Anomalous relative pronoun in Rom 9:5

I ran this through a search (since there is no source) and it appears your quote is not from a grammar, but a blog, "Growing in Greek," and that is located at http://growingingreek.blogspot.com/2011/07/substantival-participle.html.

The Blogger writes (as you quote), "A substantival participle is an independent use of the adjectival participle. It is used instead of and functions in the place of a substantive." You are accusing me of ignorance in the language but seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding something you apparently read on a blog. In what way specifically does the nominative singular masculine ὁ ὢν not accord in person, number, and case with the nominative singular masculine ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός? And how does it function independently when it stands immediately next to the noun it modifies? Are Harris and Metzger also surprisingly ignorant?

As Wallace notes, I quote, "The adjectival participle may occupy any of the three attributive positions and both predicate positions. You should normally translate the attributive participle as though it were a relative clause." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 617). That's because the function of the clause is adjectival. Note:

"Relative clauses are also sometimes referred to as adjective clauses, because they identify or give us additional information about the subject of the independent clause they relate to." (Grammarly)​


Since you won't take my word for it, you will note that Wallace in his grammar specifically offers ὁ ὢν in John 1:18 (note the variant) as an example of an adjective in the third attributive position, and after noting this example he adds:

"More frequent than the adj. in the third attributive positions is the participle. When a participle is used, the article should normally be translated like a relative pronoun." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 307)
Not sure what you are trying to do here. Are you arguing that ὁ ὢν in Romans 9:5 is in the third attributive position ? Because that is impossible.

Also, if Wallace really argues that ὁ ὢν in John 1:18 ( with the variant reading μονογενὴς θεὸς) is in the third attributive position, such is a highly suspect take. The way most ( if not all) Trinitarians argue the grammar with this variant is by taking ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς as an appositive . So this is hardly a clear, and irrefutable example from the GNT of ὁ ὢν in the attributive position ( first, second or third). Not to mention that the θεὸς reading is already highly suspect.

So you just have no precedent in the GNT for what you are trying to do at Romans 9:5 with ὁ ὢν.
 
I. In what way specifically does the nominative singular masculine ὁ ὢν not accord in person, number, and case with the nominative singular masculine ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός? And how does it function independently when it stands immediately next to the noun it modifies? Are Harris and Metzger also surprisingly ignorant?
. You seem to be betraying profound grammatical ignorance with each successive post. No one is arguing that ὁ ὢν in John 1:18 does not accord in person, number, and case with the immediately preceding nominative singular masculine ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Are you not aware that appositives accord with person, number, and case with their head nouns? You seem to be in ignorance of the difference between an appositive and an attributive participle in either the first, second or third positions. A substantival participle can and often functions as an appositive . It is an “independent” use of the participle because it is functioning as a substantive. Substantives are not bound by attributing duties in one of three adjectival positions, unlike the example I gave earlier, οἱ φεύγοντες ἄνδρες.
 
Not sure what you are trying to do here. Are you arguing that ὁ ὢν in Romans 9:5 is in the third attributive position ? Because that is impossible.
I was talking about your example, John 1:18. How are you getting from what I wrote that Romans 9:5 is in the third attributive position?

You seem to be betraying profound grammatical ignorance with each additional post. No one is arguing that ὁ ὢν does not accord in person, number, and case with the immediately preceding nominative singular masculine ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός.
My grammar is fine, more than twenty years later I'm not exactly a novice here. You wrote (emphasis yours):
1) If the participle is articular (that is, has a definite article), then it is either adjectival or substantival. 2) If it is articular and does not agree with a substantive in person, number, and case, then it is substantival.​
So 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. ) In other words, it is NOT an attributive participle , it is NOT modifying a substantive like any other adjective.​
I'm hard pressed to find another way of reading this.

Since again you accuse me of ignorance, I'll refer you to Wallace who remarks on the Substantival (Independent) usage as follows,

The is the independent use of the adjectival participle (i.e., not related to a noun). It functions in the place of a substantive . . . if it is articular and not related in a dependent fashion to any substantive in the sentence, then it is substantival. The translation is often the one who/the thing which with the participle then translated as a finite verb. (p. 618)​

You can Cf. his recap also on p. 758. This is something I've already said above.

Are you not aware that appositives accord with person, number, and case with their head nouns?
I'm aware of how to form appositives, I'm disagreeing with your assessment of ὁ ὢν. Most of the cases you offered are indeed examples of a substantive participle, but you are insisting they are all instances, which is not correct.

You seem to have the idea that the participle forms of εἰμί cannot act adjectivally, and that is leading you to conclude that you are looking at a substantival participle in apposition, and you interpret all instances of ὁ ὢν in the same way. This is a very circular approach to the discussion.

As I said before, the substantival participle is still an adjectival usage of participle (i.e., a subset of the attributive) and the difference is that the substantival participle operates independently of a head noun. Is that clear? And in that sense, the subject is implied and the usage is almost always generic. Is that also clear? When it is dependent upon a substantive, and describes the substantive, it is attributive because it tells us something more about that substantive.

At the end of it all, how do you primarily find the participle in John 1:18 translated in the English versions. With a relative clause, correct?
 
I’ll ask again. You claim that ὁ ὢν is functioning adjectivally in the second attributive position at Romans 9:5. Please show us another example of ὁ ὢν functioning in this manner in the GNT. Just give us a verse, not lots of senseless talk.

Btw., I think you need a refresher on adjectival participles. Read the following:

———-

Participles used as Adjectives

When a participle is in the attributive position, translate it as an adjective modifying the noun with which it agrees in gender, case and number. Remember that the fundamental characteristic of the attributive position is that the adjective comes immediately after its definite article.

(a) One of the two basic patterns we have learned for the attributive position is...

Definite Article | Noun | Definite Article |Adjective
Previously, we have seen nouns, or noun phrases, in the attributive position and functioning adjectivally. Now we will see participial phrases doing the same thing.

Definite Article | Noun | Definite Article |Participial Phrase

Generally, then, we can simply think of this form of the attributive construction in the following manner:

Definite Article | Noun | Definite Article | Modifier

EXAMPLE 1

In the following sentence, we see the familiar ὁ [noun] ὁ [modifier] construction wherein the modifier is in the attributive position.

ὧδε ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἔχων σοφίαν

Note that the modifier is the whole phrase ἔχων σοφίαν, "having wisdom." It tells us which νοῦς (mind) is in view, the one having wisdom. The participle ἔχων agrees with the noun it modifies, νοῦς, in gender, case, and number. But the verbal idea in a participle is not abandoned, and therefore it may take an object just as any other verb may. In this sentence, although ἔχων is functioning adjectivally, it is also a verb and has as its object, σοφίαν.
 
You seem to have the idea that the participle forms of εἰμί cannot act adjectivally, and that is leading you to conclude that you are looking at a substantival participle in apposition, and you interpret all instances of ὁ ὢν in the same way. This is a very circular approach to the discussion.
For the record, I don’t have this idea, nor have I propounded it.


As I said before, the substantival participle is still an adjectival usage of participle (i.e., a subset of the attributive) and the difference is that the substantival participle operates independently of a head noun. Is that clear? And in that sense, the subject is implied and the usage is almost always generic. Is that also clear? When it is dependent upon a substantive, and describes the substantive, it is attributive because it tells us something more about that substantive.
Thank you. The bottom line is that a substantival participle is not an attributive participle. Your argument is that ὁ ὢν at Romans 9:5 is an attributive participle ( in the second attributive position) and therefore not a substantival participle. I am saying that in the GNT there are no other examples of ὁ ὢν functioning as an attributive participle. If you disagree, then please show us an example of ὁ ὢν functioning as an attributive participle ? Is this so difficult for you to comprehend ? Or are you pretending to not understand in order to distract & to evade furnishing an example ?
 
Btw., I think you need a refresher on adjectival participles. Read the following:
This one turns out to be from http://ntgreek.net/lesson31.htm. I suspect you are fishing around the internet and learning on the fly, especially since you don't state your sources. It's the only way I can account for some of the past comments you've made in other places in the forum.

Regardless, what is the point of all this? Again, "The adjectival participle may occupy any of the three attributive positions and both predicate positions. You should normally translate the attributive participle as though it were a relative clause." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 617). Do you take exception to this?

For the record, I don’t have this idea, nor have I propounded it.
What you actually wrote suggests to me otherwise.

The bottom line is that a substantival participle is not an attributive participle.
You claim that ὁ ὢν is functioning adjectivally
It's a subset, since the only difference is that the noun is implied rather than stated. Both fall under the adjectival usage of the participle, so even if you insist on substantival the usage is still adjectival. Follow?

If you disagree, then please show us an example of ὁ ὢν functioning as an attributive participle ?
John 1:18, which you say is substantival, is literally one of the textbook examples used by Wallace of the attributive usage of ὁ ὢν. And he places it in his section on adjectives, rather than the section on participles some 300 pages later. But apparently according to you he doesn't know what he's talking about either, so I'm in fine company. Some examples, which I already gave above (twice now you've ignored it), are John 1:18, 3:13, 12:17, 2 Cor. 11:31. I'm excluding examples from Revelation as John appears to treat ὁ ὢν as an indeclinable noun in multiple places.

Everything I said above has been documented with well-known sources, and you haven't offered any substantive negation, but a blog (which you called a grammar) and a website which you copied and pasted from anonymously. The burden is on you to justify a substantival usage of all instances of ὁ ὢν in the New Testament. "Independent" means it is not dependent upon a noun. In each of the cases above ὁ ὢν is indeed dependent.

Or are you pretending to not understand in order to distract & to evade furnishing an example ?
Generally when I see someone digging I hole I wait it out a little to see what happens next. So it seems we're stuck on John 1:18 for the moment.

You went right for the throat and it's going to backfire.
 
This one turns out to be from http://ntgreek.net/lesson31.htm. I suspect you are fishing around the internet and learning on the fly, especially since you don't state your sources. It's the only way I can account for some of the past comments you've made in other places in the forum.

Regardless, what is the point of all this? Again, "The adjectival participle may occupy any of the three attributive positions and both predicate positions. You should normally translate the attributive participle as though it were a relative clause." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 617). Do you take exception to this?


What you actually wrote suggests to me otherwise.



It's a subset, since the only difference is that the noun is implied rather than stated. Both fall under the adjectival usage of the participle, so even if you insist on substantival the usage is still adjectival. Follow?


Some examples, which I already gave above (twice now you've ignored it), are John 1:18, 3:13, 12:17, 2 Cor. 11:31. I'm excluding examples from Revelation as John appears to treat ὁ ὢν as an indeclinable noun in multiple places.
As I have already explained, ὁ ὢν at John 1:18 is most naturally taken as an appositive , so this example is neither here nor there, especially since the third attributive position is rarely found in the GNT and certainly not with an articular participle. At John 3:13 the expression ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is an interpolation, or at the very least in dispute, so this is a non- starter. John 12:17 is your best example but ὁ ὢν here could easily be an appositive . Additionally, ὁ ὢν here would not be describing a person but a thing, so it is not similar. As for 2 Cor. 11:31 it is impossible here for ὁ ὢν to be in the second attributive position on account of the intervening verb οἶδεν, it must be an appositive. That you did not grasp this just tells me that you have no natural ability in the Koine.
 
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. So at John 12:17 the expression ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν would make no sense without the qualifying μετ’ αὐτοῦ. This tells us that ὁ ὢν μετ’ αὐτοῦ is an appositive. The same holds true at Romans 9:5.
 
A point of common debate and confusion in Greek is over the distinguishing of adjectives and appositions, and that is not just among novices. So if you're going to base your idea of who has "natural ability in the Koine" on a disagreement over such places, you're really doing a disservice to the study of the language itself.

For example, there is somewhat of a debate over whether Mark 1:11 should be adjectival or appositional. This doesn't mean one side has "no natural ability in the Koine." I take it adjectivally, because the modifier is an adjective rather than a noun and it is in an adjectival position, and that's the general rule we follow when distinguishing between an adjective and an apposition. It's the same rule I follow when dealing with places where there is an attributive participle. Maybe you say its appositional, and we'll disagree.

So on this point I do not appreciate having the quality of my Greek equated with whether I agree with you on this point, and neither would you. Fair enough?

As I have already explained, ὁ ὢν at John 1:18 is most naturally taken as an appositive
Now it's only "most naturally taken as an appositive"? Again, I'll side with Wallace. We are looking at a participle, which is by nature a verbal adjective that is in an adjectival position. There is no clear reason to treat it as a substantive participle in apposition. The third attributive position (more common with participles than adjectives) is used to give particulars about the substantive.

At John 3:13 the expression ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is an interpolation, or at the very least in dispute, so this is a non- starter.
Unless a potential scribal error is at play, the function of the grammar is not dependent upon how you perceive the validity of the variant.

John 12:17 is your best example but ὁ ὢν here could easily be an appositive . Additionally, ὁ ὢν here is not describing a person but a thing, so it is not similar.
Again, we are looking at a participle in an adjectival position, there's no reason to view it as substantival.
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.
Nonsense. The clause modifies the noun, the same is true here as it is in John 1:18.

Who are you getting this from?

I don't see any of the above examples being translated as appositives in any of the English versions consulted. The exception is noted below.

As for 2 Cor. 11:31 it is impossible here for to be in the second attributive position on account of the intervening verb οἶδεν, it must be an appositive. That you did not grasp this just tells me that you have no natural ability in the Koine.
You seem to be taking an overly simplistic view of participle constructions in more complex phrases.

Only about half the translations I consulted render this passage appositionally, and the sources I examined are about as evenly split. You will note above that this same parallel is drawn by both Metzger (Commentary, p. 461) and Harris (Jesus as God, p. 159) to Romans 9:5. Also, I believe this source would be familiar to you, since you gave credence to it earlier in the thread (though you posted it anonymously): "One of the 20 attributive participial constructions of to be, does take an adjectival predicate complement (not a substantival predicate complement): 2 Cor 11:31." I'm quoting it because it's one of your sources; I personally find his statistical methodology for determining the reading highly questionable. Would you now emend your statement to note that they actually don't know what they are talking about, but also "have no natural ability in the Koine"?

This tells us that ὁ ὢν μετ’ αὐτοῦ is an appositive. The same holds true at Romans 9:5.
My memory may be a bit fuzzy here, but didn't you just scoff at Gryllus for this?
 
Regardless, what is the point of all this? Again, "The adjectival participle may occupy any of the three attributive positions and both predicate positions. You should normally translate the attributive participle as though it were a relative clause." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 617). Do you take exception to this?
Yes, I do actually. Wallace is such a notorious and easily recognized high Trinitarian bigot and it is clear that his whole grammatical outlook is colored by his obsessive need to prove high Trinitarianism. You really need to start referring to other sources outside Wallace to prove your points. However there are other well known Trinitarian bigots like Wallace, who seems to have unduly influenced a generation. Not unsurprisingly most of them come from the USA, which is the current throne of high Trinitarianism. You need to start looking at other grammarians and trying to find a consensus, rather than always relying on your Trinitarian bigot. For a start, I've never heard of the "third attributive position" from anyone else.

Here is what one internet poster has said of it:
>I have for a number of years harbored the suspicion that the so-called
>"third attributive position" with adjectives (as well as participles, or
>other items functioning adjectivally) is an illegitimate category and is not
>an attributive position at all. It strikes me rather as an appositional
>construction, which, because it is translated into ENGLISH as an adjective
>phrase, has been falsely considered an attributive position.
 
You need to start looking at other grammarians and trying to find a consensus, rather than always relying on your Trinitarian bigot. For a start, I've never heard of the "third attributive position" from anyone else.
I'm not sure what all the hostility is for, I haven't been hostile toward you. We've barely even conversed. I do (and have above) use sources other than Wallace, only that's one of the grammars I have both on hand and can find online so others can immediately verify. And I don't quote it uncritically because I am aware of some of that particular grammar's weaknesses. I'm extremely busy with research and do most of my posts between 1:30am and 3am, so my library is more limited then.

The third attributive position is rarer for adjectives in the Greek NT but common for the attributive participle. The purpose of the third attributive position is to relate particulars about the noun. Here's a few that may be of help:

Hubner (see the footnotes)

Mounce

Harris

McClean

Andreas J. Köstenberger, ‎Benjamin L Merkle, ‎Robert L. Plummer

Do any of these work for you?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what all the hostility is for, I haven't been hostile toward you. We've barely even conversed. I do (and have above) use sources other than Wallace, only that's one of the grammars I have both on hand and can find online so others can immediately verify. And I don't quote it uncritically because I am aware of some of that particular grammar's weaknesses. I'm extremely busy with research and do most of my posts between 1:30am and 3am, so my library is more limited then.

The third attributive position is rarer for adjectives in the Greek NT but common for the attributive participle. The purpose of the third attributive position is to relate particulars about the noun. Here's a few that may be of help:

Hubner (see the footnotes)

Mounce

Harris

McClean

Andreas J. Köstenberger, ‎Benjamin L Merkle, ‎Robert L. Plummer

Do any of these work for you?
Thanks. I'll look at these later. For now, here is what Winer says of Eph 3:19, arguing contrary to an opinion of the participle ὑπερβάλλουσαν being other than an attributive in the first position of ἀγάπην:

"this cannot be, since the participle is too clearly marked as an attributive by its position between the article and the
noun."

In Rom 9:5, what do we have but ὢν being an attributive in the first position, of Θεὸς? This must take precedence, according to Winer. It's the obvious construction. Why depart from it?

In respect of ὁ ὢν being a substantive per TRJM, it would be, but for the existence of the noun Θεὸς with which the participle agrees.
 
In Rom 9:5, what do we have but ὢν being an attributive in the first position, of Θεὸς? This must take precedence, according to Winer. It's the obvious construction. Why depart from it?
I don't find that convincing, the most natural reading is the connection with the subject, ὁ Χριστὸς. Romans 9:5 is probably one of the most well attested passages of scripture in the New Testament, and honestly none of the solutions being presented here are recognized in the writings of the Greek fathers and unequivocally the ancient versions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This would be inexplicable, had the passage grammatically really formed a doxology to the Father. And the silence of the adversaries on it, who otherwise only needed to say they're reading it wrong, is nowhere to be found.
 
Who are you getting this from?
Any 1st year Grammar book. In the second attributive position we have an article + noun + article + adjective which forms a coherent thought . This should be obvious to any normal Koine speaker. So for example we have ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀγαθός ( the good man). At John 12:17 the same construction ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν is senseless . So this is not an example of ὁ ὢν acting as an attributive adjective modifying its head noun. Rather the modifiers attached to ὁ ὢν ( namely μετ’ αὐτοῦ) informs us that the expression ὁ ὢν μετ’ αὐτοῦ is an appositive. EDITED PERSONAL COMMENT
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't find that convincing, the most natural reading is the connection with the subject, ὁ Χριστὸς. Romans 9:5 is probably one of the most well attested passages of scripture in the New Testament, and honestly none of the solutions being presented here are recognized in the writings of the Greek fathers and unequivocally the ancient versions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This would be inexplicable, had the passage grammatically really formed a doxology to the Father. And the silence of the adversaries on it, who otherwise only needed to say they're reading it wrong, is nowhere to be found.
And yet, is there any other doxology of Paul to Christ to the exclusion of the Father in the whole of the bible? As I have pointed out, it conflicts with Pauline theology in so many ways.

Many of these writers were engaged in christological controversies with the Arians. You can see how tempting it is to bring Rom 9:5 in to controvert Arianism at a single stroke, but yet it is far too simplistic, for the reasons I have outlined. The grammar doesn't obviously support it.

Moreover the causes of Arianism were misunderstood. Arianism entailed a rebellion against a theological system that was steadily going off the rails in dehumanizing Christ and turning him into a gnostic Greek God, flitting between earth and heaven. Although Arianism was inherently misconceived because it also kowtowed to the pseudo-neo-platonic philosophy of Origin et al, the fact was that the dehumanization of Christ using the "begotten God the Word" banner by the so-called orthodox was the root cause of Arianism.

Rather than understand it, and address themselves to retaining the human nature of Christ the savior being paramount, as Nestorius attempted to do, they lost sight of this in their enthusiasm for preaching "God the Word" ... and polytheism never saved anyone. And that I believe, is why Islam took over so much of the Greek world. Greek Christianity fell into a rut by deceit of this kind from which it never recovered.
 
On another note, Ezra Abbot made a powerful argument when he wrote the following:


“The use of the word εὐλογητὸς , ‘blessed,’ which never occurs in the New Testament in reference to Christ. If we refer εὐλογητὸς to God, our passage [Ro. 9:5] accords with the doxologies Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; and Eph. i. 3. …. [This] strongly favors the reference of the εὐλογητὸς to God. It alone seems to me almost decisive.”
 
The following properly belongs to another thread but since it was brought up, I feel compelled to address it. Wallace understands the adjective immediately preceding Θεὸς (namely μονογενὴς, ) to be used substantivally , as a noun , with the meaning, “the unique one.” He essentially separates μονογενὴς from Θεὸς, then uses the expression Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς as being in the third attributive position. Ehrman rightly points out the following:

[A] moment’s reflection shows that the proposed construal is not at all the most natural. It is true that [monogenēs] 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 everused 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 [= unsuitableness in writing]. To the best of my knowledge, no one has cited anything analogous outside of this passage. The result is that taking the term [monogenēs theos] as two substantives standing in apposition makes for a nearly impossible syntax, whereas construing their relationship as adjective-noun [= “unique/only-begotten G/god”] creates an impossible sense.

And this is just for starters.
 
And by far the biggest problem with taking ὁ ὢν in Romans 9:5 in the second attributive position is that there is no such thing in all of the GNT where such an attributive adjective fails to modify the head noun by itself: ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. In other words, ὁ Χριστὸς [τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ]ὁ ὢν is gibberish. In contrast, all adjectives in the second attributive position are able to coherently modify the head noun on their own — Matt 5:29 (ὁ ὀφθαλμός [σου ] ὁ δεξιὸς), Acts 11:15 ((τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον), Hebrews 6:4 (τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου), Rev. 19:2 (τὴν πόρνην τὴν μεγάλην), etc..
 
And the silence of the adversaries on it, who otherwise only needed to say they're reading it wrong, is nowhere to be found.
We'll see.

Incidentally, I assume you to be of the same theological position as those who authored the anathemas against the "three chapters?"

Anathemas against the "Three Chapters"
- If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and
- without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made
- flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema

Correct?

You don't appear to have done your cause justice. I'll add extensively to your list of ancient authors who agree with you, taken from Dean Burgon's article on "New Testament Revision" in the Quarterly Review for January, 1882. He counts up "55 illustrious names," 40 of Greek writers from Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century to John of Damascus in the eighth, and fifteen of Latin writers, from Tertullian at the beginning of the third century to Facundus in the sixth, "who all see in Rom. ix. 5 a glorious assertion of the eternal God head of Christ who is over all [things], GOD blessed forever.”

GREEKS

Irenæus,608—

Hippolytus in 3 places,609—

Origen,610—

Malchion, in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D. 269,611—

ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,612—

the Const .App.,613—

Athanasius in 6 places,614—

Basil in 2 places,615—

Didymus in 5 places,616—

Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,617—

Epiphanius in 5 places,618—

Theodoras Mops.,619—

Methodius,620—

Eustathius,621—

Eulogius, twice,622—

Cæsarius, 3 times,623—

Theophilus Alex., twice,624—

Nestorius,625—

Theodotus of Ancyra,626—

Proclus, twice,627—

Severianus Bp. of Gabala,628—

Chrysostom, 8 times,629—Cyril Alex., 15 times,630—

Paulus Bp. of Emesa,631—Theodoret, 12 times,632—

Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,633—

Severus, Abp. of Antioch,634—

Amphilochius,635—

Gelasius Cyz.,636—

Anastasius Ant.,637—

Leontius Byz., 3 times,638—

Maximus,639—

J. Damascene, 3 times.640

LATINS

Tertullian, twice,641—

Cyprian,642—

Novatian twice,643—

Ambrose, 5 times,644—

Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,645—

Hilary, 7 times,646—

Jerome, twice,647—

Augustine, about 30 times,—

Victorinus,648—

the Breviarium, twice,649—

Marius Mercator,650—

Cassian, twice,651—

Alcimus Avit.,652—

Fulgentius, twice,653—

Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,654—

Ferrandus, twice,655—

Facundus:656—

to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3 (657) have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3 (658) for Chrysostom.


 
Last edited:
And by far the biggest problem with taking ὁ ὢν in Romans 9:5 in the second attributive position is that there is no such thing in all of the GNT where such an attributive adjective fails to modify the head noun by itself: ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. In other words, ὁ Χριστὸς [τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ]ὁ ὢν is gibberish. In contrast, all adjectives in the second attributive position are able to coherently modify the head noun on their own — Matt 5:29 (ὁ ὀφθαλμός [σου ] ὁ δεξιὸς), Acts 11:15 ((τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον), Hebrews 6:4 (τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου), Rev. 19:2 (τὴν πόρνην τὴν μεγάλην), etc..
Any 1st year Grammar book. In the second attributive position we have an article + noun + article + adjective which forms a coherent thought . This should be obvious to any normal Koine speaker. So for example we have ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἀγαθός ( the good man). At John 12:17 the same construction ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν is senseless . So this is not an example of ὁ ὢν acting as an attributive adjective modifying its head noun. Rather the modifiers attached to ὁ ὢν ( namely μετ’ αὐτοῦ) informs us that the expression ὁ ὢν μετ’ αὐτοῦ is an appositive. But I don’t expect you to understand this, since you can only chop & parse Greek without a natural ability in its natural flow.
How often do you read the Greek NT? What you're saying is gibberish, and you should be looking beyond a "1st year Grammar book," since your understanding of the participle seems far too narrow. The participle is after all still a verb and can still form clauses in the attributive position, and that clause is adjectival and modifies the head noun. This is particularly expected when utilizing the participle forms of εἰμί, and it functions like a relative (a.k.a. adjective) clause in English. And since you've chosen to disregard the fact that a substantival participle is itself an attributive usage, only the noun is implied, you're effectively cutting off your own hands and feet in this discussion. But you don't seem to realize that. When the article stands before the participle, and refers to a previously mentioned noun in the sentence, it is not independent, but dependent, and is therefore attributive.

First you don't appear to have done your cause justice.
My cause is fine, it seems both of you disputing with me have not advanced far enough in the language to understand the precise usage of the participle; Gryllus rightly answered you at the beginning of the forum but you disregarded it:
It's also fairly standard for participial phrases to stand where we might expect a relative clause in English. There is nothing wrong with the English translations on that score.
Feel free to check the intermediate grammars I sent, I'm sure those that address the attributive participle will be saying the same thing. But instead you are feeding off The Real John Milton, who despite spouting out a bunch of terminology and attempting to sound knowledgeable is turning out arguments that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue in question.

Many of these writers were engaged in christological controversies with the Arians. You can see how tempting it is to bring Rom 9:5 in to controvert Arianism at a single stroke, but yet it is far too simplistic, for the reasons I have outlined. The grammar doesn't obviously support it.
It does support it. For instance, what was the Arian reply? It was not, "You're reading it wrong" or "there should be punctuation." It was to say that Jesus is "God" in the same sense that God said he had made Moses "a god" to Pharaoh--not, "you're reading it wrong/you're not following the punctuation/it's a doxology to the Father." And in the end, they lost the argument and that sect essentially died out. In Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries, neo-Arians, Unitarians, and Socinians were still using that argument, with some advancing conjectural emendations of the passage. This is all very damning. No one before Erasmus that I am aware of understood ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν as a doxology to the Father. And he came to this conclusion by a faulty reading of an author he mistook as Ambrose, but was an interpolator we now refer to as Ambrosiaster.

Abbot did about as best a Unitarian could do in this situation, but he scarcely turned up any negative evidence at all. All he really managed to turn up as anything we might even consider negative evidence was the interpolator of Ignatius, but that reference was against the Patripassions who were stating that Christ himself was also the Father. Since the interpolator also refers to Christ as God, it seems Abbot missed that point or (as he does in other places) concealed it altogether. He tried also Eusebius, who never actually quotes the verse. In other words, the extant Greek fathers lend no real support at all to the notion that a doxology to the Father was read here.
 
Back
Top