Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

brianrw

Member
Don’t see how any of this negates your mis-representation of my actual position.
Speaking in general, it's not a bad thing to admit a mistake, it's actually better and one will earn more respect. But pretending after having misspoke the other person is the problem will have the opposite effect.

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

...

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
Ah. I see there's a new rule yet again, this time adding a further restriction to the 2nd attributive position. So now it's not only the attributive participle, but also the head noun that has to stand on its own? It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that you've learned the textbook formula but not specifically how it behaves in more complex phrases.

For starters, let's take a rather insightful example of an attributive participle in the 2nd attributive position noted by Michael Hayes in his analysis of the attributive participle:

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς (1 Peter 1:3)​
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again...​
You also skipped over the following examples above, which are noted in the grammars:

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​

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
I addressed this in one of cjab's comments, and I also mentioned it in my original post in the "companion" thread to this one:
The intervening τὸ κατὰ σάρκα serves as a limiter, and stands in contrast with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.​
Specifically, it limits ἐξ ὧν before ὁ Χριστὸς. The article strengthens the contrast with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The intervening τὸ κατὰ σάρκα serves as a limiter, and stands in contrast with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.

Specifically, it limits ἐξ ὧν before ὁ Χριστὸς. The article strengthens the contrast with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.
τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is a modifier of ὁ Χριστὸς, and modifies it so substantially and precisely so as to be not just contrastive with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, but to be distinguishable from it. This usage of ὁ ὢν is reflected in John 3:31 (and in other places) to introduce sharp distinctions: i.e. what is of the earth from what is from above.

May be the issue here is that the grammars are being over-precise about what is attributive and what is substantive, and / or you are taking examples of what is only an attributive character to mean "attributive only".

Where there is no head noun or a wholly incompatible head noun (as and if modified - such as ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) then we should define participles or adjectives that might otherwise appear to be in the second attributive position as substantival only.

Where there is a semantically and grammatically compatible head noun (as and if modified), and where the participle or adjective in the second attributive position is also modified, we may talk about both its substantival and attributive character.

Where the participle or adjective in the second attributive position is unmodified the participle or adjective will be attributive only.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Speaking in general, it's not a bad thing to admit a mistake, it's actually better and one will earn more respect. But pretending after having misspoke the other person is the problem will have the opposite effect.


Ah. I see there's a new rule yet again, this time adding a further restriction to the 2nd attributive position. So now it's not only the attributive participle, but also the head noun that has to stand on its own? It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that you've learned the textbook formula but not specifically how it behaves in more complex phrases.

For starters, let's take a rather insightful example of an attributive participle in the 2nd attributive position noted by Michael Hayes in his analysis of the attributive participle:

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς (1 Peter 1:3)​
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again...​
You also skipped over the following examples above, which are noted in the grammars:

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​


I addressed this in one of cjab's comments, and I also mentioned it in my original post in the "companion" thread to this one:

Specifically, it limits ἐξ ὧν before ὁ Χριστὸς. The article strengthens the contrast with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς.
.
The above three examples (1 Peter 1:3, Mark 14:24, Matt. 6:4) are more naturally taken as substantives (with modifiers) in apposition . You will find that appositional phrases naturally lend themselves to substantives with modifiers, while the reverse is true with the second attributive position (the head noun vary rarely (if ever) likes modifiers. As I said, you need to read more GNT.

You basically are working from a very poor foundation, grammatically speaking.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is a modifier of ὁ Χριστὸς, and modifies it so substantially and precisely so as to be not just contrastive with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, but to be distinguishable from it. This usage of ὁ ὢν is reflected in John 3:31 (and in other places) to introduce sharp distinctions: i.e. what is of the earth from what is from above.

May be the issue here is that the grammars are being over-precise about what is attributive and what is substantive, and / or you are taking examples of what is only an attributive character to mean "attributive only".

Where there is no head noun or a wholly incompatible head noun (as and if modified - such as ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) then we should define participles or adjectives that might otherwise appear to be in the second attributive position as substantival only.

Where there is a semantically and grammatically compatible head noun (as and if modified), and where the participle or adjective in the second attributive position is also modified, we may talk about both its substantival and attributive character.

Where the participle or adjective in the second attributive position is unmodified the participle or adjective will be attributive only.
Yes, very insightful comment. It is hardly possible to imagine that the following is a second attributive position construction -- ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. Rather the participle phrase starts a new sentence. This is just how the GNT writers write. On this score, just count the number of times that ὁ ὢν functions substantivally, as opposed to being in the second attributive position.
 

brianrw

Member
The above three examples (1 Peter 1:3, Mark 14:24, Matt. 6:4) are more naturally taken as substantives (with modifiers) in apposition . You will find that appositional phrases naturally lend themselves to substantives with modifiers, while the reverse is true with the second attributive position (the head noun vary rarely (if ever) likes modifiers. As I said, you need to read more GNT.

You basically are working from a very poor foundation, grammatically speaking.
That's funny, because they are all examples of Attributive Participles listed by grammarians and are found either in grammars or in grammatical studies. You're just creating another circular argument--so while you are asserting I am "working from a very poor foundation," your real problem is with the grammars and grammarians. Your restrictions are both arbitrary and ad hoc. Your view of the attributive participle is overly simplistic and far too restricted, so you think I'm the one who is wrong.

τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is a modifier of ὁ Χριστὸς, and modifies it so substantially and precisely so as to be not just contrastive with ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, but to be distinguishable from it. This usage of ὁ ὢν is reflected in John 3:31 (and in other places) to introduce sharp distinctions: i.e. what is of the earth from what is from above.
This is not an accurate statement. The usage of ὁ ὢν in John 3:31 is for didactic purposes. When the attributive participle ὁ ὢν operates substantively, the article is usually generic and refers to any one of the class of individuals involved in the expression (this is basically true of the broader context of attributive participles). Here, it is not contrasting two particular individuals (not things here in 3:31), but anyone belonging to two different classes: ones who are of the earth, and ones who are of heaven. The only way the usage is "reflected" is if you take ὁ ὢν in a generic sense in Romans 9:5, which I trust is something you don't want to do, or take John 3:31 in a wholly particular sense, which is also something I trust you also wouldn't do.

May be the issue here is that the grammars are being over-precise about what is attributive and what is substantive,
More like the bare-bones formulas have been brought down to irreducible complexity.

or you are taking examples of what is only an attributive character to mean "attributive only".
No, I am not, and I am losing my patience with these types of comments.

FYI I don't need to follow the grammar to recognize the examples, but TRJM's restrictions actually make it impossible to point them out, since he just argues they are a substantival apposition and the whole argument becomes circular. Most people who know better would call it rubbish and walk away, and combing through the GNT to find specific examples in this position or that is an unreasonable demand due to the amount of labor involved. Unfortunately because of these factors I have to pick most examples from grammars or grammatical analyses and I'm not picking them out by mistake.

Where there is no head noun or a wholly incompatible head noun (as and if modified - such as ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is to ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) then we should define participles or adjectives that might otherwise appear to be in the second attributive position as substantival only.
Yes, very insightful comment. It is hardly possible to imagine that the following is a second attributive position construction -- ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. Rather the participle phrase starts a new sentence. This is just how the GNT writers write. On this score, just count the number of times that ὁ ὢν functions substantivally, as opposed to being in the second attributive position.
In no way is ὁ Χριστὸς is "a wholly incompatible head noun" because it is "modified." The accusative case is also identified as a limiting case, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα limits the scope of ἐξ ὧν, thus "from whom [is] . . . according to the flesh." This is just a normal function, and it is not a grammatical disassociater (I know, it's not really a word). Cf. (1) ἰδού, γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι ὑμᾶς (2 Cor. 7:11), where τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι emphasizes the godly manner of their sorrow and (2) τό τε πέλαγος τὸ κατὰ τὴν Κιλικίαν καὶ Παμφυλίαν διαπλεύσαντες (Acts 27:5), which limits the area of the sea they traveled.

You should have already noted the articular accusative in the construction above:

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς (1 Peter 1:3)​
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again...​

Hayes lists this as ASAP (article-substantive-article-participle), which stands for an attributive participle in the 2nd attributive position (SAP for the third, etc.) and it is the most common position of the attributive adjective. Here, κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος (woodenly translated, according to the abundance of his mercy) is simply a limiting factor to the attributive participle ὁ ἀναγεννήσας.

Again, in the above construction the genitive case modifies the nominative ὁ θεὸς:

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς (1 Peter 1:3)​
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again...​

The same is true of this example I previously noted from the grammar:

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.​

So what you are both saying about the modification of the head noun is incorrect. Here are some other examples of attributive participles (proper) referring to a modified head noun:

δὲ θεὸς πάσης χάριτος ὁ καλέσας ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1 Peter 5:10)​
But the God of all grace who has called you to his eternal glory by Jesus Christ...​
τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ τῆς μελλούσης ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης (Revelation 3:10)​
The hour of temptation which shall come upon the whole world​
δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 13:20)​
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus up from the dead, etc.​
Note that these are all examples found in grammars and grammatical studies. Both of you keep asserting things, but have not substantiated anything in any meaningful way. The burden actually isn't on me to provide examples, but for you both to substantiate the arbitrary rules being advocated.

I'm done with arguing this in circles.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
That's funny, because they are all examples of Attributive Participles listed by grammarians and are found either in grammars or in grammatical studies. You're just creating another circular argument--so while you are asserting I am "working from a very poor foundation," your real problem is with the grammars and grammarians. Your restrictions are both arbitrary and ad hoc. Your view of the attributive participle is overly simplistic and far too restricted, so you think I'm the one who is wrong.

Which grammars ? List them. I don't think grammars list dubious examples, they list incontestable ones . If these grammars really exist, they would be remiss if they don't also mention that 1 Peter 1:3, Mark 14:24, and Matt. 6:4 can also be grammatically construed as substantives (with modifiers) in apposition.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The following are insightful comments and apply to the Greek as well:

  • Attribution gives the meaning “type of” as in “a car type of door”, whereas apposition gives the meaning “these are different ways of describing the same thing”.
  • Apposition joins two whole noun phrases each with appropriate determiners, adjectives etc (“my wife”, “the love of my life”), whereas a noun used attributively is just an adjective in the noun phrase based on the second noun.
  • Apposition normally has a comma (or a pause in speech), attribution normally doesn’t.

So let's take a look at 1 peter 1:3 --

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν δι’ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν,


A comma is almost mandatory here, isn't it ? And the great many modifiers and descriptors on both sides of the comma (see bold above) describing each substantive (underlined above) tell us that these are appositional phrases .
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Another point to note is that εὐλογητός is used only of the Father in the GNT, whereas for human beings (Jesus and the elect) the word used is εὐλογημένος / εὐλογημένοι.
 

cjab

Well-known member
In no way is ὁ Χριστὸς is "a wholly incompatible head noun" because it is "modified." The accusative case is also identified as a limiting case, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα limits the scope of ἐξ ὧν, thus "from whom [is] . . . according to the flesh." This is just a normal function, and it is not a grammatical disassociater (I know, it's not really a word). Cf. (1) ἰδού, γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι ὑμᾶς (2 Cor. 7:11), where τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι emphasizes the godly manner of their sorrow and (2) τό τε πέλαγος τὸ κατὰ τὴν Κιλικίαν καὶ Παμφυλίανδιαπλεύσαντες (Acts 27:5), which limits the area of the sea they traveled.

You should have already noted the articular accusative in the construction above:

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς (1 Peter 1:3)​
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again...​

Hayes lists this as ASAP (article-substantive-article-participle), which stands for an attributive participle in the 2nd attributive position (SAP for the third, etc.) and it is the most common position of the attributive adjective. Here, κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος (woodenly translated, according to the abundance of his mercy) is simply a limiting factor to the attributive participle ὁ ἀναγεννήσας.

Again, in the above construction the genitive case modifies the nominative ὁ θεὸς:

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς (1 Peter 1:3)​
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again...​

The same is true of this example I previously noted from the grammar:

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.​

So what you are both saying about the modification of the head noun is incorrect. Here are some other examples of attributive participles (proper) referring to a modified head noun:

δὲ θεὸς πάσης χάριτος ὁ καλέσας ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ δόξαν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1 Peter 5:10)​
But the God of all grace who has called you to his eternal glory by Jesus Christ...​
τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ τῆς μελλούσης ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης (Revelation 3:10)​
The hour of temptation which shall come upon the whole world​
δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ὁ ἀναγαγὼν ἐκ νεκρῶν τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν (Hebrews 13:20)​
Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus up from the dead, etc.​
Note that these are all examples found in grammars and grammatical studies. Both of you keep asserting things, but have not substantiated anything in any meaningful way. The burden actually isn't on me to provide examples, but for you both to substantiate the arbitrary rules being advocated.

I'm done with arguing this in circles.

STRONGS NT 2596: κατά
With the accusative:
1. Of Place
e. of that which so joins itself to one thing as to separate itself from another; our for, by: κατ' ἰδίαν, apart, see ἴδιος, 2; καθ' ἑαυτόν, alone (by himself), Acts 28:16; James 2:17 (R. V. in itself) (2 Macc. 13:13; οἱ καθ' αὑτούς Ἕλληνες, Thucydides 1, 138; οἱ Βοιωτοι καθ' αὑτούς, Diodorus 13, 72; other examples are given by Alberti, Observations, etc., p. 293; Loesner, Observations, e Philone, p. 460f); ἔχειν τί καθ' ἑαυτόν, to have a thing by and to oneself, i. e. to keep it hidden in one's mind, Romans 14:22 (Josephus, Antiquities 2, 11, 1; Heliodorus 7, 16; (cf. Winer's Grammar, 401 (375) note{1})); hence, of that which belongs to some person or thing: κατά τήν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν, belonging to (A. V. in) the church that was there, Acts 13:1; ἡ ἐκκλησία κατ' οἶκον τίνος, belonging to one's household (see ἐκκλησία, 4 b. aa.); hence it forms a periphrasis — now for the genitive, as τά κατά Ἰουδαίους ἔθη (equivalent to τῶν Ἰουδαίων), Acts 26:3; now for the possessive pronoun, οἱ καθ' ὑμᾶς ποιηταί, your own poets, Acts 17:28 (here WH marginal reading καθ' ἡμᾶς, see their Introductory § 404); νόμου τοῦ καθ' ὑμᾶς (a law of your own), Acts 18:15; τό κατ' ἐμέ πρόθυμον, my inclination, Romans 1:15 (see πρόθυμος); ἡ καθ' ὑμᾶς πίστις, Ephesians 1:15 (ἡ κατά τόν τύραννον ὠματης τέ καί δύναμις, Diodorus 14, 12; μέχρι τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς χρόνων, Dionysius Halicarnassus, Antiquities 2, 1; cf. Grimm on 2 Macc. 4:21, p. 88; a throng of examples from Polybius may be seen in Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polybius, p. 323f; (cf. Winers Grammar, 154 (146); 400 (374) note{2}; especially Buttmann, § 132, 2)).

2. of Time
3. it denotes reference, relation, proportion, of various sorts;
a. distributively, indicating a succession of things following one another
b. as respects; with regard to; in reference to; so far as relates to; as concerning;
c. according to, agreeably to; in reference to agreement or conformity to a standard, in various ways
d. of the end aimed at; the goal to which anything tends;

"τὸ κατὰ σάρκα limits the scope of ἐξ ὧν, thus "from whom [is] . . . according to the flesh"
is irrelevant as τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is not primarily acting on ἐξ ὧν but on ὁ Χριστὸς.

Rather ἐξ ὧν is itself limiting ὁ Χριστὸς to a consideration of his biological generation. So τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is pleonasm, and put in for clarity. We can't argue with it (although you can it seems). The effect of it is to dictate our consideration of the Savior here to his manhood, as distinct from his divine origin. So there is no way that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων could be seen as attributive given what precedes it.

And I tend to agree with TRJM that modifiers to head nouns, especially with prepositions, will generate substantival character in any succeeding participles/adjectives, and especially so when used to form subordinate sentences.

Here the attempt to articially break up the sentence ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν to force an attributive rendering which only creates more grammatical problems for what is left of the sentence seems to defy all grammatical sense.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
This is worth pointing out again, as it is very important and settles the whole issue of Romans 9:5 IMHO-- The adjective εὐλογητός is used only of the Father in the GNT, whereas for human beings (Jesus , the elect and Mary ) the perfect participle form of the word is used εὐλογημένος / εὐλογημένοι / εὐλογημένη .
 

brianrw

Member
A comma is almost mandatory here, isn't it ? And the great many modifiers and descriptors on both sides of the comma (see bold above) describing each substantive (underlined above) tell us that these are appositional phrases .
  • Attribution gives the meaning “type of” as in “a car type of door”, whereas apposition gives the meaning “these are different ways of describing the same thing”.
  • Apposition joins two whole noun phrases each with appropriate determiners, adjectives etc (“my wife”, “the love of my life”), whereas a noun used attributively is just an adjective in the noun phrase based on the second noun.
  • Apposition normally has a comma (or a pause in speech), attribution normally doesn’t.
You got this anonymous quote from Quora: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-attributes-and-apposition-to-a-noun. I can't believe I have to run you through the basics on all of this:

  • An attributive expression, in grammar, is a word or phrase that modifies the head noun or noun phrase.

  • The attributive participle would actually be considered an attributive verb, which modifies the head noun and is typically a non-finite verb such as a participle or infinitive. It behaves like a verb (it can take an object and be modified by other parts of speech) and it is the participial phrase itself that operates like an adjective modifying the head noun or noun phrase.

  • Participles are verbal adjectives, not simple adjectives (as you keep repeating "article-noun-article-adjective"). Participles, including the attributive participle, are classed as modifiers, not adjectives. "Adjectival" in reference to participles simply means that the adjectival aspect of the participle is being emphasized, not that the verbal aspect is negated.

  • In the attributive participle constructions, the noun phrase operates as the nominal head and the participial phrase operates adjectivally in an attributive position. Thus it doesn't break the article-noun-article-modifier, etc. paradigms.

  • The attributive usage (proper) of the participle is "dependent." It means it modifies the nominal head expressed in the sentence.

  • The substantival usage of the participle is "independent." It means the nominal head is unexpressed, and therefore implied.

  • There is nothing that restricts the attributive participle from taking a modified head noun as its antecedent.

This is why all your arbitrary restrictions make no sense at all. I understand the apposition and its usage, I'm disagreeing with you over how you are interpreting the attributive participle. The problem is you keep referring to dependent usages of the attributive participle as independent usages of the substantival participle.

Those who really understand the language should know better.

Which grammars ? List them. I don't think grammars list dubious examples, they list incontestable ones . If these grammars really exist, they would be remiss if they don't also mention that 1 Peter 1:3, Mark 14:24, and Matt. 6:4 can also be grammatically construed as substantives (with modifiers) in apposition.
I already have, and you're just digging yourself more of a hole by calling them "remiss." 1 Peter 1:3, which you seem to take the most exception to, is actually the best attested of the three in the grammars I consulted.

  • Mark 14:24 - Matthewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 266

  • 1 Peter 1:3 - Matthewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, pp. 266-267; A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 778; Matthew Hayes, An Analysis of the Attributive Participle and the Relative Clause in the Greek New Testament, p. 318

  • Matthew 6:4 - Wallace, Daniel B., The Basics of New Testament Syntax, p. 270; Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 618

Matthewson and Emig (p. 267) also note another relevant example of the attributive participle:

ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου τῇ ἐξελθούσῃ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ (Rev. 19:21)​
And the rest died by the sword that comes out of the mouth of the one seated upon the horse.​

I've given you quite a few others elsewhere, which are also sourced to their respective grammars. You should take a moment to see the examples listed by Whitacre (5.184), Funk (Lesson 53), and Robertson (beginning p. 1105), which are also of interest. Wallace, p. 618, cites a list of verse references that also fall under the Attributive Participle.

The problem is that you are both following the bare bones constructions, and not realizing they are just that: bare bones. They can be applied in more complex constructions.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I already have, and you're just digging yourself more of a hole by calling them "remiss." 1 Peter 1:3, which you seem to take the most exception to, is actually the best attested of the three in the grammars I consulted.

  • Mark 14:24 - Matthewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 266

  • 1 Peter 1:3 - Matthewson and Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, pp. 266-267; A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 778; Matthew Hayes, An Analysis of the Attributive Participle and the Relative Clause in the Greek New Testament, p. 318

  • Matthew 6:4 - Wallace, Daniel B., The Basics of New Testament Syntax, p. 270; Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 618

Matthewson and Emig (p. 267) also note another relevant example of the attributive participle:

ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου τῇ ἐξελθούσῃ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ (Rev. 19:21)​
And the rest died by the sword that comes out of the mouth of the one seated upon the horse.​

I've given you quite a few others elsewhere, which are also sourced to their respective grammars. You should take a moment to see the examples listed by Whitacre (5.184), Funk (Lesson 53), and Robertson (beginning p. 1105), which are also of interest. Wallace, p. 618, cites a list of verse references that also fall under the Attributive Participle.

The problem is that you are both following the bare bones constructions, and not realizing they are just that: bare bones. They can be applied in more complex constructions.
The point is that grammars are not in agreement . For instance, Wallace only lists one of your three examples as being attributive — Matthew 6:4 . And this is the one (ὁ Πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων) with the slightest modification to the head noun, a genitive pronoun , the head noun not being modified by a phrase consisting of prepositions, adjectives, and the like etc., not the kind of modifications you have at Romans 9:5. You are cherry picking to make a weak grammatical case for your reading.
 

brianrw

Member
The point is that grammars are not in agreement . For instance, Wallace only lists one of your three examples as being attributive — Matthew 6:4 . And this is the one (ὁ Πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων) with the slightest modification to the head noun, a genitive pronoun , the head noun not being modified by a phrase consisting of prepositions, adjectives, and the like etc., not the kind of modifications you have at Romans 9:5. You are cherry picking to make a weak grammatical case for your reading.
This whole statement is disingenuous, since none of them are in dispute. Out of hundreds of examples to choose from, it surprises you that they didn't all pick the same three or four? It's no surprise that you want to evade 1 Peter 1:3 (Εὐλογητὸς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς) and Revelation 19:21 (ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου τῇ ἐξελθούσῃ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ), and that you're deflecting by accusing me of the very thing you are doing here.

I'm quoting numerous grammars, respected scholars, and grammatical studies while you're anonymously quoting Quora.

Mathewson and Emig, in particular, authored an intermediate grammar. Their examples are more complex than your standard basic syntax grammar's cookie-cutter examples, to which you seem to be rigidly adhering. To sum up again, the noun phrase itself functions as the nominal head and the participial phrase as a whole operates adjectivally to modify the nominal head. These constructions don't break the article-noun-article-modifier, etc. paradigms, and so your arbitrary rule making makes no sense at all. All you're doing is disservice to those who don't understand the Greek.

That's it. I'm done. You can have the last word if you want.

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆμα ἀργὸν ὃ ἐὰν λαλήσωσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀποδώσουσιν περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως· ἐκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου καταδικασθήσῃ
 

cjab

Well-known member
I guess a nice distinction that should be noted is between the grammatical function of the participle clause, and that of the participle itself within the participle clause.

The participle clause as a whole may be attributive as in Rev 19:21, where it is wholly dependent; whereas within an attributive participle cause, the participle may function substantivally, as in Rev 19:21.

To label the participle in Rev 19:21 as "attributive" qua its head noun, is really to infer that the participle clause as a whole is attributive via its noun clause.

Hence with reference to Rom 9:5, there is nothing here to inhibit ὁ ὢν from acting substantivally with respect to what follows: the conclusion is that it does. The only further appraisal is whether ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν is an attributive clause acting upon an antecedent noun clause. That it isn't, is obvious from the semantics.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I guess a nice distinction that should be noted is between the grammatical function of the participle clause, and that of the participle itself within the participle clause.

The participle clause as a whole may be attributive as in Rev 19:21, where it is wholly dependent; whereas within an attributive participle cause, the participle may function substantivally, as in Rev 19:21.

To label the participle in Rev 19:21 as "attributive" qua its head noun, is really to infer that the participle clause as a whole is attributive via its noun clause.

Hence with reference to Rom 9:5, there is nothing here to inhibit ὁ ὢν from acting substantivally with respect to what follows: the conclusion is that it does. The only further appraisal is whether ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν is an attributive clause acting upon an antecedent noun clause. That it isn't, is obvious from the semantics.

Even Brian's fellow "Trinitarian" Gryllus does not agree with him at Romans 9:5. The latter is convinced that the following are appositives : ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς . :) This says all.

So M. B is clutching at straws, as it were.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Even Brian's fellow "Trinitarian" Gryllus does not agree with him at Romans 9:5. The latter is convinced that the following are appositives : ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς . :) This says all.

So M. B is clutching at straws, as it were.
I also don't understand the obsession amongst Trinitarians for dissassocating ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων from what follows it. Where is the scholarship in that? It seems to rely on special pleading for ὁ ὢν, or even ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, as opposed to construing ὁ ὢν in the context of the whole of the participle clause.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I also don't understand the obsession amongst Trinitarians for dissassocating ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων from what follows it. Where is the scholarship in that? It seems to rely on special pleading for ὁ ὢν, or even ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, as opposed to construing ὁ ὢν in the context of the whole of the participle clause.
There is none. In fact it is standard practice for ὁ ὢν ( with modifiers) to be the subject of a clause or sentence , that is, it works substantivally
virtually always. They really can’t argue with this, so ignore the point. On this score, we can start with Matthew 12:30 —

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

brianrw

Member
Ofcourse you are. What you have is sleight of hand .
It's not polite to offer an insult when you were offered the last word. Usually, you want to save a good argument for last. But insults have the effect of dragging the other conversant back into a conversation they were trying to leave.

I also don't understand the obsession amongst Trinitarians for dissassocating ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων from what follows it. Where is the scholarship in that? It seems to rely on special pleading for ὁ ὢν, or even ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, as opposed to construing ὁ ὢν in the context of the whole of the participle clause.
Despite the fact that we are working with an attributive participle, the participle still retains an equative function just like its finite counterparts. There is no "disassociating it," because we take θεὸς as a predicate.

Even Brian's fellow "Trinitarian" Gryllus does not agree with him at Romans 9:5. The latter is convinced that the following are appositives : ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς . :) This says all.
But that is not what you are arguing for, is it? And didn't you describe that position originally as "weird?" Gryllus seemed to have no problem with my initial post in this thread's counterpart (link) and responded to it with a "like," whereas you responded by accusing me of ignorance in Greek. While he may or may not agree with everything I said, he did not choose to directly counter any of my points and I will let him speak for himself. He seems very fair minded, and those conversations tend to be far more enjoyable.

The participle clause as a whole may be attributive as in Rev 19:21, where it is wholly dependent; whereas within an attributive participle cause, the participle may function substantivally, as in Rev 19:21.
I'm not following you here. There is one usage of a substantival participle in the head noun phrase (τοῦ καθημένου, "of him who sat"), and an attributive participle that sets off a participial phrase that operates adjectivally (τῇ ἐκπορευομένῃ, "which proceeded"). Is that what you are referring to?

You're both actually taking issue with the grammarians themselves and their examples. I don't see how that is productive or strengthens your arguments in any way.

There is none. In fact it is standard practice for ὁ ὢν ( with modifiers) to be the subject of a clause or sentence , that is, it works substantivally
virtually always. They really can’t argue with this, so ignore the point. On this score, we can start with Matthew 12:30 —

μὴ ὢν μετ’ ἐμοῦ κατ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.
Before you were asserting that it always works substantively, now it's "virtually always?" This is a substantival (independent) usage of the participle since the head noun is unexpressed, thus it takes on a generic rather than a particular sense. When the head noun is expressed, however, as it is in John 1:18 and other like passages, it is dependent (not independent) and therefore attributive (not substantival) and it's usage is particular. There's no need for it to operate in place of a head noun when the head noun is already expressed. I've said this repeatedly. There's no special rule for ὁ ὢν, the same rules that apply to every other attributive participle apply to it as well. You're not even supporting this argument in any substantial way, you just keep offering more proof by assertion.

Your second premise assumes that a noun phrase, which operates like a noun, does not operate like a noun when it has modifiers. This is an absolute contradiction, since a noun phrase is a noun with additional modifiers that acts like a noun.

Your third premise assumes that a participial phrase, which operates like an adjective to modify the head noun, does not act like an adjective when it has modifiers. This is also an absolute contradiction, since it is the participial phrase itself--including its objects and modifiers--that function adjectivally to modify the head noun.

In other words, you have literally argued everything backwards.

I would expect these sorts of arguments from individuals who are self-taught and don't know any better, not those who profess to know the language so well. The cookie cutter formula article-noun-article-modifier is not restricted to a four-word construction. A noun phrase operates as the head noun, and the participial phrase modifies the head noun like an adjective. I have no idea why you both are trying to make this all so complicated.

Your argument in particular effectively nullifies the usage of the attributive participle except in purely deverbalized constructions (where there is no further modification of the participle), and supplants the bulk of its usage with the substantival participle.

This is all going on ad nauseam.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
You are back…The point is that even Gryllus understands that if Romans 9:5 is taken like so —, that is, ὁ ὢν is not starting a new sentence … ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς then ὁ ὢν … is not in the second attributive position but is more naturally construed as an appositive.
 
Top