Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

cjab

Well-known member
Read the entire article as online at JSTOR. Wow. In the publish or perish grind, this should have perished. A sieve would hold water longer than this article stands up. Whenever a writer fills his writing with "it is possible" or "it is plausible" it generally means that he has no actual evidence at all. And so here. Not a single manuscript, inscription or other hard evidence is cited. Just pure speculation.

Do you understand the difference between primary sources and secondary literature?
Do I understand? You first asked for a source, and then again for a primary source. I gave you the former but not the latter.

In any case, why would anyone erudite want to discuss the libels of the rabble? More so: if they had, why would it have been preserved? May be it was preserved, but so much has been lost in the burning of the Alexandrian library etc. Even many books of erudite philosophers have been lost this way.

A forensic investigation is alone possible where the primary sources are missing.

I reject your critique of this article for the simple reason you can't provide any alternative explanation, and the explanation is by its inherent nature, a very plausible one, against which no-one has yet raised a viable counter-argument.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
All tortuous applications of ὁ ὢν to Christ are predicated on not grasping that Θεὸς, ὁ ὢν, ὀ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς & ἐύλογητὸς relate to the Father in Paul's theology, and also that ὁ ὢν is a Jewish title for God in the LXX.

Flesh cannot be God by definition: only the "son of God."

It's hardly worth arguing with those who can't recognize these basic theological principles accepted by the Jews.
Onomastic equivalencies:

YHWH el (LORD God - Ex. 34:6)
יְהוָ֔ה אֵ֥ל
ὀ ὤν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς (Rom 9:5)
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
A relative pronoun is used in the Trinitarian version of Rom 9:5 that isn't present in the Greek. The Trinitarian translates Rom 9:5 as:

"and whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all blessed to the ages Amen"

Yes there is no relative pronoun in Rom 9:5. "ὁ" before ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς" is an article, not a pronoun. The only relative pronoun is before ὁ Χριστὸς.

Rom 9:5

καὶ (and) ἐξ (from) ὧν (whom) [is] ὁ (the) Χριστὸς (Christ) τὸ (the) κατὰ (according to) σάρκα (flesh), ὁ (the) ὢν (being) ἐπὶ (over) πάντων (all) Θεὸς (God) εὐλογητὸς (blessed) εἰς (to) τοὺς (the) αἰῶνας (ages), ἀμήν (amen).

If in Rom 9:5 Paul had wanted to say, "and whom is [God] over all blessed to the ages Amen" he surely would have used a Greek construction similar to that in Rom 1:25.

"καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν Κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν."

"served the created thing rather than the creator, whom (ὅς relative pronoun) is blessed to the ages Amen."

Rom 1:25

καὶ (and) ἐλάτρευσαν (served) τῇ (the) κτίσει (created thing) παρὰ (rather than) τὸν (the) Κτίσαντα (creator), ὅς (whom) ἐστιν (is) εὐλογητὸς (blessed) εἰς (to) τοὺς (the) αἰῶνας (ages)· ἀμήν (Amen).

I conclude Rom 9:5 is properly translated as ". God over all [is] blessed to the ages Amen." I note that one ancient Alexandrian manuscript even had the full stop before ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, as do other manuscripts of the medieval era.

It isn't difficult when you acknowledge the simplest of facts. Since there is only one God to refer TO, Paul is necessarily referring to Jesus Christ's God.
 

brianrw

Member
There is a period after σάρκα. The ensuing sentence is a doxology to God . Christ is not even mentioned.

No tricks, no wild goose chases, but the simple truth.
Neither the NA28 nor the UBS4, nor yet the Textus Receptus have a period following after σάρκα, and there's no evidence that such a reading of the passage was ever widely regarded among the Greeks--that is, if it ever was at all. The Greek and Latin fathers understood the passage as referring to Christ as God. According to Metzger, however, this punctuation is specifically adopted under the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." And it is widely acknowledged that the originals probably had no punctuation to begin with.

There is no “Deity of Christ” in Romans 9:5. The “God-man squad” can’t even give a grammatical reason for why it is so. Look at the Greek:
It seems here that a recollection of the fundamentals is in order. When we place an article before a participle verb, that participle becomes an attributive participle. The attributive participle is adjectival and refers back to the antecedent denoting the individual or individuals performing the action. In English we translate the attributive participle as "who" together with a finite verb, which in this case is, "is." In other words, we would bring it into English as a relative (a.k.a adjective) clause. Because we are dealing with an equative verb, what follows makes an assertion about Christ. Thus "from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is" etc. The intervening τὸ κατὰ σάρκα serves as a limiter, and stands in contrast with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. I have no problem with this, and all the more so because it is how the Greeks comment on it in their writings.

I understand you have a problem with this, however, and reading the whole exchange with you and all the other individuals is making my head spin. Your characterization of ὁ ὢν in John 1:18, 12:17, 2 Cor. 11:31 as "substantival" is perplexing to me. A substantival participle, which is a subset of the attributive participle, operates where the noun is implied and such is not the case with these. As stated above, we bring these (as well as John 3:13, which you appear to have missed) into English as relative clauses because they are dependent upon an antecedent.

It is when there is no antecedent and the subject is implied that the participle is substantival. And this usually implies anyone of the whole class of individuals performing the action. In other words, the substantival usage of ὁ ὢν in the New Testament is almost invariably generic, and you can see that from the examples you listed. The only clear exception appears to be in Revelation, where in certain places John appears to utilize ὁ ὢν as an indeclinable noun.

I digress here to say it seems to me overly simplistic to just generically treat the article (ὁ) as a substantivizer, without appreciating the nuance of the participle usage in Greek. And for the same reason it is simple ignorance of the language, as others here have tried, to say there's no relative in the Greek and so there should not be one in English. This misses some of the most fundamental aspects of koine Greek.

So while inserting the period has the force of breaking off the attributive participle (ὁ ὢν) from its natural antecedent, ὁ Χριστὸς, the resulting reading in Greek becomes awkward and unnatural. That is to say, the natural way for the preposition and its object to modify θεὸς would be to omit the participle. It is worth further note that there is no precedent in either the NT or Paul's epistles for the doxological formula θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in place of εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
To clarify also, "attributive participle" is grammatical terminology. An attributive expression is simply a word or phrase that modifies the head noun.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The attributive participle is adjectival and refers back to the antecedent denoting the individual or individuals performing the action.
I find this statement astonishing. Why can't it also refer forwards where there is a subsequent subject noun or noun clause e.g. Θεὸς or ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. Moreover the attributive is properly the whole of ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων; and from other places (Eph 4:6), we know that this attributive can only refer to Θεὸς.

Where is the grammatical 'rule' that iὁ ὢν must refer backwards? There is none.

John 8:47 ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ - he who is of God.
Rom 9:5 ὁ ὢν Θεὸς - he who is God.

The use of the relative pronoun in English translation reflects the expression of the translor's understanding of the text; and naturally all 'T'rinitarians everywhere will want to see Rom 9:5 as 'T'rinitarian. Yet this clearly conflicts with Christ being denoted as the son of God elsewhere in Romans (Rom 1:3), and elsewhere generally. So a charge could be brought that the conventional 'T'rinitarian translation is perverse on the internal evidence; and yet no grammar rule can be brought in to mitigate the charge of wanton perversity and confusion against the 'T'rinitarian translation. Indeed the grammar works against the 'T'rinitarian view due to the subsequent noun taking precedence over a preceeding referent.

Besides which, the Pauline preference is to use ὅς ἐστιν when referring backwards (e.g. Rom 1:25). ὅς ἐστιν occurs 18 times in the Pauline epistles, as opposed to ὁ ὢν which occurs only twice in his epistles. In 2 Cor 11:31 it is compulsory for ὁ ὢν to refer backwards where there is no subsequent subject noun or noun clause involved.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Where is the grammatical 'rule' that it must refer backwards? There is none.

John 8:47 ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ - he who is of God.
Rom 9:5 ὁ ὢν Θεὸς - he who is God.
I explained this above. When the attributive participle has no antecedent, it is substantival and refers to an implied subject, which is almost always in a generic sense. That is the usage in John 8:47. In this case, ὁ ὢν refers essentially to the any one of the class of individuals who are of God.

In Romans 9:5, ὁ ὢν has an antecedent in which case the participle forms what we would express in English as a relative clause. The resulting function is similar to ὅς ἐστιν so far as the English is concerned. You can note, for example, the similar construction in 2 Cor. 11:31: ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι

I hope that is helpful.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
I explained this above. When the attributive participle has no antecedent, it is substantival and refers to an implied subject, which is almost always in a generic sense. That is the usage in John 8:47. In this case, ὁ ὢν refers essentially to the any one of the class of individuals who are of God.

In Romans 9:5, ὁ ὢν has an antecedent in which case the participle forms what we would express in English as a relative clause. The resulting function is similar to ὅς ἐστιν so far as the English is concerned. You can note, for example, the similar construction in 2 Cor. 11:31: ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι

I hope that is helpful.
You have constructed this grammar rule entirely by reference to "antecedents" without any consideration of whether what follows is a noun, or noun clause. Winer accepts the non-Trinitarian view as the rational view, as do many others given the ancient manuscripts which do have a period or space after κατὰ σάρκα.

Yours is a far too conveniently manufactured and narrowly defined rule of grammar to stand any reasonable test of being authentic and leads to obvious perversity in translatiion.
 

brianrw

Member
It seems you edited your first comment a half hour after I responded, it's easier to follow when I don't have to look back to see what's changed in your post.

as do many others given the ancient manuscripts which do have a period or space after κατὰ σάρκα.
There are no ancient manuscripts that have a "period" after κατὰ σάρκα, the period is a later innovation of punctuation so the statement here is anachronistic. I've examined more than hundred manuscripts containing Romans 9:5, both uncials and minuscules, and the punctuation when present is overwhelmingly a middot, which roughly corresponds to a colon or a comma and if you regard its usage in light of the manuscripts you'll find it only reliably indicates that a pause is taken up for a breath. I could provide that list of manuscripts if you wish.

For example, the punctuation in B is not by the original scribe, the original has no punctuation. If the dot in L represents a period as Abbot et al note, why then is there a comma after θεὸς? 0151 has a middot (not a high dot) and a space, but that's because it is a commentary manuscript and the scribe customarily adds a new line before the start of the commentary and he uses a colon to signify the end of a sentence after ἀμήν. 0142 also has a middot and this is all the more clear when there is a high dot after ἀμήν. No interpunct is present in Sinaiticus (Aleph), F, K, 0285 (6th century), 0319. Uncials A, B, C, L, Ψ, 040 (high dot after "amen"), 049, 056 (high dot after "amen") have a middot; Codex G has a middot after both "over all" and "God," a reading also found in later minuscules. 623 and 2110, though classed as minuscules, have an uncial text and both contain a middot.

According to Dionysius the Thracian, "There are three dots: final, middle, underdot. And the final dot is a sign for a complete thought, while the middle is a sign taken up for a breath, and the underdot is a sign for a thought which is not yet complete, but is still wanting." Thus as Metzger notes, "the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after σάρκα in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the sentence." (p. 99).

So where are all "the ancient manuscripts which do have a period"?

A high dot is the puncutation in the uncials that typically (though by no means reliably) marks the end of a completed thought. However, after the 7th century the distinction between a high dot and a middle dot begins to change, with a lessening of the force of the high dot in general to reflect a medium pause (as we find in L, a 9th century uncial mentioned above). The middot was later replaced by a comma in Greek, and that is also found in many minuscules. The situation is not as simplistic as is commonly noted, because the age of the manuscript has a lot to do with how it was punctuated due to the evolving nature.

Yours is a far too conveniently manufactured and narrowly defined rule of grammar to stand any reasonable test of being authentic and leads to obvious perversity in translatiion.
I'm not aware of what your level of knowledge is in the Greek language, perhaps you could inform me on this, but the article directly before a participle means it's an attributive participle. It either has an antecedent and functions like a relative clause or it is substantival and the subject is implied. That's the rule in general and you'll find it that way in your advanced grammars. I didn't craft this rule and I'm stating it simply because that rule is followed with all participles in the New Testament, and it is a simple rule. You can go and look at all the examples provided by The Real John Milton and you'll find even the present example always falls under those two classes, and I noted the exception of Revelation where it seems to be employed in places as an indeclinable noun.

The use of the relative pronoun in English translation reflects the expression of the translor's understanding of the text; and naturally all 'T'rinitarians everywhere will want to see Rom 9:5 as 'T'rinitarian. Yet this clearly conflicts with Christ being denoted as the son of God elsewhere in Romans (Rom 1:3),
This is incorrect. The attributive participle in Greek has roughly the same function as a relative clause in English. This is not arbitrary.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
It seems you edited your first comment a half hour after I responded, it's easier to follow when I don't have to look back to see what's changed in your post.


There are no ancient manuscripts that have a "period" after κατὰ σάρκα, the period is a later innovation of punctuation so the statement here is anachronistic. I've examined more than hundred manuscripts containing Romans 9:5, both uncials and minuscules, and the punctuation when present is overwhelmingly a middot, which roughly corresponds to a colon or a comma and if you regard its usage in light of the manuscripts you'll find it only reliably indicates that a pause is taken up for a breath. I could provide that list of manuscripts if you wish.

For example, the punctuation in B is not by the original scribe, the original has no punctuation. If the dot in L represents a period as Abbot et al note, why then is there a comma after θεὸς? 0151 has a middot (not a high dot) and a space, but that's because it is a commentary manuscript and the scribe customarily adds a new line before the start of the commentary and he uses a colon to signify the end of a sentence after ἀμήν. 0142 also has a middot and this is all the more clear when there is a high dot after ἀμήν. No interpunct is present in Sinaiticus (Aleph), F, K, 0285 (6th century), 0319. Uncials A, B, C, L, Ψ, 040 (high dot after "amen"), 049, 056 (high dot after "amen") have a middot; Codex G has a middot after both "over all" and "God," a reading also found in later minuscules. 623 and 2110, though classed as minuscules, have an uncial text and both contain a middot.

According to Dionysius the Thracian, "There are three dots: final, middle, underdot. And the final dot is a sign for a complete thought, while the middle is a sign taken up for a breath, and the underdot is a sign for a thought which is not yet complete, but is still wanting." Thus as Metzger notes, "the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after σάρκα in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the sentence." (p. 99).

So where are all "the ancient manuscripts which do have a period"?
I didn't mean an English full stop but a break or or other mark indicating a break in the text. I re-quote an article I cited earlier:

"The fact is that of the four most ancient uncials-Aleph, A, B, C-the latter three ·
have the stop, leaving the following words to be read as a separate
sentence. A is in the British Museum, where it is easily to be seen.
It will be found that the Manuscript has not only a stop, but a small
space to make room for it, both space and stop evidently a prima
manu. B (Vaticanus) I have twice had the opportunity of inspect-
ing, having obtained access to the Manuscript mainly for the purpose
of looking at this passage. There is a stop, but no space. This has
never been noted, so far as I am aware, in the critical editions, nor
is the point given in the facsimile edition of Vercellone and Cozza.
But the stop is there, nevertheless, exactly the same in appearance as
that found after the word aμfiv at the end of the Verse. Whether it
is from the first hand or not, I do not venture to say. In C (in the
Bibliot/1eque Nationale, at Paris) there is a space w:th the little cross
which frequently stands foe a stop i1t that Manuscript. In the same
library there is another Manuscript, D, of Paul's Epistles (Claro-
montanus), of the sixth century. In this there is a space after σάρκα,
that is to say, the stichometrical line terminates with this word, as
though the writer intended the succeeding words to be separately
taken-in other words, virtually recognizing the stop. Of Aleph
I only know that the facsimile published by Tischendorf has no
stop; but this is scarcely conclusive against its presence, inasmuch
as it may have escaped the editor's notice, as in A and B, of which
Tischendorf expressly, but incorrectly, says that they have no stop.
Assuming, however, that Aleph is without the point, still it remains
true that three, perhaps fom: (D), of the five oldest and most
important uncial Manuscripts contain the stop. I This fact, taken
along with other evidence for the same conclusion, ought, I submit,
to be regarded as settling the question of punctuation. The division
(and rendering) of the Verse given by Professor Jowett in his
"Epistles of St. Paul " is, therefore, correct. And he, I need
searcely add, has here but followed the example of the most eminent
. modern authorities, including Winer, Meyer, Lachmann, Davidson,
Tischendorf, and many more.
.
.
G. VANCE SMITH.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/expositor/series1/09_397.pdf


A high dot is the puncutation in the uncials that typically (though by no means reliably) marks the end of a completed thought. However, after the 7th century the distinction between a high dot and a middle dot begins to change, with a lessening of the force of the high dot in general to reflect a medium pause (as we find in L, a 9th century uncial mentioned above). The middot was later replaced by a comma in Greek, and that is also found in many minuscules. The situation is not as simplistic as is commonly noted, because the age of the manuscript has a lot to do with how it was punctuated due to the evolving nature.


I'm not aware of what your level of knowledge is in the Greek language, perhaps you could inform me on this, but the article directly before a participle means it's an attributive participle.
Personally I do not have extensive knowledge - I tend to rely on grammars and learned grammarians. The article with a participle may also give a participle a noun quality, but I won't disagree with you on its attributive effect.

It either has an antecedent and functions like a relative clause or it is substantival and the subject is implied.
If the participle is attributive (here conjoined with ἐπὶ πάντων), then there is nothing to stop the article in Rom 9:5 from being linked to Θεὸς, because attributives / attributive clauses can come before the noun, and also after the noun - the noun in this case being Θεὸς.


That's the rule in general and you'll find it that way in your advanced grammars. I didn't craft this rule and I'm stating it simply because that rule is followed with all participles in the New Testament, and it is a simple rule. You can go and look at all the examples provided by The Real John Milton and you'll find even the present example always falls under those two classes, and I noted the exception of Revelation where it seems to be employed in places as an indeclinable noun.
I don't dissent. I also read "The participle can refer to a specific person or persons doing the action or to the whole class of people who perform this action."

Here is it obviously a specific person. The question is "who is that person?"

This is incorrect. The attributive participle in Greek has roughly the same function as a relative clause in English. This is not arbitrary.
The issue I have is that the attributive participle does not "always" function as a relative clause. John 3:31 is case in point.

ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς = the one being (who is) from the earth.

is no different in grammatical form from

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων = the one being (who is) above all

These two phrases complement each other: they stand is direct antithesis to each other.

Moreover ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is naturally associated with Θεὸς = God being (who is) above all

I do not grasp why this natural meaning cannot be imputed in Rom 9:5. Obviously many others have throughout history taken this view also, including learned grammarians.

Moreover why is Christ in the flesh being imputed as God in Rom 9:5, when he had previously been described as the "son of God" in Rom 1:3. This is an insurmountable issue, because the apostles, unlike today's modern Trinitarians, did not interminably confound God with the Son of God in their doctrinal teachings.

The legacy of the OT is another matter: carry overs from the perpetual qere (YHWH->Kyrios) and the usage of Elohim to refer to men and well as God have to be taken into account. The way I read it is that whereas a few men to whom the word of God came (John 10:34,35) used to be called Elohim in the OT, they are called Son(s) of God in the NT. This new mode of speech became fixed in the NT, largely as the result of the teaching of Christ himself, such that Christ is never referred to as "o theos" in the NT, which is reserved for the Father, and for the Father in Christ (having regard to John 20:28).

Then we have Eph 4:6 to contend with, which stands in direct contradiction to the Trinitarian translation of Rom 9:5.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Neither the NA28 nor the UBS4, nor yet the Textus Receptus have a period following after σάρκα, and there's no evidence that such a reading of the passage was ever widely regarded among the Greeks--that is, if it ever was at all. The Greek and Latin fathers understood the passage as referring to Christ as God. According to Metzger, however, this punctuation is specifically adopted under the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." And it is widely acknowledged that the originals probably had no punctuation to begin with.


It seems here that a recollection of the fundamentals is in order. When we place an article before a participle verb, that participle becomes an attributive participle. The attributive participle is adjectival and refers back to the antecedent denoting the individual or individuals performing the action. In English we translate the attributive participle as "who" together with a finite verb, which in this case is, "is." In other words, we would bring it into English as a relative (a.k.a adjective) clause. Because we are dealing with an equative verb, what follows makes an assertion about Christ. Thus "from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is" etc. The intervening τὸ κατὰ σάρκα serves as a limiter, and stands in contrast with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. I have no problem with this, and all the more so because it is how the Greeks comment on it in their writings.

I understand you have a problem with this, however, and reading the whole exchange with you and all the other individuals is making my head spin. Your characterization of ὁ ὢν in John 1:18, 12:17, 2 Cor. 11:31 as "substantival" is perplexing to me. A substantival participle, which is a subset of the attributive participle, operates where the noun is implied and such is not the case with these. As stated above, we bring these (as well as John 3:13, which you appear to have missed) into English as relative clauses because they are dependent upon an antecedent.

It is when there is no antecedent and the subject is implied that the participle is substantival. And this usually implies anyone of the whole class of individuals performing the action. In other words, the substantival usage of ὁ ὢν in the New Testament is almost invariably generic, and you can see that from the examples you listed. The only clear exception appears to be in Revelation, where in certain places John appears to utilize ὁ ὢν as an indeclinable noun.

I digress here to say it seems to me overly simplistic to just generically treat the article (ὁ) as a substantivizer, without appreciating the nuance of the participle usage in Greek. And for the same reason it is simple ignorance of the language, as others here have tried, to say there's no relative in the Greek and so there should not be one in English. This misses some of the most fundamental aspects of koine Greek.

So while inserting the period has the force of breaking off the attributive participle (ὁ ὢν) from its natural antecedent, ὁ Χριστὸς, the resulting reading in Greek becomes awkward and unnatural. That is to say, the natural way for the preposition and its object to modify θεὸς would be to omit the participle. It is worth further note that there is no precedent in either the NT or Paul's epistles for the doxological formula θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in place of εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς.
(1) The Trinitarian position ( excluding Gryllus’s, which is just weird) is that ὁ ὢν is in the second attributive position in the expression ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. Kind of like ὁ ἀγαθός in the expression ὁ βασιλεὺς ὁ ἀγαθός. Is that how you see it too ? As far as I can tell ὁ ὢν is never used as an adjective.
 

brianrw

Member
"The fact is that of the four most ancient uncials-Aleph, A, B, C-the latter three ·
have the stop, leaving the following words to be read as a separate
sentence. A is in the British Museum, where it is easily to be seen.
I am unfamiliar with Vance Smith, though his comment has some problems that are already addressed in my comment above. To sum up here, "Stop" is imprecise, and "leaving the following words to be read as a separate sentence" is incorrect. As I noted before above:
According to Dionysius the Thracian, "There are three dots: final, middle, underdot. And the final dot is a sign for a complete thought, while the middle is a sign taken up for a breath, and the underdot is a sign for a thought which is not yet complete, but is still wanting." Thus as Metzger notes, "the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after σάρκα in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the sentence." (p. 99).
There's a difference between observing the manuscripts and reading information obtained secondhand or thirdhand. This same middot is commonly utilized, for example, before "whose are the fathers," which is not a separate sentence, and it sometimes appears after θεὸς as well where the sentence clearly is not complete. In addition, one can easily access the works of second to sixth century Christian writers and there is not one of them who directly quotes and comments on this verse from that time indicating any such stop, or understanding it as a doxology to the Father. They invariably understand the passage to refer to Christ as God.

For the rest, I refer you again back to my comment above:
the punctuation in B is not by the original scribe, the original has no punctuation. If the dot in L represents a period as Abbot et al note, why then is there a comma after θεὸς? 0151 has a middot (not a high dot) and a space, but that's because it is a commentary manuscript and the scribe customarily adds a new line before the start of the commentary and he uses a colon to signify the end of a sentence after ἀμήν. 0142 also has a middot and this is all the more clear when there is a high dot after ἀμήν. No interpunct is present in Sinaiticus (Aleph), F, K, 0285 (6th century), 0319. Uncials A, B, C, L, Ψ, 040 (high dot after "amen"), 049, 056 (high dot after "amen") have a middot; Codex G has a middot after both "over all" and "God," a reading also found in later minuscules. 623 and 2110, though classed as minuscules, have an uncial text and both contain a middot.

The scribe of D arranges the text as follows:
καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς
εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
ἀμήν

I'll return to you the question why he broke up the text between θεὸς and εὐλογητὸς. In later western witnesses, those two words are also separated by a middot, which was also noted above:
Codex G has a middot after both "over all" and "God," a reading also found in later minuscules.

Returning to your comments:
The issue I have is that the attributive participle does not "always" function as a relative clause. John 3:31 is case in point.

ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς = the one being (who is) from the earth.
That's a relative clause. I don't believe I said the attributive participle functions as a relative clause. I said it functions like a relative clause does in English. There's some nuance you can appreciate once your knowledge of the language is more complete. I would recommend you spend more time studying this, it's very important in reading NT Greek.

In the two places Jesus refers elliptically to Himself, so that subject is implied and ὁ ὢν is substantival. This is not a contradiction of what I said above.

is no different in grammatical form from

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων = the one being (who is) above all
I don't understand where you are coming from with this comment.

Then we have Eph 4:6 to contend with, which stands in direct contradiction to the Trinitarian translation of Rom 9:5.
I disagree.
 

brianrw

Member
As far as I can tell ὁ ὢν is never used as an adjective.
Yes, it is, and I'm surprised to hear such a thing.

The participle form of εἰμί (ὢν) can be used like an adjective to modify a noun, and we usually take it into English as a relative clause because the relative clause is itself adjectival. A participle is itself a verbal adjective, so I'm not sure what point you are coming from.
 

brianrw

Member
In C (in the
Bibliot/1eque Nationale, at Paris) there is a space w:th the little cross
which frequently stands foe a stop i1t that Manuscript.
To clarify my comments above, yes C does have a short space with a cross. I've looked at it several times but am not even sure which scribe wrote it, though there is a space so something was there originally if not the cross. In some ancient manuscripts the cross is actually a text-structuring symbol; I'm not familiar with its usage as punctuation in C. However, C is a very difficult codex to read (it is a palimpsest, with running text written over most lines of the manuscripts) and I have only referenced it in regard to variants, so I'd have to see where else it is placed to give a better assessment. The transcription available from the INTF does not interpret it as a full stop, and they place a middot.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Moreover the notion that Christ would have been denoted "God" by a mere attributive, and without a relative pronoun, is both wild and untenable. "θεὸς" isn't an attribute, but an identity and a quasi-proper name with the article.

This is actually an excellent point. The idea of throwing God in en passant as the second attribute of Christ is really a horrid idea of how the learned Apostles wrote.

(This also goes with other features like the common dual addressing and the distinction between Son of God and God and more.)

This is one reason the learned men of the AV did NOT place God in apposition to Christ.

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
This is actually an excellent point.
Moreover the notion that Christ would have been denoted "God" by a mere attributive, and without a relative pronoun, is both wild and untenable. "θεὸς" isn't an attribute, but an identity and a quasi-proper name with the article.
No, it's using the wrong definition of attributive, which I said already above and noted to you elsewhere. "Attributive participle" is grammatical terminology. An attributive expression, in grammar, is simply a word or phrase that modifies the head noun. In this case, because we are looking at an equative clause, it is telling us something about who Christ is. I.e., God. I've also noted that a relative clause is itself adjectival. In this case, the force of the attributive participle is stronger than a relative.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
No, it's using the wrong definition of attributive, which I said already above and noted to you elsewhere. "Attributive participle" is grammatical terminology. An attributive expression, in grammar, is simply a word or phrase that modifies the head noun. In this case, because we are looking at an equative clause, it is telling us something about who Christ is. I.e., God. I've also noted that a relative clause is itself adjectival. In this case, the force of the attributive participle is stronger than a relative.

This really did not touch his point at all.
 

brianrw

Member
This really did not touch his point at all.
It did, because I've already explained the attributive participle would be translated into English as a relative clause, and that attributive is not defining an "attribute" of Jesus but is a grammatical term for a word or phrase that modifies the head noun. Since the participle is a form of εἰμί, its function is equative. If you had a grammar you would normally check that and see what I am saying is correct. Cjab has likely looked into that by now since it relates to the discussion above. Have you?

What normally happens in Greek when two nominative nouns are connected by εἰμί, and one of them has the article?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Sophistry.

Appositionists argue that the verse contains three attributes for Christ

over all
God
blessed for ever (as God)

cjab properly picked that apart.
(Although we disagree on other elements.)

This claim is a disaster for many reasons, including disconnecting God from blessed.

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.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Do you have anything substantive to add?

Since you admittedly have no Greek background, would it not be better to spend more time learning the language and less time commenting on it? The construction θεὸς εὐλογητὸς does not mean "blessed by God," as you interpret it.
 
Last edited:
Top