Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

Steven Avery

Well-known member
In what context does he make the remark about it being unusual? It makes a difference. Most likely he is referring to the fact that εὐλογητὸς comes at the beginning of doxologies. If that is the case, his remarks don't have any bearing on yours. You might want to check that out.

It is on p. 161-163 of:

Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus
Murray Harris
https://books.google.com/books?id=U9VLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA161

You may get blank pages, I have them archived, but not in text mode.

Here is one sentence:

The alternative way of explaining the extraordinary inversion (on the assumption that v. 5b is a doxology to God the Father) is to suggest that
when the subject contains the dominant thought or is prominent in the writer’s mind, it may precede the predicate.

There is also a section discussing:

it forms part of a descriptive doxology concerning Christ(" ... who is ... blessed for ever").

Which would seem to be the spin interpretation, unless an awkward attempt was made to combine it with the apposition.

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

Waiting for some comment on Hippolytus, who looks to be saying "God blessed (is Christ)".
 
Last edited:

brianrw

Member
This Romans 9:5 construction is fairly unique in the Bible, with an unusual one-time word order θεὸς εὐλογητὸς. Murray Harris comments on this unusual reversed word order and also speaks of the "natural association" of the two words. spin was in the same ballpark when he wrote of both words being nominative and singular and masculine as helping to understand how they are connected. And spin wrote of εὐλογητὸς being nominalized, which, if he is correct, eliminates the interpretation that has it as an adjective describing θεὸς .
Harris is commenting on how an asyndetic doxology involving the construction θεὸς εὐλογητὸς would be unusual. The subject would normally be clearly defined by an article and the adjective would be emphasized before the noun. The "natural association" is simply that εὐλογητὸς directly modifies θεὸς, and both together tell us something about ὁ Χριστὸς. His take on it is that any translation that makes εὐλογητὸς refer directly to ὁ Χριστὸς severs that "natural association."

For example, the famous (and uncontroverted) passage in Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." In Greek, Προσέχετε δέ ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν οἵτινες ἔρχονται πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν ἐνδύμασιν προβάτων ἔσωθεν δὲ εἰσιν λύκοι ἅρπαγες. The "false prophets" (τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν) are described as "ravenous wolves." Similar to Romans 9:5, the noun λύκοι ("wolves") comes before the adjective ἅρπαγες ("ravenous"). But we would not say that the false prophets are "ravenous" and "wolves," but that they are "ravenous wolves."

Actually it does matter. It is one thing to read Classical Greek and another to be an expert. From what I can see over many years, spin has a very strong and wide background. He posted on the earlier IIDB and FRDB forums, which are in archives, before the current one.
Even if Spin did have a "wide background," it would be worse for him because it means in this place he was being deliberately dishonest. Because his statement was flat wrong, and verifiably so. As JM has said, and I have said, εὐλογητός is not a noun. It's an adjective. You can look at least that much up on your own. Two nominatives together cannot yield that kind of interpretation. You have to involve another case in combination with the nominative.

Waiting for some comment on Hippolytus, who looks to be saying "God blessed (is Christ)".
Already done:
brianrw said: The English translator uses a postpositive adjective in the English (like "God Almighty"), which is usually attributive unless it sets off its own clause, in which case it would function like a predicate. This construction was designed to allow the adjective to sit as close to the head noun as possible and yet still be followed up by a prepositional or adverbial phrase. Hippolytus actually quotes the passage, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς and then follows it with the verb γεγέννηται, "has been born."​

Right.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
brianrw has taken the position that modern English or 1611 English give the same text, including commas. So I do not see a reason to fish around to try to change the AV text.
No one is disputing that the give the same text. We are trying to help you understand that it doesn't mean what you think it means.
The question of a missing verb is pronounced in the apposition and doxology interpretations.
We even discussed this earlier! I complimented you for noting that the AV does NOT have a verb here and that works against the doxology interpretation.
The problem that you have is that the AV translators supply the verb even when the text doesn't contain a doxology. So the fact that they don't have a verb in Romans 9:5 should also persuade you that you are misunderstanding the verse, that is if you want to still claim to be consistent.

LXX Gen. 26:29 μὴ ποιήσειν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν κακόν καθότι ἡμεῗς σε οὐκ ἐβδελυξάμεθα καὶ ὃν τρόπον ἐχρησάμεθά σοι καλῶς καὶ ἐξαπεστείλαμέν σε μετ᾽ εἰρήνης καὶ νῦν σὺ εὐλογητὸς ὑπὸ κυρίου
"thou art now the blessed of the LORD"

LXX Gen. 43:28 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν ὑγιαίνει ὁ παῗς σου ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ἔτι ζῇ καὶ εἶπεν εὐλογητὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῗνος τῷ θεῷ καὶ κύψαντες προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ
Not present in the AV. "That man is blessed by God." This is another good example of what I proposed earlier.

LXX I Sam. 25:33 καὶ εὐλογητὸς ὁ τρόπος σου καὶ εὐλογημένη σὺ ἡ ἀποκωλύσασά με σήμερον ἐν ταύτῃ μὴ ἐλθεῗν εἰς αἵματα καὶ σῶσαι χεῗρά μου ἐμοί
"And blessed bee thy aduice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from comming to shed blood, and from auenging my selfe with mine owne hand."

In the God blessed (is Christ) interpretation the verb could only be given by a wooden duplication of the word Christ.
Thus there is no missing verb.
There is no verb because the translators didn't understand it the way you propose.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Even if Spin did have a "wide background," it would be worse for him because it means in this place he was being deliberately dishonest. Because his statement was flat wrong, and verifiably so. As JM has said, and I have said, εὐλογητός is not a noun. It's an adjective. You can look at least that much up on your own. Two nominatives together cannot yield that kind of interpretation. You have to involve another case in combination with the nominative.

spin never said it was a noun, he said it was nominalized.
You have done this false representation time and again.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The problem that you have is that the AV translators supply the verb even when the text doesn't contain a doxology. So the fact that they don't have a verb in Romans 9:5 should also persuade you that you are misunderstanding the verse, that is if you want to still claim to be consistent.

Do they supply a verb when the object (Christ) is an ellipsis?

If not (or if this never happens in your examples) then you have not demonstrated anything.

What other interpretation works, if you do not have a verb?
The doxology does not work, the apposition does not work.
So what do you have left?
 

John Milton

Well-known member
It is on p. 161-163 of:

Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus
Murray Harris
https://books.google.com/books?id=U9VLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA161

You may get blank pages, I have them archived, but not in text mode.

Here is one sentence:



There is also a section discussing:
Thank you for providing these. It confirms what I thought which is you need to be careful mapping his remarks about the construction being a doxology onto yours which denies that it is.
Which would seem to be the spin interpretation, unless an awkward attempt was made to combine it with the apposition.
I can't view those pages so I can't comment about them.
Waiting for some comment on Hippolytus, who looks to be saying "God blessed (is Christ)".
He doesn't say that. He identifies ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς as Christ and calls him God.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
spin never said it was a noun, he said it was nominalized.
You have done this false representation time and again.
If Brianrw said this, he was correct. I quoted it earlier.
The gentleman on that forum is mistaken: "On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed")." As I said earlier, εὐλογητὸς is an adjective (εὐλογία is the noun. Check these claims out for yourself.) It's going to modify a noun. In this case, that noun is "God" giving us "blessed God" as I explained above.
Here is the citation.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
He doesn't say that. He identifies ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς as Christ and calls him God.

You need to look carefully at the section where God blessed is sandwiched between the first part of the verse and Christ being born.

Hippolytus
“He who is over all, God blessed, has been born”


Jesus Christ, God blessed, has been born.

This is NOT an apposition, this is not a doxology to God.
So how do you interpret this other than Hippolytus seeing Christ as God blessed?

brianrw thought there was another way, but never gave his explanation.
 

brianrw

Member
spin never said it was a noun, he said it was nominalized.
You have done this false representation time and again.
Yes, he did:

Spin:
The Greek instead uses a verbal form as a noun, still with the subject "God" and tacks the whole nominalized sentence on. We might try "blessed by God forever". (https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62844#p62844)​

And
Spin:
On the text, the writer has placed two noun forms together, God and the nominalized verb ("blessed"), both nominative singular masculine, so you naturally link them together (just another indicator). (https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=62855#p62855)​

You need to look carefully at the section where God blessed is sandwiched between the first part of the verse and Christ being born.

Hippolytus
“He who is over all, God blessed, has been born”
It's been looked at carefully. The Greek is actually a direct quotation, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς, with a verb tacked on at the end to signify "has been born." Here the English translator chose to use a postpositive adjective. Because of the nature of Greek and the flexibility of word order, when a passage is quoted elliptically in good Greek we still have to bring it in as good English. So there may occasionally be slight shifts in nuance as a result.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Yes, he did:

You are playing games. spin said it was nominazlized and thus a noun form.
Not that it was a noun, which you try to use for a cheap pot shot.

This is Logic 101, you are twisting it to say that he called the word (natively) a noun.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
You need to look carefully at the section where God blessed is sandwiched between the first part of the verse and Christ being born.

“He who is over all, God blessed, has been born”
If you keep looking, the text finishes the thought for you, so your misunderstanding should be annulled.
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται, καὶ ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος Θεός ἐστιν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
"and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever."
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If you keep looking, the text finishes the thought for you, so your misunderstanding should be annulled.
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται, καὶ ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος Θεός ἐστιν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
"and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever."

That has no effect on the God blessed phrase, try to give your interpretation of those words directly, sandwiched in the discussion of Christ on both sides.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Do they supply a verb when the object (Christ) is an ellipsis?
Christ wouldn't be an object, so what do you mean?
If not (or if this never happens in your examples) then you have not demonstrated anything.
The construction used in the examples I gave is the construction you proposed as the understanding of the verse. The fact that Romans 9:5 doesn't match this construction is proof that your interpretation is wrong.
What other interpretation works, if you do not have a verb?
"God blessed" which understood correctly means "blessed God" not some version of Christ is God blessed as you have supposed. Your understanding would require the word God to be in the dative case (using the words you suggested).
The doxology does not work, the apposition does not work.
So what do you have left?
The doxology interpretation is grammatically valid as is the apposition interpretation. What doesn't work is your understanding of the English text.
 

brianrw

Member
You are playing games. spin said it was nominazlized and thus a noun form.
Not that it was a noun.

This is Logic 101, you are twisting it to say that he called the word (natively) a noun.
It's not a nominalized verb (i.e., a noun). It was originally an adjectivized verb. I'm not playing word games, and neither is JM.

The verbal form is εὐλογέω. We drop verbal stem (ω), lengthen the preceding vowel to an eta (εὐλογη-), and add the adjectival -τός stem to make the verb an adjective. That's the original formation.

It seems quite apparent to me that Spin mistook the last two letters, ός, as a masculine noun stem.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It's not a nominalized verb (i.e., a noun). It was originally an adjectivized verb. I'm not playing word games, and neither is JM.

Perhaps he wrote verb rather than adjective.
That is a question for spin, who clearly knows Greek forms.

Either way it is not a noun and you should finally stop the cutesy accusation.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The construction used in the examples I gave is the construction you proposed as the understanding of the verse. The fact that Romans 9:5 doesn't match this construction is proof that your interpretation is wrong.

That is not logically valid.
You never gave one in the reverse order.
And there can easily be more than one way to say something.
 

brianrw

Member
Perhaps he wrote verb rather than adjective. That is a question for spin.

Either way it is not a noun.
Anything that is nominalized is a "noun" in operation. That is not the case here. For an adjective to operate as a noun, it would need to be substantivized. We are looking at a simple adjectival construction involving a head noun and the adjective that describes it.

Two nominative nouns in Greek don't form a compound adjective, much less a prepositional phrase. I've told you again and again that they cannot act on each other in that way. You need to involve a different case.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The doxology interpretation is grammatically valid as is the apposition interpretation. What doesn't work is your understanding of the English text.

Clearly, the Christ being blessed interpretation DOES work with the English text.
It has less of a missing verb problem than the other choices.

The apposition interpretation is extremely difficult, trying to give God two clashing functions and there is no Christ is God. Missing verb.
The doxology interpretation runs into the missing is. .. God is blessed.

You might claim it does not work with the Greek text, but it is the smoothest of the three interps of the English text.
 
Top