Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

brianrw

Member
So you're admitting that the subject may come from the article itself without reference to an antecedent subject?
No, because to my knowledge ὁ ὢν in the GNT is never antecedent to its subject. When it occurs at the beginning of the sentence (i.e., substantively), it invariably refers to an implied antecedent and with the exceptions of two or three places where Jesus refers elliptically to himself takes on a generic sense, referring to anyone of the whole class of individuals that might perform the action. When there is a noun that precedes it matching in case, number, and gender it always agrees with that as its antecedent.

So everything you wrote criticizing the supposed non-modern AV elocutionary punctuation was simply diversion nonsense.

Your syntactical translation is actually identical to the punctuation you criticized.
You were playing a shell game.

It is this type of inconsistency and confusion in how you mishandle simple English arguments that makes your Greek claims, like apposition based on the circular subject-predicate claim, totally untrustworthy, even worthless.
I didn't criticize the punctuation, but the incorrect assertion that the ancient manuscripts contained a "period." I said that a middot is not a period, but stands where in modern English we would expect a comma and actually signified a pause for taking up a breath. FYI, it is the comma that eventually replaced the middot. How is it you can always garble my position so badly?

You would probably welcome this, since it supports the AV translation over the doxology to the Father, but you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with trying to contradict everything I say so you'll throw a good and true argument under the bus just to do so.

Now Brian has backtracked and now agrees 100% with the AV non-apposition punctuation! The elocutionary and syntactical punctuations he now says are identical!
Except I didn't backtrack at all. Just because I misunderstood your question and went back and answered once it was clarified, isn't a backtrack. Or did you forget I've said about a hundred times repeatedly that "God" is in apposition to "over all," which is set off by a comma after "over all"? Nothing has changed.

I literally just corrected you on this, so you have no excuse. You know that you're engaging in deliberate defamation, right, by consistently misrepresenting my position in order to harm my reputation? Specifically, to give the impression that I'm waffling on positions when I haven't changed them at all? And you've been repeatedly corrected on it but still continue to pretend otherwise? You really need to knock it off.

How would you show a semi-colon?

You do realize that such a punctuation in English can divide thoughts in a manner similar to how a period or stop divides thoughts.

You seem to work with the fallacy of the false dichotomy. If it not a full stop, it does not matter.
I didn't say it would be used here. I'm just saying it does sometimes correspond with places where we use syntactic punctuation such as commas, colons, and semicolons. And I'm referring to the punctuation of ancient Greek manuscripts, not English. The middot was eventually replaced by a comma.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So Brian, why did you emphasize early elocutionary punctuation vs. later syntactical punctuation when you now acknowledge that they are actually identical?

No more evasion. Try to answer the question!

You like to answer questions not asked and ignore the actual question.
Tacky.
 

brianrw

Member
So Brian, why did you emphasize early elocutionary punctuation vs. later syntactical punctuation when you now acknowledge that they are actually identical?

No more evasion. Try to answer the question!
But that's not what I said, is it? I never said they are identical. I said the middot stands in Romans 9:5 where we now use a comma in English, that it is not a period, and that it (the middot) in Greek manuscripts is simply a pause for taking up a breath. English commas are syntactic. The Greek middot was not, it was an assist for the public reading of the scriptures (there were other uses as well--word division, etc.). I showed you where the middots fell in G as an example, and it's blatantly obvious even from that single manuscript the purpose was not syntactic. Otherwise, the division of words would be nonsensical.

Since the middot in the majority of manuscripts is a pause for taking up a breath, and in later minuscules often fell at the end of short clauses (hence the name comma), the middot evolved into a comma. And the comma later became syntactic. All you are doing is trying to catch at words, and it makes your analysis sloppy.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
But that's not what I said, is it? I never said they are identical.

Actually it was. You were clearly asked to give your modern syntactical punctuation English translation of the Greek and you simply deferred to the AV text, which ironically you criticized as only elocutionary. If you believed the punctuation would be different, in any way at all, you would give a different, modern syntactical English translation

So why did you make a big bru-ha -ha about the early elocutionary punctuation when your syntactical is identical.

Once again, try to answer the actual question.
Focus.

Thanks!

It is humorous that you start giving blah-blah about a mid-dot, which has absolutely nothing to do with the simple question. Your non-“answers” are a diversion and embarassment. Your attempted English translation would be of the TR text used by the learned men of the AV, where there is no mid-dot.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Actually it was. You were clearly asked to give your modern syntacticall translation to the Greek and you simply deferred to the AV text, which you criticized as only elocutionary.

So why did you make a big bru-ha -ha about the early elocutionary punctuation when your syntactical is identical.

Once again, try to answer the actual question.
Focus.
No, you're misrepresenting me again after being corrected again. I never criticized the comma after "flesh" in Romans 9:5, so you have no basis for this assertion. Maybe you think a period is a comma? I said the middot in the Greek texts are not a period, but a pause to take up a breath. You've clearly confused two different topics, since the one you brought up about the English commas relates to Titus 2:13, not Romans 9:5.

The AV was revised in 1769 for the purpose of standardization, etc. and many of the excess elocutionary commas were removed. One of them is in Titus 2:13, where I specifically noted a second comma was removed. I clarified that above. Part of the standardization of syntactic punctuation was influenced by areas where there were natural pauses in the text. Here, the comma occurs in a place where modern English syntax might require it.

To reiterate this again: I never decried the usage of the comma after "flesh" in Romans 9:5, so I never changed my position. My point, and I'll try to say it simply one more time, was against the incorrect assertion that the middot was a "period." To say it yet again so you don't miss it: the middot, a sign for taking up a breath in ancient Greek texts, is not a period and does not justify the placement of a period in our Greek or English texts.

The modern system of punctuation was codified only in the 20th century.

So you are misrepresenting me again, as you do everywhere else, and I'm going to ask you again to please knock it off.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
No, you're misrepresenting me again after being corrected again. I never criticized the comma after "flesh" in Romans 9:5, so you have no basis for this assertion. I

An assertion I never made.
All I want are differences in your syntactical translation, compared to what you call the early elocutionary punctuation.

We are discussing Romans 9:5.
You have shown us that your syntactical text is identical to your early elocutionary text. So the distinction has zero relevance.

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge simple truth?

There are three commas in Romans 9:5 and you accept them all as accurate, and you do not add any additional commas (like many who add a comma after God to support apposition.)

Romans 9:5
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
My point, and I'll try to say it simply one more time, was against the incorrect assertion that the middot was a "period." To say it yet again so you don't miss it: the middot, a sign for taking up a breath in ancient Greek texts, is not a period and does not justify the placement of a period in our Greek or English texts.

Another assertion I never made.

Focus.
 

brianrw

Member
To be clear, contextually, Steven believes a comma needs to be placed after "God" (not merely after "over all") to form an apposition in English, because only then does it break up what he interprets as a compound adjective, "God blessed" (that is, to him, "Blessed by God," an interpretation the Greek does not allow).

We are discussing Romans 9:5.
You have shown is that your syntactical text is identical to your early elocutionary text. So the distinction has zero relevance.

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge simple truth?
Because it's not identical. The punctuation in the ancient manuscripts is haphazard and inconsistent. We find the middot in places we don't expect it, and in places we might expect it it's absent. You're taking this one example in one place where there they happen to coincide and pretend it's universally true when it is not. I actually gave some examples, just in this place. The one that most clearly represents what I am saying:

G (012)

ὧν πατέρες · καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ · Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα · ὁ · ὢν · ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς · εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν
(this manuscript contains two articular omissions)

If we took this punctuation as syntactic, the reading would be "whose [are the] fathers, and from whom the, Christ according to the flesh, who, is, God over all, blessed forever.

Does that look syntactic to you? Or "identical" to modern punctuation? A careful reading of my posts above should have helped you understand that here. But you are word catching, so your analysis is sloppy.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
To be clear, contextually, Steven believes a comma needs to be placed after "God" (not merely after "over all") to form an apposition in English, because only then does it break up what he interprets as a compound adjective, "God blessed" (that is, to him, "Blessed by God," an interpretation the Greek does not allow).

More diversion, to avoid the question on elocutionary and syntactical punctuation in Romans 9:5 and the AV text.

You can claim an apposition also by the dubious claim of ellipses.

(Christ as) God (is) blessed for ever (by creation, his people, etc.)

I have explained this to you before.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If we took this punctuation as syntactic, the reading would be "whose [are the] fathers, and from whom the, Christ according to the flesh, who, is, God over all, blessed forever.

More irrelevant diversion. This is not your syntactical punctuation of the TR text in the AV.

Focus.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Because it's not identical. The punctuation in the ancient manuscripts is haphazard and inconsistent.

Also totally irrelevant to my question about Romans 9:5, the AV, the TR and the identity of elocutionary and syntactical punctuation.

Focus.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
L (9th century)
...κατὰ σάρκα · οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται · ὧν ἡ υ[ἱ]οθεσία · καὶ ἡ δόξα · [omission] καὶ ἡ λατρ[ε]ία · καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι · ὧν οἱ πατέρες · καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα · ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς , εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν.
This is among the earliest extant manuscripts that employ a low dot (period) and a space to mark the end of a sentence, here after ἀμήν.

Here the punctuation has become more standard in breaking up clauses, and is certainly more than the very limited punctuation we find in the more ancient uncials. The placement of the middot shows the scribe employed it to break the text up into smaller clauses where we might find a comma. So we can reliably state that the scribe of L used it equivalent to our commas. It certainly isn't all periods, colons, or semicolons. The only meaningful punctuation in the sentence, grammatically speaking, is the comma that comes between θεὸς and εὐλογητὸς and the low dot (full stop) that occurs after ἀμήν.

See Bold:
That looks like it might be the attempt to create apposition between God and Christ by separating God and blessed. As you know, this occurs in English by various commentators and texts. You properly reject this mangling.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
your blasphemy towards the name of God that I don't even want to repeat here.

This absurd, unhinged accusation is covered here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/tetragram-jehovah-“yahweh”-jupiter.9172/

 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The AV was revised in 1769 for the purpose of standardization, etc. and many of the excess elocutionary commas were removed. One of them is in Titus 2:13,ff.

Totally irrelevant to Romans 9:5, where you find no difference between early elocutionary and later syntactical punctuation.

You misunderstand Titus 2:13, but that would be on its own thread.
 

brianrw

Member
More diversion, to avoid the question on elocutionary and syntactical punctuation in Romans 9:5 and the AV text.

You can claim an apposition also by the dubious claim of ellipses.
Those are actually your words, not mine. I said "God" in the KJV reading is an apposition, set off by a comma after "over all" and that "blessed" is a predicate adjective in the postposition. You consider these both "ellipses."

More irrelevant diversion. This is not your syntactical punctuation of the TR text in the AV.
You literally missed that point entirely. You said the punctuation of the manuscripts was identical to modern syntactic punctuation, to which I transcribed the text of Codex G (9th century) and translated it into English as though all the middots were commas to show that the usage of the middot is not syntactical. But to you, that's irrelevant.

(Christ as) God (is) blessed for ever (by creation, his people, etc.)

I have explained this to you before.
But neither correctly nor substantively.

That looks like the attempt to create apposition between God and Christ by separating God and blessed. As you know, this occurs in English by various commentators and texts. You properly reject this mangling.
No. It shows the scribe probably believed the division should be "who is God over all, blessed forever." We are dealing with an adjectival construction, not a compound adjective. You're approaching the Greek from a misreading of the English text.

I'm done conversing here with you. The way you're word catching, missing the point, and misrepresenting me the more clear it is that there's literally no chance anything constructive will follow.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I've said about a hundred times repeatedly that "God" is in apposition to "over all," which is set off by a comma after "over all"? Nothing has changed.

Barry says that God is in apposition to Christ.

And you have said that God is an appositive to Christ, not your "100 times" claim above, which I do not remember anywhere. So you vary your apposition claim.

Brian on PBF
"Because the construction is "who is over all, God," where "God" is an appositive to Christ."

Ironically you inserted the comma after God, which actually would make it an appositive!

You separate God from "blessed for ever"
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You literally missed that point entirely. You said the punctuation of the manuscripts was identical to modern syntactic punctuation,

Again, I said no such thing. Not even remotely.

Why do you constantly put words in my mouth that I never wrote?

Three times in the last page or so, this one is the worst.
 

brianrw

Member
"Because the construction is "who is over all, God," where "God" is an appositive to Christ."

Ironically you inserted the comma after God, which actually would make it an appositive!
No, I didn't insert a comma. That comma marks the end of the quotation, which is normal for the rules of grammar. We had this conversation before, and you said the rule makes no sense so I should have broken it. Then you kept saying I added a comma.

This has become deliberate, and you need to knock this off.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
No. It shows the scribe probably believed the division should be "who is God over all, blessed forever." We are dealing with an adjectival construction, not a compound adjective. You're approaching the Greek from a misreading of the English text.

Which would be the apposition I mentioned.
 
Top