Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

brianrw

Member
Edit insults
I didn't mangle anything, and it's not a translation I adopt. I'm quoting Harris to clear up the fact that you are misrepresenting him to justify your interpretation of the text. Otherwise, there'd be no discussion.

In case you forgot, Harris was one of the sources you brought up in the beginning to justify your position. It was not one of my sources, so I only quote him to show how you are not treating his material accurately.

And, Re:"brian, you are a cheap politician," knock it off.

How many times do I have to keep telling you the same thing? I already said:
You're misrepresenting me again. I would translate, "Christ . . . who is over all, God blessed for ever." I've corrected you on this enough times that it seems you're doing this on purpose, and it needs to stop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brianrw

Member
Reported and rejected by Mod 20
You're going to report me for something you know you wrote? You do know your comments come to my email also, right? I'd post an image of it if the "attach files" actually worked on my end.

Edit insults.
You seem to be unable to distinguish between Harris and me. The quotation is Harris's, and I only quoted it to show how you're misrepresenting. I said I wouldn't adopt that translation, what's with all the badgering about it? You really need to knock this off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Milton

Well-known member
You're going to report me for something you know you wrote? You do know your comments come to my email also, right? I'd post an image of it if the "attach files" actually worked on my end.


You seem to be unable to distinguish between Harris and me. The quotation is Harris's, and I only quoted it to show how you're misrepresenting. I said I wouldn't adopt that translation, what's with all the badgering about it? You really need to knock this off.
It's clear he's misrepresenting you, but you are wasting your time with these three.
 

cjab

Well-known member
I think you need to take a better look into this assertion, that Christ is never referred to as Θεὸς in the NT. I've been through the whole NT multiple times, and the comment is not accurate. Or maybe you can clarify if you intended some other meaning. One of the Byzantine Emperors made the same claim, and the Greek fathers basically shredded it. As far as I have found, Erasmus is the origin of punctuating the clause after σάρκα, and he received enormous criticism for it.
The proposition that Θεὸς relates elsewhere to Christ is based on nothing more than an application of Sharp's rule to ὁ Θεὸς. It cannot be, because ὁ Θεὸς is the Father's title (cf. all of John and Paul's writings) and Sharp's rule disapplies itself by its own formulation.
 

cjab

Well-known member
brianrw (cont.)
1 Tim 2:5 expresses the exact contrary thought to your articulation of Rom 9:5.

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς) [== Christ according to the flesh]."

If Christ according to the flesh is God, then he could not have mediated. Your interpretation of Rom 9:5 denies the mediatorial role of Christ as the "one mediator between God and mankind (εἷς μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων).

If Christ had been God, then we would have needed another mediator. You need to focus on what the apostles are preaching: Christ as mediator, or Christ as God (cannot be both)?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Continued from the above post

Not an accurate quote. Both refer to "the God over all." Eusebius does not quote the passage, and Irenaeus quotes it when reasoning on the scriptures that Christ is both perfect man and perfect God.
Irenaeus:

"One God the Father is declared, who is above all … The Father is indeed above all, and he is the head of Christ, but the Word … is himself the head of the Church. (V:18:2)"

"There is one God, the Father over all, and one Word of God, who is through all, by whom all things have been made. (V:18:2)"

Eusebius:

You appear to be unaquainted with the writings of Eusebius against Marcellus. He accuses Marcellus of Saballianism on the basis that Marcellus makes out Christ to be the "God over all." Allusions to Rom 9:5 applying to the Father as distinct from Christ appear frequently in Eusebius's work. E.g.

Extracts from p.84 of "Against Marcellus" (Kelly Spoerl)
"And [the Logos] was not, as a mere word of God, non-subsistent,37 existing as one and the same with God (for he would not then be a mediator); but he existed and pre-existed as "only-begotten Son full of grace and truth."38 And he acted as a mediator for the Father when he provided the law to men "through angels." And indeed, when teaching on this basis the ignorant and unlearned regarding the theology of the Son of God, the Apostle confirmed this, saying, "a mediator implies more than one."39 For it is not natural (33) for a mediator to be defined in relation to one thing. For this reason, this mediator does not imply one party, but necessarily operates between two parties, being neither of those between whom he is, so that he is thought to be neither "the" God who is over all40 nor one of the angels, but in between and a mediator between these, when he mediates between the Father and angels. As once again, when he became "mediator between God and men,"41 being between each rank, he belongs to neither one of those ranks between which he is mediator. Neither is he himself the one and only God, nor is he (34) a man like the rest of men. What then, if neither of these, [is he] if not an only-begotten Son of God, now having become a mediator between men and God, but very long ago in the time of Moses existing as mediator between God and angels? And writing these things to them, passing them down, I suppose, in this way the great Apostle says, "The law having been ordained (35) through angels by [the] hand of a mediator. Now a mediator implies more than one; but God is one."42 Therefore, "there is one God" and "one mediator of God" for all creatures, the saving mediation beginning not now, but even before his divine appearance among men, as (36) the statement thus showed. Given that these things have been laid out in brief to the same Galatians from the only letter addressed to them, and that the saving faith provides the mystical regeneration "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"43 and that in addition to the divine writings the universal Church of God from one end of the earth to the other confirms the testimonies from the divine Scriptures by its unwritten tradition, now it remains also to examine in detail the statements of Marcellus and to undertake the demonstrations that were promised by us, lest anyone think that the man is unjustly disparaged by us. (37) My present goal being to discuss briefly what has been said, I will not recount all the statements of the man, but I will make use of only those that are most significant; through them I will make my argument, having gone over the most, as it were, egregious ones. But before I lay out what he has said, I think it is necessary in the first place to show to my readers that he did not understand correctly the most obvious statements of the divine Scriptures, so that it might be known to those who were still ignorant of him44 what sort of man was driven to dare [to say] such things."

37. άνυπόστατος.
38. Jn 1.14.
39. Gal 3.20.
40. Rom 9.5; Eph 4.6. The phrase "over all" appears frequently.
41. 1 Tm 2.5.
42. Gal 3.19-20,
43· Mt 28.19.
44. This shows that Marcellus's book, and perhaps Eusebius himself, was not known by all the people whom Eusebius intended to address.


For example, cf. Theodoret (Letter 146):

That our Lord Jesus Christ is God is asserted by the blessed evangelist John “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And again, “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” And the Lord Himself distinctly teaches us, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” And “I and my Father are one” and “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” and the blessed Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews says “Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power” and in the epistle to the Philippians “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant.” And in the Epistle to the Romans, “Whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.” And in the epistle to Titus “Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
So there are at least three passages in there where it was read by the Greeks differently then I assume you will assert. And again, Gregory of Nyssa (Against Eunomius, 11.2) writes very expressly how the passages were read in his day:

Nay, I do not even think it necessary to bring forward in detail the utterances of Paul, since they are, as one may say, in all men's mouths, who gives the Lord the appellation not only of "God," but of "great God" and "God over all," saying to the Romans, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever", and writing to his disciple Titus, "According to the appearing of Jesus Christ the great God and our Saviour," and to Timothy, proclaims in plain terms, "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit." (the reading of almost all manuscripts here)
Putting your Trinitarian bias into English translations of the Greek is fooling nobody.

I don't doubt that the "fathers" did like to forget that ὁ Θεὸς was the Father's title, just as modern day Trinitarians do.

Being "in the form of God" doesn't consign Christ (or the Logos) to being the "ὁ Θεὸς" of Jn 1:1b. If it were the case, Jn 1:1b would be unintelligible.

You will always find these pseudo-Sabellians amongst the Greeks. It doesn't prove anything, as there was also another strand of thought, per Eusebius (as I have indicated above).

This is not an equivocal statement, as though the readings were in dispute. Likewise Chrysostom (Commentary on Philippians 2):
Is there a great and little God? With them [the Arians] there is a great and a little God . . . If He were little, how would he also be God? . . . But the Son, he [Arius] says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, "Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory [rather, glorious appearing] of our great God." But can he have said "appearing" of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing "of the great God." Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, "The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." See, the Son is great also. How then do you speak of small and great?" Listen to the Prophet too, calling Him . . . "The mighty God"
Everyone can see that Titus 2:13 says "Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God" and not "glorious appearing" which is a blatant distortion of the Greek.

Again, when asserting passages where Christ is called "God," he writes (On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, 5.2),

And Paul said: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever, Amen." And again: "No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." And still again: "through the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." And John calls him by the same name of God when he says: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God."
If he is only quoting the Greek of Rom 9:5 and Titus 2:13, how come you're translating it so? Meaningless.

What I don't find? Their adversaries saying, "no, no, you aren't punctuating the passage correctly" or "You're not following the rules of the article correctly," or "this passage can be understood six different ways."
"Christ is "The God (ὁ Θεὸς) over all" is Sabellianism where Christ and the Father are indivisibly God. His mediator role "between God and man" becomes one of illusion, simply because it is impossible for ὁ Θεὸς to become a man.

The most you can posit is "God [in action] (Θεὸς) was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" 2 Cor 5:19.
It means the Father (ὁ Θεὸς) was in Christ.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
brianrw (cont.)

Now if I read it correctly, you're saying that Christ is anarthrous Θεὸς in Rom 9:5, and not articular Θεὸς, and for that reason, it makes theological sense.

Such may present an initial semblance of theological coherence, but actually it doesn't, because there is only precedent for construing the Christ in heaven (Logos) as anarthrous Θεὸς. There is no precedent for construing the human son as anarthrous Θεὸς in the doctrinal writings.

Here I exclude the Elohim->Θεοί transcription of the OT by Jesus in John 10:34,35.

If you're going to refer to a human being as Θεὸς, then the John 10:34,35 sense is the only permitted sense known to the whole bible, and such a sense doesn't construe Θεὸς as "above all" but rather as fully mortal: "But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." Ps. 82:7

So even if Christ were to deemed anarthrous Θεὸς by virtue of his humanity, the epithet "over all" would be completely out of place in the context of a specific reference to his humanity.

That you're seeking to create a Trinitarian Christ out of Rom 9:5 is inescapable, but as I have also said, there is no grammatical rule that entitles you to drop the article before Θεὸς in order to make ὁ ὢν function attributively, when there is no call for it to do so, excepting Trinitarian bias.

The notion of dropping an article before a noun to force an attributive rendering which is itself wholly out of place in NT theology is specious in every sense. And as I have also pointed out before, "God blessed for ever" requires the article as Θεὸς is referring to a definite person being blessed. So you would need a second article prior to Θεὸς, but then you would run into the problem of portraying Christ as ὁ Θεὸς (i.e. the Father). It just doesn't stack up.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
I don't believe that. You are misrepresenting/slandering me, again.
This is a serious accusation; I'm not making unsubstantiated assertions. If you want to reverse or clarify your position, or properly substantiate it, then you need to make it clear outright. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to assume this is still your position:
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.​
(I noted that the participial phrase itself is considered a modifier, not a simple adjective)
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
Again, just show us an example of an attributive adjective / participle in the 2nd position, from the GNT , which cannot / does not by itself modify its own head noun, as you are proposing at Romans 9:5.​
I gave you examples of actual attributive adjectives from the GNT. They are nothing like what you are proposing for at Romans 9:5. Here they are again — 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..​
Note again, that you are addressing participle usage by giving examples of adjectives, not attributive participles. So I feel my assessment, which you are responding to, that "You're the one who believes an attributive participle when it takes an object and is modified by another part of speech is no longer attributive, but substantival," is accurate, and at the very least a reasonable conclusion based upon what you've written above.

In the third statement your examples of adjectives (not participles) reinforce your initial statement that you require the attributive participle to stand on its own like a simple adjective without further modification. This nullifies the verbal aspect of the participle in the attributive position--to which I responded that you are incorrect. I did so by citing numerous examples straight out of the grammars themselves (here), as well as the usage of the attributive participle from the grammars themselves. Those examples involved not only the attributive participle by itself, but also examples containing direct objects, indirect objects, prepositional phrases, and other parts of speech. On that basis, I said that you are fundamentally misunderstanding (or at the very least misrepresenting) the participle usage in the GNT.

The usage is very clearly noted in a broad range of grammars that the participle does not lose its verbal aspect when it acts like attributively:

Whitacre​

Even when a participle functions as an adjective or a noun it is still a verbal form, which means it has verbal aspect and it can take a direct object and various modifiers like any other verb.

(Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), 5.181b.​

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 (Zondervan Language Basics Series) (pp. 628-629).​

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”) [ . . . examples . . . ] In the above cases, the participle agrees with the noun it modifies in gender, case, and number. 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 (pp. 186, 187)).​

Funk​

The attributive participle in complex n-clusters may theoretically take any of the complements or adjuncts the corresponding finite verb may take. The participles in (12), (13), and (14) take direct objects.​

These directly contradict the assertion above. So far, I have not seen your assertions prove accurate, and you have laid out arbitrary restrictions based upon which participle is being used, which attributive position it's found in, etc. The burden is on you to substantiate what you are saying. Otherwise, you've been properly addressed and your only recourse has been to pretend the problem is me and my ability in the Greek language, here saying my Koine is "not" fine:
I'm afraid that it is not.
He accuses Marcellus of Saballianism on the basis that Marcellus makes out Christ to be the "God over all."
Because we know these types of sects were abusing Romans 9:5 to assert Christ was also the Father. Hippolytus dealt with the same issue in the third century against Noetus, though he himself also acknowledged the passage as referring to Christ as God. Basil likewise warned--while asserting it speaks of Christ as "God" and "over all"--against taking the passage to that extreme in the fourth:

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)​

I would need to see Eusebius' quotation of Romans 9:5, but he never quotes it. The issue was over taking the passage too far. To my knowledge, and it's been a while, Eusebius upholds the Deity of Christ in his Ecclesiastical History, and expounds on it at some length. The Orthodox did not take this passage to mean Christ was God also over the Father, and neither do I.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
We will continue if/when you stop mid-representing me.
Those are your words, are they not? Unless you clarify, I will continue to assume this is your position. If you've changed your mind, or I'm misunderstanding, that's up to you to correct. But you haven't done that. I'm entirely justified in taking your arguments at face value. Maybe you can explain yourself better if you feel "misrepresented."
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Those are your words, are they not? Unless you clarify, I will continue to assume this is your position. If you've changed your mind, or I'm misunderstanding, that's up to you to correct. But you haven't done that. I'm entirely justified in taking your arguments at face value. Maybe you can explain yourself better if you feel "misrepresented."
Yes, but these are not my words —

“You're the one who believes an attributive participle when it takes an object and is modified by another part of speech is no longer attributive, but substantival,

They are your words, which mis-represent my actual position.
 

cjab

Well-known member
This is a serious accusation; I'm not making unsubstantiated assertions. If you want to reverse or clarify your position, or properly substantiate it, then you need to make it clear outright. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to assume this is still your position:
I have consulted the post which your quote arises from and I cannot find the words I am alleged to have said therein. It is a serious thing to claim someone said something that they didn't say, and a clear breach of the board rules. Moreover I have not the faintest idea what you're talking about. If you can't be bothered to sensibly respond to my last set of posts, don't reply at all.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I have consulted the post which your quote arises from and I cannot find the words I am alleged to have said therein. It is a serious thing to claim someone said something that they didn't say, and a clear breach of the board rules. Moreover I have not the faintest idea what you're talking about. If you can't be bothered to sensibly respond to my last set of posts, don't reply at all.
TRJM said it. Since the posts after it were interacting with him, it was probably a mistake due to responding to two different posters in the same post. That is unfortunate, but it happens and was not likely malicious. What he quoted from you at the bottom of the post, however, was from you and was comprehensible. Your dismissal appears to be a dodge.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
TRJM said it. Since the posts after it were interacting with him, it was probably a mistake due to responding to two different posters in the same post. That is unfortunate, but it happens and was not likely malicious. What he quoted from you at the bottom of the post, however, was from you and was comprehensible. Your dismissal appears to be a dodge.
What did I apparently say ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Misrepresenting another poster is a serious offence.

I have never said that an attributive participle when it takes an object and is modified by another part of speech is no longer attributive, but substantival.

My actual position is that when an adjective has modifiers, it is rarely if ever in the second attributive position.

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.
 

brianrw

Member
I have consulted the post which your quote arises from and I cannot find the words I am alleged to have said therein. It is a serious thing to claim someone said something that they didn't say, and a clear breach of the board rules. Moreover I have not the faintest idea what you're talking about. If you can't be bothered to sensibly respond to my last set of posts, don't reply at all.
Hi cjab. So sorry! I don't know how that happened. TRJM said it. It was not intentional.
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
Misrepresenting another poster is a serious offence.

I have never said that an attributive participle when it takes an object and is modified by another part of speech is no longer attributive, but substantival.

My actual position is that when an adjective has modifiers, it is rarely if ever in the second attributive position.
That's not the full position you were describing before:
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.
You are arguing above that when an "adjective" takes modifiers it is actually "an appositive," correct? By appositive you're referring to a substantival apposition, correct? Or are you taking it in the sense of Turner, of the adjectival (i.e. relatival) modification of the head noun (or Levinsohn, "Nonrestrictive relative clauses in Greek are traditionally subdivided into appositional (as in Acts 9:36) and continuative")? Because in the latter case you would be disputing me over semantics.

Since you accuse me of misrepresenting you, let's take a look at some of your other statements:
The bottom line is that a substantival participle is not an attributive participle.​
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.​
Here is John 1:18–​
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.​
The substantial participle ( with its modifiers, see red) is an appositive to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (see black). It’s very basic Greek.
These are your supporting arguments. Here, the usage is actually not substantive. It is attributive and the participial phrase modifies the head noun. It is a strictly dependent usage. Substantival is regarded as independent because the head nominal is unexpressed, and there is no reason to take an attributive participle in an attributive position which stands next to the noun it refers to as substantival.

My actual position is that when an adjective has modifiers, it is rarely if ever in the second attributive position.
You left out,
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.
And we're not dealing with simple adjectives here, are we? We are dealing with attributive participles, which though adjectival are considered modifiers. They still retain their verbal aspect. The participial phrase modifies the head nominal (see Mounce, al. above). Note also that these are all examples of attributive participles in the 2nd Attributive Position taken straight out of the grammars themselves:

ἄρτος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων (John 6: 50)​
the bread that comes down from heaven.​
οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι οἱ προάγοντες αὐτόν (Matt 21: 9)​
And the crowds that went ahead of him​
λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων (John 3:35)​
the burning and shining lamp​
Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. (Mark 14:24)​
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.​
πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι (Matthew 6:4, Cf. 6:6, 18)​
Your Father who sees in secret will reward you​

And, under the same rules of the attributive participle, we may add:

λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει (Matthew 4:16)​
The people who sat in darkness​
ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν (Matthew 7:13)​
The way that leads to destruction​
ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν (Matthew 7:14)​
The way that leads to life​
καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν τὸν δόντα ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (Matthew 9:8)​
And they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.​
αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν ὑμῖν (Matthew 11:21)​
the works, which were done among you​
δὲ ἐχθρὸς ὁ σπείρας αὐτά (Matthew 13:39)​
Now, the enemy who sowed them​
τῶν ψιχίων τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν (Matthew 15:27)​
The crumbs which fall from their master's table​
ὁ χρυσὸς ἢ ναὸς ὁ ἁγιάζων τὸν χρυσόν (Matthew 23:17)​
The gold, or the temple which sanctifies the gold?​

This doesn't even complete the search of Matthew, and some examples have been left out. These are, in fact, most of the usages of the attributive participle in the 2nd Position in Matthew up until Matthew 23:17. So I don't find your assertions to be accurate.

So again, as I have noted before:

Even when a participle functions as an adjective or a noun it is still a verbal form, which means it has verbal aspect and it can take a direct object and various modifiers like any other verb.
(Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), 5.181b.​
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
That's not the full position you were describing before:

You are arguing above that when an "adjective" takes modifiers it is actually "an appositive," correct? By appositive you're referring to a substantival apposition, correct? Or are you taking it in the sense of Turner, of the adjectival (i.e. relatival) modification of the head noun (or Levinsohn, "Nonrestrictive relative clauses in Greek are traditionally subdivided into appositional (as in Acts 9:36) and continuative")? Because in the latter case you would be disputing me over semantics.

Since you accuse me of misrepresenting you, let's take a look at some of your other statements:



These are your supporting arguments. Here, the usage is actually not substantive. It is attributive and the participial phrase modifies the head noun. It is a strictly dependent usage. Substantival is regarded as independent because the head nominal is unexpressed, and there is no reason to take an attributive participle in an attributive position which stands next to the noun it refers to as substantival.


You left out,

And we're not dealing with simple adjectives here, are we? We are dealing with attributive participles, which though adjectival are considered modifiers. They still retain their verbal aspect. The participial phrase modifies the head nominal (see Mounce, al. above). Note also that these are all examples of attributive participles in the 2nd Attributive Position taken straight out of the grammars themselves:

ἄρτος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβαίνων (John 6: 50)​
the bread that comes down from heaven.​
οἱ δὲ ὄχλοι οἱ προάγοντες αὐτόν (Matt 21: 9)​
And the crowds that went ahead of him​
λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων (John 3:35)​
the burning and shining lamp​
Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. (Mark 14:24)​
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.​
πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι (Matthew 6:4, Cf. 6:6, 18)​
Your Father who sees in secret will reward you​

And, under the same rules of the attributive participle, we may add:

λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει (Matthew 4:16)​
The people who sat in darkness​
ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν (Matthew 7:13)​
The way that leads to destruction​
ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν (Matthew 7:14)​
The way that leads to life​
καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν τὸν δόντα ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (Matthew 9:8)​
And they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.​
αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν ὑμῖν (Matthew 11:21)​
the works, which were done among you​
δὲ ἐχθρὸς ὁ σπείρας αὐτά (Matthew 13:39)​
Now, the enemy who sowed them​
τῶν ψιχίων τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν (Matthew 15:27)​
The crumbs which fall from their master's table​
ὁ χρυσὸς ἢ ναὸς ὁ ἁγιάζων τὸν χρυσόν (Matthew 23:17)​
The gold, or the temple which sanctifies the gold?​

This doesn't even complete the search of Matthew, and some examples have been left out. These are, in fact, most of the usages of the attributive participle in the 2nd Position in Matthew up until Matthew 23:17. So I don't find your assertions to be accurate.

So again, as I have noted before:

Even when a participle functions as an adjective or a noun it is still a verbal form, which means it has verbal aspect and it can take a direct object and various modifiers like any other verb.
(Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), 5.181b.​
Don’t see how any of this negates your mis-representation of my actual position.

Anyhow, take a look at all of the example you gave of the second attributive position —

ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει (Matthew 4:16)
The people who sat in darkness

ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν (Matthew 7:13)
The way that leads to destruction

ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν (Matthew 7:14)
The way that leads to life

καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν τὸν δόντα ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (Matthew 9:8)
And they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν ὑμῖν (Matthew 11:21)
the works, which were done among you

δὲ ἐχθρὸς ὁ σπείρας αὐτά (Matthew 13:39)
Now, the enemy who sowed them

τῶν ψιχίων τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν (Matthew 15:27)
The crumbs which fall from their master's table

ὁ χρυσὸςὁ ναὸς ὁ ἁγιάζων τὸν χρυσόν (Matthew 23:17)
The gold, or the temple which sanctifies the gold?

Notice that the head noun in each example ( bold above) comes without modifiers. But when the head noun comes with modifiers, then what follows is most likely not attributive at all, but oppositional or else it starts a new sentence , etc. So look at Romans 9:5 . It is different than all of the examples you gave, see red below:

ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς
 
Top