This fella’s Koine is just hopeless.
You feel this way because you're
both taking a very novice approach to the participle, by simply treating ὁ as a
substantivizer rather than acknowledging the function is actually
relatival. So
you think
I'm the one who is confused. Neither of you seem to recognize that Koine Greek is a participle loving language and that it
prefers an attributive participle construction over a relative clause. So let me reiterate that
ὁ ὢν is functionally equivalent to ὅς ἐστι:
1. Metzger
The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause . . . and thus describes ὁ Χριστὸς as being "God over all." (Textual Commentary, 2nd Ed. p. 461)
Again,
2. Harris
c. ὁ ὢν as Relatival ("who is" = ὅς ἐστι)
The relatival use of an articular participle is common in NT Greek (see BDF §412) and I have cited above (n. 37) the eight NT uses of ὁ ὢν in this sense. But why is this the preferable way to construe this phrase in verse 5b and why does the burden of proof rest with those who would construe it otherwise? First, a proper name (ὁ Χριστὸς) precedes and agrees with ὁ ὢν, so that a change of subject is antecedently improbable. (Jesus as God, p. 159)
3. Beza
Et nemo qui vel a limine Graecam linguam salutarit, ignorat articulum praepositiuum cum participio saepe construi loco provocabuli cum verbo finito: ut ὁ ὢν nihil aliud declaret quam ὅς ἐστι.
And no one who meets the Greek utterance afresh is unaware that the article placed before the participle is often constructed in place of a pronoun together with a finite verb, so that ὁ ὢν means nothing else than ὅς ἐστι. (Annotation on Romans 9:5)
4. Meyer
"ὁ ὢν, which must be taken as an attributive definition of ὁ υἱὸς τ. ἀνθρ. . . . is equivalent to ὅς ἐστι" (Commentary on John 3:13)
5. Wallace
This is noted in his examples of adjectives in the Third Attributive Position (incidentally, I don't agree with this variant or the translation of μονογενὴς, and would prefer to translate it in the present due to the Jewish idiom of rest)
John 1:18 μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο
the unique God who was near the heart of the Father
More frequent than the adj. in the third attributive positions is the participle. When a participle is used, the article should normally be translated like a relative pronoun. (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 307)
6. Mathewson and Emig
2.25. Analyze the pronouns (in bold) according to their kind, their antecedent (or postcedent), and function in the following NT texts.
...ἐγένετο. 18θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (Intermediate Greek Grammar pp. 88-89, emphasis theirs)
The participle of εἰμί could be used like an adjective to modify a noun. To represent this usage in English, we often need to use a relative clause with who, which, or that.
8. A.T. Robertson
Among the attributive participles, he quotes (p. 1108, noting also the agreement of Moulton, Sanday, and Headlam),
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων (Ro. 9:5)
What does ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν mean, assuming that ὁ ὢν is in the second attributive position ? Third request.
ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν means, "Christ, who is." This participle construction is modified by a prepositional phrase ἐπὶ πάντων ("over all"), which
limits the scope of the participle to "Christ, who is
over all." I
did answer that.
In Exodus 3:14 ὁ ὤν is functioning substantially, not attributively. In other words it is in the predicate position, NOT in the attributive position. In other words it is a predicate nominative in the first use (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν ), and the subject of a sentence in the second ( ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με..)
You mean
substantively. Rather, it is an attributive participle serving as a predicate in an equative clause.
The
real problem here is that
you have taken the position that a substantival participle is neither attributive nor adjectival. This error is straight out of a misunderstanding of the Blog site you claimed was a "Grammar," which contrasted "substantival" with "adjectival." Grammars don't divide them that way, but treat substantival as a subset of attributive under the class of adjectival participles. Some newer grammars may split them as attributive and substantival under adjectival, but this is for clarity of instruction. Note, again, that:
All articular participles are, of course, attributive (A.T. Robertson, pp. 1106, 1108).
and
The first question one needs to ask when attempting to determine the nuance of a particular participle is, Does it have the article? If the answer is yes, it is adjectival . . . The adjectival participle may occupy any of the three attributive positions and both predicate positions. (Wallace, p. 617)
The same is true in the broader scope of Attic Greek (on which Koine is based), "
The attributive Participle is often used without a noun, thus becoming a noun itself" (Goodell, Thomas D.,
A School Grammar of Attic Greek)."A Little Greek is a Dangerous Thing"
My actual
point, which you did not address at all, is that it stands in place of the original (Hebrew) relative construction.
Still confused. ὁ (ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων) θεὸς in standalone form is still ὁ θεὸς by the ordinary rules of grammar.
I'm not. You are oversimplifying the function of the article here as merely a substantivizer, when the usage is actually
relatival. In other words, ὁ behaves like a pronoun. You are confusing this construction with ὁ (ἐπὶ πάντων) θεὸς. The same is noted by Metzger and Harris.
The attributive participle ὁ ὢν is not only adjectival in nature but also
equative, and thus when placed between two nouns it does not have an ambiguous function. The default in this case would be to look for a prior noun as the antecedent (as it is as we would say relatival in function). This is why both Metzger and Harris state it would be unnatural for ὁ ὢν to refer to θεὸς rather than its natural antecedent, ὁ Χριστὸς.
Μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν οὐχὶ ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται