Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Three times above you put words in my mouth that I never wrote or thought.

You really need to address them, especially the last one with the totally bogus claim

"You said the punctuation of the manuscripts was identical to modern syntactic punctuation,"

If you ignore this false claim, rather than correction with apology, how can you expect any respect?

=======================

Plus you should acknowledge that your syntactical translation of the TR Romans 9:5 is identical to the AV elocutionary text.
i.e. All the commas and periods.
 

brianrw

Member
Who else would be the "who"?
Codex L says, "from whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." The English construction requires the first two commas, the codex has the third.

Let's call it a day. Nothing constructive is happening here.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Codex L says, "from whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." The English construction requires the first two commas, the codex has the third.

Let's call it a day. Nothing constructive is happening here.

Like I said, you have Codex L as an apposition text, with God separated from blessed.

==========================

You should address your totally bogus claim, wacky, wild, that I repeated in the post right above. It is a perfect example of your writing whatever is convenient.

"You said the punctuation of the manuscripts was identical to modern syntactic punctuation,"

Integrity first.
 

brianrw

Member
" You said the punctuation of the manuscripts was identical to modern syntactic punctuation,"

If you ignore this false claim, rather than correction with apology, how can you expect any respect?

=======================

Plus you should acknowledge that your syntactical translation is identical to the AV elocutionary text.
I apologize, I misunderstood you. The one comma is identical after "flesh," but English demands a second after "over all." I never said anything was wrong about the AV punctuation here, so I'm not sure where all this is coming from. I was answering cjab that the middot in the ancient manuscripts is not a period. That's all.

In other places in the 1611 edition of the KJV, the punctuation does not always match syntactical usage. It is in fact way over-punctuated from a modern standpoint. But it was written in that time period when the same modern standard doesn't apply. The 1769 edition is a lot closer to modern punctuation.

Three times above you put words in my mouth that I never wrote or thought.
It was not my intent, so again I apologize. I am trying to respond accurately, but I don't always understand what you're trying to ask and your vitriolic tone is completely unnecessary. You're using terms and expressions that mean one thing to me, but you've loaded them up with your own idiosyncratic meaning.

So maybe you can put yourself under the same scrutiny, as you've put words in my mouth and misrepresented me in well over a hundred straight posts both here and in your forum, and have refused to listen when I correct you. Are you going to start apologizing, retracting, and making amends, and correcting the countless misstatements and new threads you've opened up misrepresenting me and my positions? That would be a good start.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You've done that to me in about a hundred straight posts both here and in your forum, so maybe you could also start apologizing there, and making amends, and retracting the countless mistatements and new threads you've made about me and my positions. I doubt you'll do it at all, because you care more about your own reputation than the reputation of others.

What a cop-out.
You false statement is one of wildest, wackiest totally fabricated misstatements that I have ever seen.

Address it.
You can pass on the recent earlier two if you address this properly.

"You said the punctuation of the manuscripts was identical to modern syntactic punctuation,"

You will not find anything even remotely hinting at your claim.

Not my position, not my thought, and the issue of syntactic punctuation was only brought up in your attempted distinction in the English text between elocutionary and syntactic punctuation.

I see above you give an apology of sorts.
Thanks, helpful,

However, this was so wacky it needed special emphasis.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Not my position, not my thought, and the issue of syntactic punctuation was only brought up in your attempted distinction in the English text between elocutionary and syntactic punctuation.
I didn't make that "attempted distinction" here " between elocutionary and syntactic punctuation in the English texts." I was talking about the punctuation in ancient Greek manuscripts, specifically what the middots signified in response to cjab who said they were "periods," then you came in and jumbled two distinctly different conversations, and I made a statement to straighten that out. I don't even know why you took up that argument, since you don't think a period belongs there either.

Feel free to go back in these two threads and see how many times I had to correct what you were saying about my positions, it's far more than three.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
You will not find anything even remotely hinting at your claim.
I did take a look back:
So Brian, why did you emphasize early elocutionary punctuation vs. later syntactical punctuation when you now acknowledge that they are actually identical?
Since I made no criticism about the punctuation of Romans 9:5 in the AV, how do I take this as anything else than a reference to the actual topic about the elocutionary punctuation in the ancient Greek manuscripts? A more accurate reading of what I'm saying can prevent things like this.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I did take a look back:

Since I made no criticism about the punctuation of Romans 9:5 in the AV, how do I take this as anything else than a reference to the actual topic about the elocutionary punctuation in the ancient Greek manuscripts? A more accurate reading of what I'm saying can prevent things like this.

Go back and see how many times I specifically used the same words about the English text, often mentioning TR and AV..

Start at 374 and move forward.

So I have one simple request for you.
Translate the Greek text to English using your preferred modern syntactical commas.
Thanks!

Again and again and again.

You are playing dumb. Or your memory is fuzzy and you are not checking the thread.

Look at post 378, you were very aware of the topic of elecutionary and syntactical commas in English and argued it here on the Romans 9:5 thread. At that time you had not acknowledged that there was no difference in the AV text.

I was referring to commas in the 1611 edition later removed due to standardization of punctuation and the drift toward syntactic punctuation in the mid-17th century. My comment was that virtually all the English writers who commented on Titus 2:13 from the 1611 ed.--with the extra comma, now removed--nevertheless still understood it as referring to Christ as "the Great God." This was in opposition to your allegation that the additional comma in that edition showed it didn't. Of course, that comma was later removed and I was correct about the punctuation:

By the end of the 16th century writers of English were using most of the marks described by the younger Aldo in 1566; but their purpose was elocutionary, not syntactic . . . It was Ben Jonson, in his English Grammar, a work composed about 1617 and published posthumously in 1640, who first recommended syntactic punctuation in England. (Encyclopedia Britannica, "Punctuation in English since 1600")​

Which came first, 1611 or 1640? In other words, your arguments there and here are anachronistic. But you like to ignore all the sources and pretend I made it all up myself.

The Titus 2:13 discussion can be elsewhere, but it took post after post after post for you to acknowledge your supposed English elocutionary and syntactical commas are identical in the English text of Romans 9:5.

There was no connection between this discussion and mid-dots. None.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You also wrote:

"Many of the commas in the AV 1611 were removed by 1768 while usage was becoming more standardized."

Have you ever actually compared commas over a contiguous verse block?


The 1611 is online and Swordsearcher is a good source with the Pure Cambridge Edition, since that goes around your 1906 date.
 

cjab

Well-known member
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.
You can't found a rule of grammar on empirical observation alone. In John 3:31 ὁ ὢν is clearly the same case and gender as the participle substantive Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος which precedes it, yet it is antithetical to it. Same with the substantive in Rom 9:5.

The idea that there is some rule precluding ὁ ὢν refering forward is wishful thinking, where ὁ ὢν naturally forms a new subject. If it can refer forward in John 3:31, it can refer forward in Rom 9:5. As for "whole class" versus "specific individual" - no grammar rule could be based on it: such would be utterly delusional. If this is the measure of Wallace: he should be sacked for heresy.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
You can't found a rule of grammar on empirical observation alone. In John 3:31 ὁ ὢν is clearly the same case and gender as the participle substantive Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος which precedes it, yet it is antithetical to it. Same with the substantive in Rom 9:5.

The idea that there is some rule precluding ὁ ὢν refering forward is wishful thinking, where ὁ ὢν naturally forms a new subject. If it can refer forward in John 3:31, it can refer forward in Rom 9:5. As for "whole class" versus "specific individual" - no grammar rule could be based on it: such would be utterly delusional. If this is the measure of Wallace: he should be sacked for heresy.
But this would be comparing apples to oranges. The same rules of the attributive participle that apply everywhere else in the GNT also apply to ὁ ὢν, and unlike other individuals here I'm not just making up things on the fly. The attributive participle is adjectival in nature, and refers to the nominal head. When the nominal head is unexpressed the subject is implied and its usage is almost always generic.

There is no "refer[ring] forward," as you say, to its head noun in John 3:31, since the attributive participle itself is serving as the head nominal. Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν is a substantival usage of the attributive participle, as is ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς. In both instances, the nominal head is not expressed and therefore implied. The first of the participial phrases can be interpreted specifically of Jesus (since He alone among them was from above), yet the second is generic and refers to any one of the class of individuals to which the phrase pertains (those of the earth).

This is not the case of the usage in Romans 9:5. The second attributive construction is most common among the participles, so that Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων would most naturally be read as "Christ according to the flesh, who is over all." If there were a period after σάρκα, then ὁ ὢν would be an unnatural way to start the sentence. The participle would be superfluous in such a construction. You can compare this in other instances where ὁ ὢν follows a noun matching it in case, number, and gender:

In John 3:13 (as found in almost all manuscripts) ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. In that case, the nominal head is expressed and therefore the participial phrase ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ takes modifies the nominal head, ὁ υἱὸς.

In John 12:17, ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ modifies its nominal head, ὁ ὄχλος

In John 1:18 (as found in almost all manuscripts) ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς modifies the head noun, ὁ υἱός.

In Revelation 5:5, ὁ λέων ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα modifies the head noun ὁ λέων.

In 1 Kings 16:22, ὁ λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι modifies the head noun ὁ λαὸς.

The article in these cases has a similar function to the relative pronoun. It is not operating like a mere substantivizer. As I said, that's a very novice approach and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the usage of the participle.

This rule is already well established, it is what I was taught, and the grammars will tell you the same thing.

This is why the broad consensus among the fathers, the ancient versions, and modern translators remains the same, that ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς refers to Christ as "God over all." Among the ancient writings and versions, I have yet to encounter anything to the contrary. Abbot, who did about as best he could, presents a small handful of writers who might possibly have read the passage otherwise, but their testimony remains at best equivocal. So there is no reason to trade clear testimonies for vague.

Look at post 378, you were very aware of the topic of elecutionary and syntactical commas in English and argued it here on the Romans 9:5 thread.
Steven, you're the one who brought this up, not me, from an unrelated topic in another forum. But because you vaguely accused me of error I had to clarify my position. I was in the middle of talking about the punctuation in Greek manuscripts.

Here's your comment below that shows the misunderstanding of what I was saying:
You have claimed that the AV is 100% accurate to the Greek text. Then you tried to claim that the commas were not really correct, because they were originally done as elocutionary, not syntactical.
Neither was something that I said, nor did I ever say the commas were incorrect in Romans 9:5 in the AV. You accused me of inserting a comma, which I never did, because I followed the normal English convention of placing punctuation inside quotation marks at the end of a quote. The "elocutionary" argument was not from Romans 9:5, but Titus 2:13, and you'll note the elocutionary comma in question has since been removed. So the whole argument you are objecting to from me is artificial. I was actually in the middle of saying is that a middot in the ancient manuscripts was not a period. I tried numerous times to correct you, but you went ahead stayed the course.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
But this would be comparing apples to oranges. The same rules of the attributive participle that apply everywhere else in the GNT also apply to ὁ ὢν, and unlike other individuals here I'm not just making up things on the fly. The attributive participle is adjectival in nature, and refers to the nominal head. When the nominal head is unexpressed the subject is implied and its usage is almost always generic.


This is not the case of the usage in Romans 9:5. The second attributive construction is most common among the participles, so that Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων would most naturally be read as "Christ according to the flesh, who is over all." If there were a period after σάρκα, then ὁ ὢν would be an unnatural way to start the sentence. The participle would be superfluous in such a construction. You can compare this in other instances where ὁ ὢν follows a noun matching it in case, number, and gender:

In John 3:13 (as found in almost all manuscripts) ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. In that case, the nominal head is expressed and therefore the participial phrase ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ takes modifies the nominal head, ὁ υἱὸς.

In John 12:17, ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ modifies its nominal head, ὁ ὄχλος

In John 1:18 (as found in almost all manuscripts) ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς modifies the head noun, ὁ υἱός.

In Revelation 5:5, ὁ λέων ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα modifies the head noun ὁ λέων.

In 1 Kings 16:22, ὁ λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι modifies the head noun ὁ λαὸς.

The article in these cases has a similar function to the relative pronoun. It is not operating like a mere substantivizer. As I said, that's a very novice approach and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the usage of the participle.

This rule is already well established, it is what I was taught, and the grammars will tell you the same thing.

This is why the broad consensus among the fathers, the ancient versions, and modern translators remains the same, that ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς refers to Christ as "God over all."
I think smart posters here are trying to tell you that ὁ ὢν is virtually always used substantivally in the GNT. The one or two counter examples you have given so far are dubious at best, and even in these examples ὁ ὢν is seen by most reasonable people as functioning substantivally.

This is not the case of the usage in Romans 9:5. The second attributive construction is most common among the participles, so that ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων would most naturally be read as "Christ according to the flesh, who is over all." If there were a period after σάρκα, then ὁ ὢν would be an unnatural way to start the sentence. The participle would be superfluous in such a construction. You can compare this in other instances where ὁ ὢν follows a noun matching it in case, number, and gender:

Not if ὁ ὢν starts a new sentence. You are pretending to make this an issue of grammar when it is solely a punctuation issue, and of about how ὁ ὢν usually functions in the GNT. I suggest that you take the time to actually read the GNT on a regular basis, rather than mis-quote & mis-use Trinitarian commentaries (most of them second rate) to argue in circles. Your MO is getting old.
 

brianrw

Member
Not if ὁ ὢν starts a new sentence.
But it doesn't. As it stands in the two oldest manuscripts, there is no punctuation at all by the first hand. In a majority of later uncials and minuscules, there is a middot which is simply a pause for drawing up a breath after σάρκα. It would therefore be the grammar that would drive the interpretation of the text, and there seems no good reason why Paul would sandwich ὁ ὢν between two nominatives that agree with it in case, number, and gender and not have it point back to ὁ Χριστὸς.

You are pretending to make this an issue of grammar when it is solely a punctuation issue, and of about how ὁ ὢν usually functions in the GNT
You have an idiosyncratic way of interpreting the attributive participle, in that you view it like a simple adjective--article-noun-article-adjective. You then assert that when it takes an object or is modified by a prepositional phrase, it becomes a noun phrase in apposition. So that tells me you are treating the article as nothing more than a simple substatnivizer. This is, as I've said, a very novice approach to the subject. It is also entirely incorrect. Cf. Mounce:

29.6 Attributive.
The attributive participle modifies a noun or pronoun in the sentence, and agrees with that word in case, number, and gender, just like an adjective. For the time being, it can be translated simply with the “-ing” form.​
ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ ἐστὶν ὁ διδάσκαλός μου.​
The man speaking to the crowd is my teacher.​
This is the normal article-noun-article-modifier construction. In this illustration, the modifier is the participial phrase, λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ. (Mounce, William D.. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, pp. 628-629)​

And Merkle and Plummer

Attributive Use
With the attributive use, the article (when present) occurs directly in front of the participle which modifies an expressed noun or pronoun. It is often best to translate an attributive participle with an English relative clause (“who” or “which/that”) . . . Participles can also take direct objects or can be modified by other parts of speech (e.g., adverbs, prepositional phrases, or negative particles). (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 186, 187).​

This is not what you are asserting. It is in fact the opposite of what you are asserting. Note that I've regressed from quoting even Intermediate grammars to you and have to resort now to basic grammars to get the point across. To me that's not a good sign. Both of these statements support what I've been saying to you (as did all the intermediates and beyond), and your approach entirely contradicts them all. And when your statements are controverted, you simply assert the same things over and over again and offer more proof by assertion.

Your approach is then not only incorrect, but also circular: you say ὁ ὢν has to be a substantive because it is modified by a prepositional phrase, and therefore all the instances where it refers back to a head noun must therefore be independent and it should be taken in apposition. Let me be clear once again that this is not how the attributive participle works. You wouldn't even acknowledge the examples of such attributive participles found over the scope of four or five grammars, so it's a waste of time to even try to have this discussion with you. When the nominal head of the attributive participle is expressed in the sentence, it is dependent, not independent.

As for how good my Greek is here, the New Testament usage actually supports what I'm saying, as do the Greek fathers and the ancient versions. They don't support yours.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
But it doesn't. As it stands in the two oldest manuscripts, there is no punctuation at all by the first hand. In a majority of later uncials and minuscules, there is a middot which is simply a pause for drawing up a breath after σάρκα. It would therefore be the grammar that would drive the interpretation of the text, and there seems no good reason why Paul would sandwich ὁ ὢν between two nominatives that agree with it in case, number, and gender and not have it point back to ὁ Χριστὸς.


You have an idiosyncratic way of interpreting the attributive participle, in that you view it like a simple adjective--article-noun-article-adjective. You then assert that when it takes an object or is modified by a prepositional phrase, it becomes a noun phrase in apposition. So that tells me you are treating the article as nothing more than a simple substatnivizer. This is, as I've said, a very novice approach to the subject. It is also entirely incorrect. Cf. Mounce:

29.6 Attributive.
The attributive participle modifies a noun or pronoun in the sentence, and agrees with that word in case, number, and gender, just like an adjective. For the time being, it can be translated simply with the “-ing” form.​
ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ ἐστὶν ὁ διδάσκαλός μου.​
The man speaking to the crowd is my teacher.​
This is the normal article-noun-article-modifier construction. In this illustration, the modifier is the participial phrase, λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ. (Mounce, William D.. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, pp. 628-629)​

And Merkle and Plummer

Attributive Use
With the attributive use, the article (when present) occurs directly in front of the participle which modifies an expressed noun or pronoun. It is often best to translate an attributive participle with an English relative clause (“who” or “which/that”) . . . Participles can also take direct objects or can be modified by other parts of speech (e.g., adverbs, prepositional phrases, or negative particles). (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 186, 187).​

This is not what you are asserting. It is in fact the opposite of what you are asserting. Note that I've regressed from quoting even Intermediate grammars to you and have to resort now to basic grammars to get the point across. To me that's not a good sign. Both of these statements support what I've been saying to you (as did all the intermediates and beyond), and your approach entirely contradicts them all. And when your statements are controverted, you simply assert the same things over and over again and offer more proof by assertion.

Your approach is then not only incorrect, but also circular: you say ὁ ὢν has to be a substantive because it is modified by a prepositional phrase, and therefore all the instances where it refers back to a head noun must therefore be independent and it should be taken in apposition. Let me be clear once again that this is not how the attributive participle works. You wouldn't even acknowledge the examples of such attributive participles found over the scope of four or five grammars, so it's a waste of time to even try to have this discussion with you. When the nominal head of the attributive participle is expressed in the sentence, it is dependent, not independent.

As for how good my Greek is here, the New Testament usage actually supports what I'm saying, as do the Greek fathers and the ancient versions. They don't support yours.
Nice "argument."
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member

Here is a simple question:

μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.

Matt. 12:30

Is the articular ὢν being used attributively in the second position in this verse or as a substantive ?
 

cjab

Well-known member
But this would be comparing apples to oranges. The same rules of the attributive participle that apply everywhere else in the GNT also apply to ὁ ὢν, and unlike other individuals here I'm not just making up things on the fly. The attributive participle is adjectival in nature, and refers to the nominal head. When the nominal head is unexpressed the subject is implied and its usage is almost always generic.
But it's not always attributive backwards. Sometimes it can function as a substantive, e.g. John 3:31, and Matt 12:29, and sometimes it is attributive fowards, to a following noun.

There is no "refer[ring] forward," as you say, to its head noun in John 3:31, since the attributive participle itself is serving as the head nominal.
i.e. as a substantive.

Ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν is a substantival usage of the attributive participle, as is ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς. In both instances, the nominal head is not expressed and therefore implied.
Surely that is a semantic argument, not a grammatical argument. As to grammar itself, nothing is left out.

The first of the participial phrases can be interpreted specifically of Jesus (since He alone among them was from above), yet the second is generic and refers to any one of the class of individuals to which the phrase pertains (those of the earth).
So?

This is not the case of the usage in Romans 9:5. The second attributive construction is most common among the participles, so that Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων would most naturally be read as "Christ according to the flesh, who is over all."
You're using empirical observation alone to override a clear rule of grammar that associates an article to its following noun agreeing in gender and case. Moreover these is nothing grammatically unsound about "ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντω θεός etc." It can't be faulted in terms of its grammar, and there may be a reason for using ὁ ὢν here, which is to distinguish θεός from everything that precedes ὁ ὢν (also see John 3:31 etc).

Moreover "who is God" does not appear in any other verse in the whole bible, except as a question in the OT.

This alone should raise eyebrows. "Christ who is God" is trinitarian dogma, but not apostolic dogma.

If there were a period after σάρκα, then ὁ ὢν would be an unnatural way to start the sentence.
Yet not so unnatural that it isn't found elsewhere. It is used for didactic purposes, for making points and for distinguishing things and people, one from another.

However "Christ who is God" is a most unnatural and unique phrase in a biblical context, especially a New Testament didactic context.

The participle would be superfluous in such a construction.
No, for the reasons given above: God "over all" is clearly distinguished from everything preceding.

You can compare this in other instances where ὁ ὢν follows a noun matching it in case, number, and gender:

In John 3:13 (as found in almost all manuscripts) ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. In that case, the nominal head is expressed and therefore the participial phrase ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ takes modifies the nominal head, ὁ υἱὸς.
In John 3:13, ὁ ὢν is being used to distinguish Jesus from the rest of men. Since ὁ ὢν has no following noun, it's meaning is clear.

In John 12:17, ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ modifies its nominal head, ὁ ὄχλος
In John 12:17 ὁ ὢν is being used to distinguish the crowd that was with Jesus when he raised Lazarus from the dead from the rest of the crowd. Since ὁ ὢν has no following noun, it's meaning is clear.

In John 1:18 (as found in almost all manuscripts) ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς modifies the head noun, ὁ υἱός.
In John 1:18 ὁ ὢν is being used to distinguish the begotten Son from the rest of men who have not seen God. Since ὁ ὢν has no following noun, it's meaning is clear.

In Revelation 5:5, ὁ λέων ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Ἰούδα modifies the head noun ὁ λέων.
Seems that ὢν is not in the best manuscripts.

In 1 Kings 16:22, ὁ λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι, the participial phrase ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι modifies the head noun ὁ λαὸς.
Again two sets of people being distinguished and no following noun.

The article in these cases has a similar function to the relative pronoun. It is not operating like a mere substantivizer.
This is hardly relevant because it applies to every participle indiscriminately, including those where the participle is sandwiched between an article and noun, as in Eph 3:19.

Where the noun is omitted both before and after, an inferred substantive applies to all participles indiscriminately.

As I said, that's a very novice approach and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the usage of the participle.
Not. See Eph 3:19.

This rule is already well established, it is what I was taught, and the grammars will tell you the same thing.
I think you're confounding semantics, and grammar, and use of relatives to translate participles, somewhat indigestibly.

Empirically,, it seems that ὁ ὢν is often used to draw distinctions amongst analogous things. We would expect to find a distinction in Rom 9:5. The important question is, what is that distinction?

I believe the distinction is between God and everything else, even Christ according to the flesh. Your Trinitarian dogma insists that Christ in the flesh is God, so the distinction must be between himself "who is God" and everything else.

The problem is I don't find this taught elsewhere in scripture. "God" always refers to the Father in didactic speech. Nowhere in the whole of apostolic teaching is Christ simply called "God" but rather he is deemed to be God's own agent from heaven, even his son. through whom God works.

This is why the broad consensus among the fathers, the ancient versions, and modern translators remains the same, that ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς refers to Christ as "God over all." Among the ancient writings and versions, I have yet to encounter anything to the contrary. Abbot, who did about as best he could, presents a small handful of writers who might possibly have read the passage otherwise, but their testimony remains at best equivocal. So there is no reason to trade clear testimonies for vague.
The legacy of antiquity is that the Greek world was conquered by Islam and the Persians. Their theology did not bear fruit in the places which mattered. Why?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
This is why the broad consensus among the fathers, the ancient versions, and modern translators remains the same, that ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς refers to Christ as "God over all." Among the ancient writings and versions, I have yet to encounter anything to the contrary.

You need a reminder that the AV text, that you say you support, does not have “God over all.”

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