substantival use of μονογενὴς
  • "The unique Son who is..." (Ehrman) = not a substantival use of μονογενὴς
The same erroneous assertion you make should apply equally to both, but to you somehow doesn't. Ehrman is arguing against a substantival use of μονογενὴς in the construction, "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father" in apposition to θεὸς, arguing the correctness of "the unique God" and (his preferred variant) "the unique Son." So this tells me you applied Ehrman's argument to the wrong translation.

You made a similar type of objection regarding the 2nd Attributive Position, saying the construction is broken when the "adjective" (rather, the attributive participle) in the 2nd Attributive Position takes "modifiers." I said this was false, citing multiple examples of attributive participles in the 2nd Attributive position that in fact did take objects and were modified by prepositional clauses. But you then backtracked your argument and made ὁ ὢν an exception, saying "who is" makes no sense on its own. I answered that the prepositional phrase limits the scope of the participle.

As it is, you were corrected on this point multiple times but rather than admitting a simple misunderstanding you've dug in and continue to assert that the problem is with me.

If we are honest about what Wallace is saying in his grammar book, that ὁ ὢν is in the third attributive position , then we have to read his English as follows— “The unique , God , who was near the heart of the Father…”
No, we don't.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Grammars show you how the construction itself works using simple examples for clarity. Once you put it into a sentence, you identify the construction within the broader context. Having an adjective before a noun and an attributive participle after the same noun is entirely acceptable Greek.

Your argument involves the following contradiction:
  • "The unique God who was..." (Wallace) = substantival use of μονογενὴς
  • "The unique God who is..." (Ehrman) = not a substantival use of μονογενὴς
  • "The unique Son who is..." (Ehrman) = not a substantival use of μονογενὴς
The same erroneous assertion you make should apply equally to both, but to you somehow doesn't. Ehrman is arguing against a substantival use of μονογενὴς in the construction, "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father" in apposition to θεὸς, arguing the correctness of "the unique God" and (his preferred variant) "the unique Son." So this tells me you applied Ehrman's argument to the wrong translation.

You made a similar type of objection regarding the 2nd Attributive Position, saying the construction is broken when the "adjective" (rather, the attributive participle) in the 2nd Attributive Position takes "modifiers." I said this was false, citing multiple examples of attributive participles in the 2nd Attributive position that in fact did take objects and were modified by prepositional clauses. But you then backtracked your argument and made ὁ ὢν an exception, saying "who is" makes no sense on its own. I answered that the prepositional phrase limits the scope of the participle.

As it is, you were corrected on this point multiple times but rather than admitting a simple misunderstanding you've dug in and continue to assert that the problem is with me.


No, we don't.

I need to see substance, instead of false accusations & distracting nonsensical statements. The following three questions demand either a yes or no answer ( questions 2 & 3) or else a clear response ( question 1).
.

(1) Please show us a grammar with an example of a third attributive position with the following order — attributive-noun-article-attributive.

(2) Wallace takes μονογενὴς attributively in his GGBB but takes it substantivally in his Net Bible notes ? Y/N ?

(3) Wallace is not taking ὁ ὤν in John 1:18 in the third attributive position but as an appositive ( in apposition to θεός) in his Net Bible Notes. Y/N ?

Ref: “As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus.”


Do not be evasive, just answer the questions.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
edit per mod It is clear that in his Net Bible notes Wallace is taking μονογενὴς in John 1:18 substantivally, and ὁ ὤν as an appositive ( not in the third attributive position). But it is not at all certain that he is taking μονογενὴς in his grammar ( GGBB) attributively though it is certain that he is taking ὁ ὤν there in the third attributive position.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brianrw

Member
The problem here is with Brian’s reading comprehension. It is clear that in his Net Bible notes Wallace is taking μονογενὴς in John 1:18 substantivally, and ὁ ὤν as an appositive ( not in the third attributive position). But it is not at all certain that he is taking μονογενὴς in his grammar ( GGBB) attributively though it is certain that he is taking ὁ ὤν there in the third attributive position.
My reading comprehension is fine. I didn't misread this:
The Real John Milton said:
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.​
Or this:
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.​
Or this (which is completely false):
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.
You realize you messed up, now you keep pretending the problem is my reading comprehension. You're the one who has backed yourself into a corner and is engaging in sophistry.

Let's recap all the rules so far that contradict your assertions regarding the attributive participle:

Funk
(1)ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνωνJn 5:35
He was the burning and shining lamp

770.1 In (1) the two participles (καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων) are employed adjectivally to modify λύχνος, as the repetition of the article indicates (ὁ ... ὁ ...) (§684). This use of the participle in nominal word clusters is said to be attributive (to be considered in detail below).
...
773. The attributive participle and the relative clause. The literalistic translation of (5), the sending me father, is unacceptable grammatical structure in English. The attributive participle and object is perhaps best rendered into English by a relative clause: the father who sent me. This translation suggests that attributive participles (with complements) and relative clauses are agnate constructions in Greek as well as in English, i.e. they are alternate ways of saying the same thing. This agnate relationship for Greek was demonstrated in §672, in connection with the discussion of relative clauses.
...
774.3 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. Were these participles transformed into relative clauses, the relative clauses would be included type III sentences (§508). The participle in (15) is complemented by a p-cluster functioning as an adverb; the transformation of this cluster would thus yield a type I sentence (§§504-505).

Other types of complements are also found. In (16), for example, the participle takes an indirect object (μοι):

Now, we have a new TRJM special rule for the 3rd Attributive position, that the noun it modifies can't also be modified by an attributive adjective!
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Now, we have a new TRJM special rule for the 3rd Attributive position, that the noun it modifies can't also be modified by an attributive adjective!
I didn’t say “can’t.” I am making a simple request . That you show us an example ( without arguing in circles) of a third attributive position the noun of which is modified by an adjective, preferably one which a grammar lists as such. You have to realize that the (“normal”) third attributive position ( noun-article -adjective ) is very rare to begin with ( especially in the GNT). Adding an adjective into the mix creates for an unprecedented construction. So the onus is on you to prove that such a construction is actually possible in Greek in John 1:18 and that it occurs elsewhere in the GNT. We like to see precedent , not something you dreamt up or wish to be true because you are ensnared by a certain doctrine. You see, if we saddle a noun like (Θεὸς) with an adjective in a construction like this μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, Greek naturally will view the whole construction as two modified substantives in apposition. How do I know that ? Because we have examples of this type of construction in many places in the GNT. It seems to me that you have really not read your NT in Greek all that much. I on the other hand have recorded the entire GNT for all to hear (and a large portion of the LXX). So I know what I am talking about. You don’t.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
I didn’t say “can’t.”
Not in those words specifically. But you did say,
Greek naturally will view the whole construction as two modified substantives in apposition.​
Which is completely absurd. You also said,
The Real John Milton said:
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.​
Which, too, is completely absurd. So, "can't" is fair.

I didn’t say “can’t.” I am making a simple request . That you show us an example ( without arguing in circles) of a third attributive position the noun of which is modified by an adjective, preferably one which a grammar lists as such. You have to realize that the (“normal”) third attributive position ( noun-article -adjective ) is very rare to begin with ( especially in the GNT).
So now you didn't say "can't." If it can, why are you needling me about it?

I don't need to comb through the New Testament for examples that show a "precedent" for such a construction, since it was never prohibited to begin with. The grammars tell us the elementary attributive constructions so we can recognize how to translate them. These elementary constructions are packed into more complex sentences.

Here the obvious is staring you in the face, but you made the mistake of applying Ehrman's argument against a substantival usage of μονογενὴς to the wrong translation--one where there is not a substantival usage μονογενὴς. Ehrman himself indicates the proper translation would normally be "the unique God," which is exactly how Wallace begins the translation in the grammar. So your position is literally indefensible.

It seems to me that you have really not read your NT in Greek all that much. I on the other hand have recorded the entire GNT for all to hear (and a large portion of the LXX). So I know what I am talking about. You don’t.
Good for you! And I spend my hours pouring over ancient manuscripts. You'll still need to brush up on your terminology and master the participle usage. Where would I find this little gem?
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
So you won’t/can’t give an example for question (1). Please answer questions (2) and (3). They each require a simple yes or no answer.
(1) More like probably won't, since it is both unnecessary and unreasonable (1) because of the sheer volume of reading required to properly comb through the GNT for examples (though cf. ἄνεμος τυφωνικὸς ὁ καλούμενος Εὐροκλύδων, Acts 27:14, Hayes) (2) because it's an unsubstantiated assertion that in my opinion no one with a basic working knowledge of Greek would make and (3) because all your other arbitrary rules so far have proven to be directly contradicted by the grammars themselves:

Example 1:
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.
The actual construction here is article-noun-article-modifier (i.e., a participial phrase), not article-noun-article-adjective. The entire assertion is utterly controverted in one of the standard Basics grammars of our time (Mounce):

29.6 Attributive. The attributive participle modifies a noun or pronoun in the sentence, and agrees with that word in case, number, and gender, just like an adjective. For the time being, it can be translated simply with the “-ing” form.​
ἄνθρωπος ὁ λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ ἐστὶν ὁ διδάσκαλός μου.​
The man speaking to the crowd is my teacher.​
This is the normal article-noun-article-modifier construction. In this illustration, the modifier is the participial phrase, λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ. (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, pp. 628-629).​

The anonymous quote from the NTGreek.net "refresher" you sent me said the same thing ("Definite Article | Noun | Definite Article | Modifier"). You were too busy trying to say the attributive participle can only be in the 1st or 2nd position, etc., to notice. So the grammars say the exact opposite (I will refer you back to several examples I produced here).

Example 2:
The bottom line is that a substantival participle is not an attributive participle.​
But Merkle and Plummer, "Thus, a substantival participle is really an attributive participle whose modified noun is unexpressed." (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 187). You had to backtrack after I quoted Robertson:
A.T. Robertson notes, "All articular participles are, of course, attributive" ... (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In the Light of Historical Research, pp. 1106, 1108).​

Example 3:
in John 1:18 we have ὁ ὢν functioning independently. It does not agree with a noun (in either the first or second attributive position. )​
Which is false, since the noun it agrees with and is dependent upon (θεός) sitting right next to it and is in the third.

Note that I'm now going back to the basic grammars to demonstrate where you are incorrect.

In other words, your whole approach is built on sand. So why, "John," should anyone in here trust this new third attributive rule that a noun can't be modified by a participial clause if an attributive adjective precedes it?

(2) Wallace takes μονογενὴς attributively in his GGBB but takes it substantivally in his Net Bible notes ? Y/N ?
(2) You pretend I didn't answer this; this is me on Monday:
I've already addressed this numerous times. Let's look first at the obvious, that his translation takes the attributive adjective μονογενὴς into English as an attributive adjective. That's pretty much a dead giveaway, but apparently not good enough for you.​
And this is me on Sunday:
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

Lastly:
(3) Wallace is not taking ὁ ὤν in John 1:18 in the third attributive position but as an appositive ( in apposition to θεός) in his Net Bible Notes. Y/N ?
(3) Again, you pretend I didn't address this when I did, unless you believe there is a substantial difference between the NET translation and the reading Ehrman was disputing. The NET Bible translation involves a series of appositions.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
(1) More like probably won't, since it is both unnecessary and unreasonable (1) because of the sheer volume of reading required to properly comb through the GNT for examples (though cf. ἄνεμος τυφωνικὸς ὁ καλούμενος Εὐροκλύδων, Acts 27:14, Hayes) (2) because it's an unsubstantiated assertion that in my opinion no one with a basic working knowledge of Greek would make and (3) because all your other arbitrary rules so far have proven to be directly contradicted by the grammars themselves:
edited. ἄνεμος τυφωνικὸς and ὁ καλούμενος Εὐρακύλων are in apposition, this is not an example of a third attributive position to begin with. Notice also that here the noun ἄνεμος precedes the adjective τυφωνικὸς, which is the reverse of what we have at John 1:18.


(2) You pretend I didn't answer this; this is me on Monday:

And this is me on Sunday:


Lastly:

(3) Again, you pretend I didn't address this when I did, unless you believe there is a substantial difference between the NET translation and the reading Ehrman was disputing. The NET Bible translation involves a series of appositions.

Could you please answer each of those two questions with either a simple yes or no, I cant make sense of your fortune cookie type responses, like this one: "Let's look first at the obvious, that his translation takes the attributive adjective μονογενὴς into English as an attributive adjective. That's pretty much a dead giveaway, but apparently not good enough for you." Would that be a yes or no to my question (2) ?

Why is it so difficult for you to just gave a one word yes or no to these two questions? --

(2) Wallace takes μονογενὴς attributively in his GGBB but takes it substantivally in his Net Bible notes ? Y/N ?

(3) Wallace is not taking ὁ ὤν in John 1:18 in the third attributive position but as an appositive ( in apposition to θεός) in his Net Bible Notes. Y/N ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brianrw

Member
This again stems from your poor understanding of Biblical Koine. ἄνεμος τυφωνικὸς and ὁ καλούμενος Εὐρακύλων are in apposition, this is not an example of a third attributive position to begin with. Notice also that here the noun ἄνεμος precedes the adjective τυφωνικὸς, which is the reverse of what we have at John 1:18.
That is actually an example listed by Michael Hayes, An Analysis of the Attributive Participle and the Relative Clause in the Greek New Testament. This is why I wrote "Hayes" next to the verse. You can take up issue with him, as you have with all the grammars and grammarians thus far. I'm not giving my own examples, because I know you will keep arguing this in a circle and wasting my time. FYI, he also lists John 1:18 as an example of the attributive participle, and John 12:17. In short, the same ones you've been disputing.

Additionally, I didn't say it was an example of a third attributive construction, as the context should make clear, but it doesn't matter whether we are looking at fourth attributive (anarthrous, really) or third. You're the only one who keeps making up arbitrary rules depending on what attributive position is in play. So they are just that: made up.

You seem to have problems with all these grammarians and linguists, and also the language instructor you conversed with previously who did not have a high regard for your ability in the language either. Your comments are contradicting what is related in even the most basic of Greek Grammars. The fact is you have no credibility with me. And it seems you have little credibility with others in here who clearly understand the workings of Greek. You're only going to fool those who don't have a grasp on the language. It's not going to work for those of us who do.

Mistaken is one thing. Doubling down after being corrected is quite another. Given your response above, I feel this conversation will not be constructive and only end in disagreement. So, goodbye for now.

If you do have time, please inform me about how to find this Greek recording you did for all to hear.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16)
 
Last edited:
Top