Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Obviously ὁ ὢν isn't interchangable with ὅς ἐστι, because Paul uses ὅς ἐστι, 18 times, and uses ὁ ὢν only twice, both times in doxologies (also in 2 Cor 11:31), which suggests that ὁ ὢν relates to the doxlogy and not what comes before it.
No kidding.. Anyone who believes or teaches otherwise should really be banned from reading the Epistles of apostle Paul, for their own good.
 

Anthony

Well-known member
You're just preaching a variant of British Israelism


Why then did Paul boast that the gospel was preached over the whole world? Go do a search for "all nations" in the KJV,

Rom 1:5 "By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name"


Abraham has spiritual children as well as literal descendants.
All nations? Can you read Heb 11:
11 By belief also, Sarah herself was enabled to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the normal age, because she deemed Him trustworthy who had promised.

12 And so from one, and him as good as dead, were born as numerous as the stars of the heaven, as countless as the sand which is by the seashore.

Can you also comprehend:

Rom 4:17 as it has been written, “I have made you a father of many nations” in the presence of Him whom he believed, even Elohim, who gives life to the dead and calls that which does not exist as existing,
18 who against all expectation did believe, in expectation, so that he should become father of many nations, according to what was said, “So shall your seed be.”

Can you also comprehend:

Gal 3: 8 And the Scripture, having foreseen that Elohim would declare right the nations by belief, announced the Good News to Aḇraham beforehand, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you,”

The gospel message was announced to Abraham before he would become the father of many nations.

How did he become the father of many nations? See the above scriptures - Hebrews 11:11-12 and Rom 4:17-18.

Very simple! Those who can read scriptures without any bias can see that the gospel message hovers around Abraham's children of promise as Isaac was. Not all his descendants but only his promised children as Isaac -Jacob - Israel.

Besides, I gave you other scriptures you winked at:

James 1:1 Jacob, a servant of God and of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, to the twelve tribes which are in the Diaspora: Greetings. (HNV)

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (Kjv).

How about Gal 4:
4 But when the completion of the time came, Elohim sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under Torah,

5 to redeem those who were under Torah, in order to receive the adoption as sons
.

6 And because you are sons, Elohim has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, “Abba, Father!”

They are the sons my friend.

You have been mislead by Christianity.

The New Covenant is made only with the house of Judah and the house of Israel - it's one Israel now. The two divided houses after the death of Solomon have now been united under New Covenant in Yeshua Messiah.

Heb 8: 8 For finding fault with them, he said, “Behold, the days come”, says the Lord, “that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

Acts 2:14 & 22 are addressed to the two houses.

It's seen that the feasts of Passover, Unleavened bread, Firstfruits and Pentecost are fulfilled.

The only feasts of Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles (end feasts) are yet to be fulfilled which will be at the time of Messiah's return.

Ar the last trumpet, those who are sanctified (atonement) will receive heavenly tabernacle (new glorified bodies) and God Himself will Tabernacle in midst of glorified saints. This is the significance of the end feasts which are yet to be fulfilled.

My friend, repent from the false gospel that Christianity has taught you and come at the feet of Messiah. Who knows perhaps you too are a far descendant of Abraham - a lost sheep of the house of Israel?
 

brianrw

Member
No kidding.. Anyone who believes or teaches otherwise should really be banned from reading the Epistles of apostle Paul, for their own good.
You feel this way because you're both taking a very novice approach to the participle.

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,

Here the expression ὁ ὢν is obviously relatival in character and equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. (New Testament Studies - Philological, Versional, and Patristic, p. 67)

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 ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (Intermediate Greek Grammar pp. 88-89, emphasis theirs)​

7. Hellenisticgreek.com (Professor Palmer)

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)​

Since you've already heard the rest elsewhere, I'm not going to take it up again here.
 

cjab

Well-known member
You feel this way because you're both taking a very novice approach to the participle.

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,

Here the expression ὁ ὢν is obviously relatival in character and equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. (New Testament Studies - Philological, Versional, and Patristic, p. 67)

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 ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (Intermediate Greek Grammar pp. 88-89, emphasis theirs)​

7. Hellenisticgreek.com (Professor Palmer)

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)​

Since you've already heard the rest elsewhere, I'm not going to take it up again here.
Thanks for this.

However it seems most unlikely that the Greek writers generally, and Paul in particular, deliberately and arbitrarily use ὁ ὢν in place of ὅς ἐστιν, for that is what these commentators are all inferring. That is a statement far too far, and unprovable. For it is obvious that Paul for one did not see ὅς ἐστιν and ὁ ὢν as interchangable, and this is the whole issue for all these commentators who appeal to a "general rule."


There is no evidence in Paul's letters that any such general rule of substitutability existed. ὁ ὢν is at most appositional in respect of what precedes it (unless it is an obviously dependent clause when it may be treated as de facto attributive).

That apposition and dependency is relativized in translation into other languages is neither here nor there.

It is also obvious that Greek apposition can be displaced by other rules of grammar: the participle being incorporated into a noun clause under the ordinary rules of Greek grammar, as in Rom 9:5, being one such instance.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Thanks for this.

However it seems most unlikely that the Greek writers generally, and Paul in particular, deliberately and arbitrarily use ὁ ὢν in place of ὅς ἐστιν, for that is what these commentators are all inferring. That is a statement far too far, and unprovable. For it is obvious that Paul for one did not see ὅς ἐστιν and ὁ ὢν as interchangable, and this is the whole issue for all these commentators who appeal to a "general rule."
Not just apostle Paul, but no other GNT writer uses ὁ ὢν interchangeably with ὅς ἐστιν.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member

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,
Here the expression ὁ ὢν is obviously relatival in character and equivalent to ὅς ἐστιν. (New Testament Studies - Philological, Versional, and Patristic, p. 67)

You have supported “Christ .. who is over all” previously, as in the AV.

Have you now switched to “God over all”?
 

brianrw

Member
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)
You have supported “Christ .. who is over all” previously, as in the AV.

Have you now switched to “God over all”?
Hi Steven. No, I have not switched my preference in translation but Metzger's translation is equally valid. Both convey the same meaning, but emphasize different nuances of the Greek.

However it seems most unlikely that the Greek writers generally, and Paul in particular, deliberately and arbitrarily use ὁ ὢν in place of ὅς ἐστιν, for that is what these commentators are all inferring.
It's definitely not arbitrary, cjab. What I said is that Koine Greek prefers a participle to a relative clause. As I have noted in the other thread, while (I should really say roughly) equivalent in function, an attributive participle is primarily restrictive, whereas the relative pronoun is primarily nonrestrictive. In other words:

A restrictive clause restricts or defines the meaning of a noun or noun phrase and provides necessary information about the noun in the sentence. It is not separated from the rest of the sentence by commas . . . A restrictive clause is also sometimes referred to as an essential clause or phrase. (source: Waldenu.edu)
The attributive participle be used to limit/restrict, specify, or identify their antecedent. The participle can operate like an adjective and yet it can also govern objects, be modified by a prepositional phrase, etc. This is true of the class of attributive participles, not just ὁ ὢν.

Obviously ὁ ὢν isn't interchangable with ὅς ἐστι, because Paul uses ὅς ἐστι, 18 times, and uses ὁ ὢν only twice, both times in doxologies (also in 2 Cor 11:31)
I didn't exactly say "interchangeable," but both times it means "who is."

New Testament​

It also operates relatively in more than two places in the whole of the NT: John 1:18 (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς), 3:13 (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, as found in nearly all manuscripts), 12:27 (ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ), 2 Cor. 11:31 (ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας).

There are also several examples in Revelation: 1:8 (ὁ κύριος ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ παντοκράτωρ), 4:8 (ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος), 5:5 (ὁ λέων ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα), 11:17 (ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν). However, John's usage is somewhat idiosyncratic (Cf. 1:4 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος; 16:5 δίκαιος εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος (NA/UBS)), so it's harder to form conclusions.

Old Testament​

In at least two instances in the Greek OT ὁ ὢν is used where we find a relativizer (אֲשֶׁר) in Hebrew:

הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אַחֲרֵי עָמְרִי (1 Kings 16:22)​
ὁ λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι​
The people who are following Omri (=The followers of Omri)​
אֶֽהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה (Exodus 3:14)​
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν.
I am Who Is​

As I have said elsewhere, attributive participle can be used substantively when the head noun is implied.

Inscription​

For an example outside the GNT and GOT, it also occurs in an ancient funeral inscription of Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, from about the mid-2nd century:

οὔνομα Ἀβέρκιος ὁ ὧν μαθητὴς ποιμένος ἁγνοῦ (Inscription of Abercius)​
My name is Abercius, who is a disciple of the holy Shepherd​

Translation of the Attributive Participle as a Relative Clause​

As every grammar within my reach will tell you (I noted A.T. Robertson, Funk, I think also Mounce, Wallace elsewhere so will not repeat them here),

An attributive participle should normally be translated with a relative clause (e.g., “the Father who sent Him,” τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν). (Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition, p. 327).​

The best way to translate an attributive participle is by means of a relative clause. A relative clause is one that begins with a relative pronoun (“who,” “which,” or “that”). (Black, David Alan. Learn to Read New Testament Greek, p. 150).​

These all fall well within the range of usage of the attributive participle, the same rules hold true with other attributive participles, and frankly I've never seen this or the usage of the attributive participle functioning like a relative clause disputed, as you and The Real John Milton have disputed it. There's no reason to treat ὁ ὧν as an exception to the rule.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Hi Steven. No, I have not switched my preference in translation but Metzger's translation is equally valid. Both convey the same meaning, but emphasize different nuances of the Greek.


It's definitely not arbitrary, cjab. What I said is that Koine Greek prefers a participle to a relative clause. As I have noted in the other thread, while (I should really say roughly) equivalent in function, an attributive participle is primarily restrictive, whereas the relative pronoun is primarily nonrestrictive. In other words:

A restrictive clause restricts or defines the meaning of a noun or noun phrase and provides necessary information about the noun in the sentence. It is not separated from the rest of the sentence by commas . . . A restrictive clause is also sometimes referred to as an essential clause or phrase. (source: Waldenu.edu)
The attributive participle be used to limit/restrict, specify, or identify their antecedent. The participle can operate like an adjective and yet it can also govern objects, be modified by a prepositional phrase, etc. This is true of the class of attributive participles, not just ὁ ὢν.


I didn't exactly say "interchangeable," but both times it means "who is."

New Testament​

It also operates relatively in more than two places in the whole of the NT: John 1:18 (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς), 3:13 (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, as found in nearly all manuscripts), 12:27 (ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ), 2 Cor. 11:31 (ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας).

There are also several examples in Revelation: 1:8 (ὁ κύριος ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ παντοκράτωρ), 4:8 (ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος), 5:5 (ὁ λέων ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα), 11:17 (ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν). However, John's usage is somewhat idiosyncratic (Cf. 1:4 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος; 16:5 δίκαιος εἶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν ὁ ὅσιος (NA/UBS)), so it's harder to form conclusions.

Old Testament​

In at least two instances in the Greek OT ὁ ὢν is used where we find a relativizer (אֲשֶׁר) in Hebrew:

הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אַחֲרֵי עָמְרִי (1 Kings 16:22)​
ὁ λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι​
The people who are following Omri (=The followers of Omri)​
אֶֽהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה (Exodus 3:14)​
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν.
I am Who Is​

As I have said elsewhere, attributive participle can be used substantively when the head noun is implied.

Inscription​

For an example outside the GNT and GOT, it also occurs in an ancient funeral inscription of Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, from about the mid-2nd century:

οὔνομα Ἀβέρκιος ὁ ὧν μαθητὴς ποιμένος ἁγνοῦ (Inscription of Abercius)​
My name is Abercius, who is a disciple of the holy Shepherd​

Translation of the Attributive Participle as a Relative Clause​

As every grammar within my reach will tell you (I noted A.T. Robertson, Funk, I think also Mounce, Wallace elsewhere so will not repeat them here),

An attributive participle should normally be translated with a relative clause (e.g., “the Father who sent Him,” τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν). (Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition, p. 327).​

The best way to translate an attributive participle is by means of a relative clause. A relative clause is one that begins with a relative pronoun (“who,” “which,” or “that”). (Black, David Alan. Learn to Read New Testament Greek, p. 150).​

These all fall well within the range of usage of the attributive participle, the same rules hold true with other attributive participles, and frankly I've never seen this or the usage of the attributive participle functioning like a relative clause disputed, as you and The Real John Milton have disputed it. There's no reason to treat ὁ ὧν as an exception to the rule.
Stop the distraction. We all know that an attributive participle can be translated as a relative clause. The point is that ὁ ὧν is never used as an attributive participle in the second position in the GNT, and it certainly never equals to ὅς ἐστι , at least not in the GNT. You are imagining these two things.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Hi Steven. No, I have not switched my preference in translation but Metzger's translation is equally valid. Both convey the same meaning, but emphasize different nuances of the Greek.

They "convey the same meaning" ONLY if you take the circular stance that Christ basically means God (the apposition theory.)
 

brianrw

Member
We all know that an attributive participle can be translated as a relative clause.
Your comments elsewhere suggest to me that you're just now coming around to this.

The point is that ὁ ὧν is never used as an attributive participle in the second position in the GNT, and it certainly never equals to ὅς ἐστι , at least not in the GNT. You are imagining these two things.
Right now all you are doing is special pleading, suggesting that ὁ ὧν is an exception to the rule because to you it (loose quote) "doesn't make sense without modifiers" or something to that extent, which is not a valid argument--the attributive participle can and often is modified by a prepositional phrase. You then proceeded to concoct a rule that in the 2nd Attributive position, the attributive participle (actually, you used the word "adjective") can't be modified, which is also untrue. And you occasionally cite the rules of adjectives instead of attributive participles. Among other things, you called a website Blog "a grammar" and support your arguments with anonymous quotes from websites. So I'm not exactly having an easy time taking your assertions seriously.

And yes, ὁ ὧν does occur in the 2nd attributive position in John 12:17, ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. John 1:18 as it stands in virtually all manuscripts is μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο, where ὁ ὧν is in the 2nd Attributive position. In the other thread, you omitted the article from this same reading and then said it wasn't in the second position. (In the critical texts, it is in the third attributive position: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, and I'm very amused at how you just tried twice to distort Ehrman's comments to mean that μονογενὴς has to be a substantive in order for ὁ ὢν to be in an attributive position, which is just flat wrong. He was disputing the substantival interpretation of it in the translation, "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father," which actually does require a substantival use of μονογενὴς).

Again, John 3:13 as found in almost all manuscripts outside of Egypt also has ὁ ὢν in the 2nd attributive position: υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

In the Greek Old Testament, 1 Kings 16:22 is also the 2nd attributive, λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι.

In all the examples above, noting again these specifically in the 2nd position, and in my post before that, ὁ ὤν is equivalent in function to ὅς ἐστι. Hence in modern translations they are translated using a relative clause, "who is."

They "convey the same meaning" ONLY if you take the circular stance that Christ basically means God (the apposition theory.)
Circular means the outcome is predetermined and the arguments are formed to fit a preconceived notion. In the present example, I can apply the same rules of grammar here that I can to other instances of the participle. There's no need for special circumstances (i.e., special pleading), as we consistently find is the case with The Real John Milton, for instance.

But in no instance can the Greek θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in Romans 9:5 mean "blessed by God," which is your understanding of the English reading "God blessed for ever." If it could mean that, I would have told you.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
And yes, ὁ ὧν does occur in the 2nd attributive position in John 12:17, ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ.

At John 12:17 ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ is an appositive, it is not in the second attributive position.


John 1:18 as it stands in virtually all manuscripts is μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο, where ὁ ὧν is in the 2nd Attributive position. In the other thread, you omitted the article from this same reading and then said it wasn't in the second position. (In the critical texts, it is in the third attributive position: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, and I'm very amused at how you just tried twice to distort Ehrman's comments to mean that μονογενὴς has to be a substantive in order for ὁ ὢν to be in an attributive position, which is just flat wrong. He was disputing the substantival interpretation of it in the translation, "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father," which actually does require a substantival use of μονογενὴς).

Again, John 3:13 as found in almost all manuscripts outside of Egypt also has ὁ ὢν in the 2nd attributive position: υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

In the Greek Old Testament, 1 Kings 16:22 is also the 2nd attributive, λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι.

In all the examples above, noting again these specifically in the 2nd position, and in my post before that, ὁ ὤν is equivalent in function to ὅς ἐστι. Hence in modern translations they are translated using a relative clause, "who is."


Circular means the outcome is predetermined and the arguments are formed to fit a preconceived notion. In the present example, I can apply the same rules of grammar here that I can to other instances of the participle. There's no need for special circumstances (i.e., special pleading), as we consistently find is the case with The Real John Milton, for instance.

But in no instance can the Greek θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in Romans 9:5 mean "blessed by God," which is your understanding of the English reading "God blessed for ever." If it could mean that, I would have told you.
So you no longer agree with Wallace that ὁ ὧν here is in the third attributive position ? It is in fact neither. ὁ ὢν is in apposition to μονογενὴς υἱός.


BTW., I'm ignoring your misrepresentations of my position.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Circular means the outcome is predetermined and the arguments are formed to fit a preconceived notion. I
The preconceived notion is that Christ is God. (What God? Not God the Father?)

This leads to the very weak circular argument that “Christ ... who is over all” has the same meaning as “God over all”.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
It’s interesting that the same people who insist that ὁ ὢν iin Roman’s 9:5 means “who is” insist that at John 1:18 it means “who was.” It means neither. It just always means “the one being,” it is the functional equivalent of a substantive. This playing around with the tense of ὁ ὢν is a further proof that it does not function as an attributive adjective in the second position. Infact the Trinitarian usage morphs ὁ ὢν into a third person singular verb with changeable tenses. Such an animal simply does not exist in biblical Koine.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
But in no instance can the Greek θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in Romans 9:5 mean "blessed by God," which is your understanding of the English reading "God blessed for ever." If it could mean that, I would have told you.

You have told me many things that turned out to be totally wrong. You tried to fake an apposition in the English AV text by linguistic head-fakes involving hyphens and commas.

it is either - “(Christ is) God blessed ..”.
Or “God (is) blessed” by creation or his people or something.

spin went fo the first.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
twice to distort Ehrman's comments to mean that μονογενὴς has to be a substantive in order for ὁ ὢν to be in an attributive position, which is just flat wrong. He was disputing the substantival interpretation of it in the translation, "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father," which actually does require a substantival use of μονογενὴς).

Again, John 3:13 as found in almost all manuscripts outside of Egypt also has ὁ ὢν in the 2nd attributive position: υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ.

In the Greek Old Testament, 1 Kings 16:22 is also the 2nd attributive, λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι.

In all the examples above, noting again these specifically in the 2nd position, and in my post before that, ὁ ὤν is equivalent in function to ὅς ἐστι. Hence in modern translations they are translated using a relative clause, "who is."


Circular means the outcome is predetermined and the arguments are formed to fit a preconceived notion. In the present example, I can apply the same rules of grammar here that I can to other instances of the participle. There's no need for special circumstances (i.e., special pleading), as we consistently find is the case with The Real John Milton, for instance.

But in no instance can the Greek θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in Romans 9:5 mean "blessed by God," which is your understanding of the English reading "God blessed for ever." If it could mean that, I would have told you.
Now to point out the distortion. I have never argued or suggested red above.

By the way, Wallace does not merely take μονογενὴς as a substantive “in translation,” he actually sees it as such in John 1:18 so that he takes μονογενὴς in apposition to Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Here is Ehrman:

"The more common expedient for those who opt for [ὁ] μονογενὴς θεός, but who recognize that its rendering as “the unique God” is virtually impossible in a Johannine context, is to understand the adjective substantivally, and to construe the entire second half of John 1:18 as a series of appositions, so that rather than reading “the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father,” the text should be rendered “the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father.” There is something attractive about the proposal. It explains what the text might have meant to a Johannine reader and thereby allows for the text of the generally superior textual witnesses. Nonetheless, the solution is entirely implausible."

So Wallace understand the adjective substantivally , not just "in translation" as Brian falsely asserts.

Ref: "He was disputing the substantival interpretation of it in the translation, "the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father," which actually does require a substantival use of μονογενὴς)."
 
G

guest1

Guest
Appeal to authority fallacy milky . And he is no authority lol.

Next
 

brianrw

Member
At John 12:17 ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ is an appositive, it is not in the second attributive position.
This is special pleading. The problem is you think an attributive participle cannot be modified by a prepositional phrase, when it can. It can take objects, too, among other uses. You're mistaking it as a regular adjective, requiring that it modify the head noun by itself, and incorrectly asserting that if it is modified by a prepositional phrase it must be taken as appositional. This simply isn't the case.

All of this betrays how incredibly novice an approach you are taking to it.

So you no longer agree with Wallace that ὁ ὧν here is in the third attributive position ?
I favor a different variant than Wallace, the one found in almost all manuscripts. But his example is in the 3rd Attributive position.

It is in fact neither. ὁ ὢν is in apposition to μονογενὴς υἱός.
Again, special pleading, because (for reasons noted above) you fail to understand the usage of the attributive participle.

By the way, Wallace does not merely take μονογενὴς as a substantive “in translation,” he actually sees it as such in John 1:18 so that he takes μονογενὴς in apposition to Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς.
No, Wallace doesn't. He translates the passage "the unique God who was near the heart of the Father" (p. 307), which is nearly the same as Ehrman's ("the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father"). In both cases, "unique" is adjectival. Wallace specifically mentions it in his grammar as an example of an attributive participle (ὁ ὢν) in the 3rd Attributive position, and comments that when the participle is used it should normally be translated like a relative pronoun. That's is not taking μονογενὴς as substantival.

Here is Ehrman:
Except that Ehrman is arguing something completely different, and not even against Wallace. You've quoted him out of context to support your own assertion, which is, of course, the fallacy of contextomy.

The problem is you've misread Ehrman's argument against the problematic translation “the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father" some have proposed for John 1:18, where ὁ μονογενὴς actually is taken as substantival (i.e., "the unique one") in apposition to θεὸς. You miss also that the participial phrase that follows forms a third distinct apposition as well since θεὸς is made to stand on its own. You misunderstand this above, saying "he (i.e. straw man Wallace) takes μονογενὴς in apposition to Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς." Of course, Wallace does no such thing at all.

Despite being corrected on this three times already, you're still not getting it. Worse yet, you're using that misunderstanding to make further problematic assertions about the Greek construction. To be clear, Ehrman is a witness on my side regarding John 1:18:

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

For the record, Ehrman (an agnostic) also believes that Romans 9:5 is an example of a place where Paul refers to Christ as "God."

It’s interesting that the same people who insist that ὁ ὢν iin Roman’s 9:5 means “who is” insist that at John 1:18 it means “who was.” It means neither. It just always means “the one being,” it is the functional equivalent of a substantive. This playing around with the tense of ὁ ὢν is a further proof that it does not function as an attributive adjective in the second position.
Again, this just shows how little you understand about the participle. The present participle often signifies an action taking place simultaneous to the action of the main verb in the sentence. In this case, the main verb is ἐξηγέομαι, which is in the Aorist (ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο). I'm not saying that is how I would translate it, but it is indeed valid.

I'm not a huge fan of either individual or some of their interpretations. Still, they should not be misrepresented.
 
Last edited:
Top