Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[Steven Avery]

Since Socinus was mentioned, here is his text, which also uses Ambrose, likely following Erasmus.
And this was likely written quite a bit before the publication date here, since Faustus passed in 1604.

F. Socini responsio ad libellum J. Wuieki Jesuitae Polonice editum de divinitate Filii Dei et Spiritus Sancti. Ubi eadem opera refellitur quicquid R. Bellarminus disputationum suarum tomo primo, secundae Controversiae generalis libro primo de eadem re scripsit. Antehac suppresso auctoris nomine publicata et nunc denuo in lucem edita (1624)
Faustus Paulus Socinus (1539-1604)
https://books.google.com/books?id=B180CKIdpZEC&pg=PA380
p. 380-383 with Ambrose on p. 382

Grotius (1583-1645) was later, however I do not think he added much to Erasmus.

John Jortin (1698-1770) is interesting on the dynamic involving Erasmsus, Beza and Grotius

The Life of Erasmus: From A.D. 1530 to A.D. 1536; and Remarks on the works of Erasmus (1808)
https://books.google.com/books?id=hfwFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA221

 

[Steven Avery]

Christopher Wordsworth (1774-1846) in his Six Letters to Granville Sharp (1802) on p. 100 awkwardly tried to disparage the Ambrose reference. Wordsworth tried to support Sharp on the early church writers, but you have to be very careful with his material.
https://books.google.com/books?id=k7JWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA100

Here is the Erasmus Annotations in English, which can be compared with the (incomplete) text above:

The Concessions of Trinitarians (1845)
John Wilson
https://books.google.com/books?id=n_kUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA519

 

[cjab]

Christopher Wordsworth (1774-1846) in his Six Letters to Granville Sharp (1802) on p. 100 awkwardly tried to disparage the Ambrose reference. Wordsworth tried to support Sharp on the early church writers, but you have to be very careful with his material.
https://books.google.com/books?id=k7JWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA100

With reference to the above,

HILARIUS
"Exspectantes beatam spem, et adventum gloriae beati Dei et salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, qui dedit semetipsum pro nobis, redimeret nos ab omni iniquitate, et emundaret sibi populum abundantem, aemulatorem bonorium operum.

"Hanc esse dicit beatam spem credentium quia exspectant adventum gloriae magni Dei, quod revelari habet, judice Christo, in quo Dei Patris videbitur potestas, et gloria, ut fidei suae praemium consequantur.

"Ad hoc enim redemit nos Deus, et puram vitam sectantes, repleti operibus bonis, regni Dei haeredes esse possimus. Haec loquere, et exhortare, et argue, &c."
_____________
"Looking for the blessed hope and the glorious coming of the blessed God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to cleanse a people that abounded to him, an emulator of good works."

"He says that this is the blessed hope of the believers, because they await the coming of the glory of the great God, which has to be revealed, by Christ the judge, in whom the power and glory of God the Father will be seen, that they may obtain the reward of their faith.

"For to this end God redeemed us, and pursuing a pure life, being filled with good works, we may become heirs of the kingdom of God. These things speak, and exhort, and reprove, &c."
___________________________
ERASMUS

■ τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος. Id ita legi po test ut utrumque pertineat ad Christum, Dei, et Servatoris: aut prius pertineat ad Patrem, posterius ad Christum.

Chrysostomus ac Theophylactus utrumque tribuunt Christo, et item Hieronymus, exultantes adversus Arianos, ceu victores, cum sermo plane sit anceps: imo magis pro illis facere videatur quam pro nobis. Primum negari non potest quin Sermo Graecus sit ambiguus, et ex aequo pertinens ad sensum utrumlibet. Quid autem agas adversus haereticum ex loco prorsus ancipiti? Quod si illos urgeas interpretum consensu, certe Ambrosius vir summus et Episcopus orthodoxus" (this great Bishop is, however, no other than the poor Deacon whom we have seen Dr. Mill treating so contemptuously) "divisim accipit, ut magni Dei referatur ad Patrem, Servatoris ad Christum. Ipsius verba subscribam.

Hanc esse, &c. as before, to haeredes esse possimus. An non hic palam dicit Patrem revelaturum gloriam suam, judice Christo?— At adventus in sacris litteris non tribuitur Patri, sed Filio? Nec hie simpliciter nominatur adventus Patris, sed adventus gloria, quam interim expectamus in humilitate constituti. Tum apparebit majestas nostra, cum aperietur gloria magni Dei Patris, et servatoris nostri Jesu Christi. Quid autem hic metuimus Arianos, quum tot locis Paulus Dei vocabulum tribuat Patri, Filium appellans Dominum? Si Filius Dei, tantum in principio Evangelii Joannis adeo clare pronunciatus esset Deus, nonne sufficeret adversus universos Arianos? Postremo Ariani quidam hunc quoque locum accipiunt de Filio, et tamen non credunt quod nos credimus. Magnum enim Deutn fatentur, verum negant; et haec est illorum impietas. Quanquam omissus articulus in libris Graecis facit nonnihil pro diversa sententia. Evidentius distinxisset personas, si dixisset και τον Σωτῆρος. Miror quid secutus Scholiastes ille magnum Deum interpretetur Spiritum sanction. Fortasse locum captabat in quo Spiritus sanctus manifeste diceretur Deus." (Vol.vi. part 2. p. 699.)
_____________

του μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ Σωτῆρος. I read this as a test that both belong to Christ, God, and Saviour; or that first belongs to the Father, later to Christ.

Chrysostom and Theophylactus attribute both to Christ, and likewise Jerome, exultantly against the Arians as conquerors, since the speech is plainly doubtful; nay, he seems to do more for them than for us.

First, it cannot be denied that the Greek language is ambiguous and equally pertaining to an open-ended sense. But what do you do against an heretic from a completely uncertain place? But if you press them with the consent of the interpreters, surely Ambrose is a most eminent and orthodox bishop" (this great Bishop is, however, no other than the poor Deacon whom we have seen Mill, treating so contemptuously) "takes it separately, so that it may be referred to the Father of the great God, the Savior to Christ.

I will sign his words.

Hanc esse, &c. as before, to haeredes esse possimus.

Does he not here openly say that the Father will reveal his glory to Christ the judge?

But the coming of the Holy Scripture is not attributed to the Father, but to the Son? Nor is it here mentioned simply the coming of the Father, but the glory of the coming, which we look forward to in the mean time being placed in humility. Then our majesty will appear, when the glory of the great God the Father and our Savior Jesus Christ will be opened.

But what do the Arians fear here, when, in so many places, Paul ascribes the name of God to the Father, calling the Son the Lord? If God had been so clearly declared the Son of God only in the beginning of John's gospel, would it not be enough against all the Arians? Finally, some Arians take this passage also of the Son, and yet do not believe what we believe. For they admit a great Deutn, but deny the truth; and this is their impiety. Although the omitted article in the Greek books makes somewhat of a different opinion. He would have distinguished more clearly the persons if he had said και τον Σωτῆρος. I wonder why, following the Scholastics, he interprets that great God as the Holy Spirit. Perhaps he was trying to capture the place in which the Holy Spirit was clearly called God.” (Vol.vi. Part 2. p. 699).

_____________

PELAGIUS
"Et adventum gloriae magni Dei, et Salvatoris nostris, Jesu Christi. Spiritum dicit magnum, Deum quia ipsius expectamus adventum."
_________________
"And the coming of the glory of the great God, and our Savior, Jesus Christ. He calls the great Spirit, God, because we look forward to his coming."

 

[brianrw]

Brianrw: "Two subsequent studies on Colwell’s construction concluded that they could not find any indefinite anarthrous preverbal PNs in the NT. It is entirely possible that there are some in the NT,​

​

I was right. You made the false claim that " there have been at least two different studies--one by Harner and another by Dixon--which failed to find any instances of an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative that was indefinite."

No, you were wrong when you said that there were no such studies, and you were wrong when you said that this construction in the gospel of John was primarily indefinite--it's in fact not true at all. I said the same thing Wallace did, with a minor difference in phraseology and no difference in substance. Are you taking exception that Wallace said, "that they could not find" whereas I said "failed to find"? True that Wallace allows the possibility. The problem is that even the "potential" examples he provided he indicates are debatable. So there's a difference between empirical evidence and theoretical evidence.

You left out the rest of Wallace's statement after "in the NT," which I quoted:

...but this is obviously the most poorly attested semantic force for such a construction. (Wallace, Daniel B., The Basics of New Testament Syntax, p. 117)​

In light of your argument that follows, that "In fact it [indefinite] is the best attested semantic force for a pre-verbal anarthrous PN in the Gospel of John, if not in the GNT" this seems to have been deliberate. You left out the point that specifically contradicts you.

I'm asking you to supply an example of a pre-verbal anarthrous θεὸς which is qualitative, since both of you take it qualitatively at John 1:1c. Infact, I will make things easier for you; supply a qualitative θεὸς from the GNt in any capacity.

I just did:

Wallace offers θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν (Philippians 2:13), p. 264.​

I simply noted afterward, in fairness, that Wallace in both places allows that θεὸς may be definite.

This is another false claim. In fact it is the best attested semantic force for a pre-verbal anarthrous PN in the Gospel of John, if not in the GNT.

No. It's another instance where you are making an absolute assertion for which you have no source or backing, and which a highly respectable study contradicts, as I noted previously:

Dixon concludes specifically that the anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative in the gospel of John is primarily qualitative. So you are wrong.​

Because in the Psalms ὁ θεός is the functional equivalent of a proper name (of the Father) so the rule doesn't apply.

This is special pleading.

Interesting that Wallace would say that, since his NET bible takes two of the three indefinitely:

"The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet."
&
Jesus answered them, "I tell you the solemn truth, everyone who practices sin is a slave of sin.

Wallace notes this in his grammar, that translation is not a good indicator. Since English lacks a qualitative construction, these are translated according to the idiom of the English language.

We are talking not about θεός but about κύριός, which does not have both, it only has the vocative (κύριε).

John, the nominative can stand for an address, whether it be θεός or κύριός. Many constructions in the NT are found only once, or a small number of times. That only means they are rare, not that they must be discarded. It doesn't matter how the phraseology is everywhere else, it only matters how it is used here and you're discarding acknowledged examples where κύριός stands in place of a vocative/address/appellation.

In truth, you do.

Again, as I said above, all the grammarians that I have consulted who cite this passage see this usage as vocative: Wallace, Mounce, Robertson, Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plummer. The same is true of all Greek fathers but one (who is actually regarded as heterodox, and takes it as an exclamation).

I understand because you are a Unitarian that you absolutely have to muddy the waters for well over a hundred passages of scripture to keep your doctrine, but this passage is not really considered a controverted passage. Neither is John 1:1.

Lol, here is a clue : Οἱ οὖν γείτονες καὶ οἱ θεωροῦντες αὐτὸν τὸ πρότερον, ὅτι προσαίτης ἦν, ἔλεγον Οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ καθήμενος καὶ προσαιτῶν;

Yes, you were using a different text than me--my text uses an adjective: ὅτι τυφλὸς ἦν (MT TR) rather than προσαίτης ἦν (NA UBS). I should have looked over at the NA/UBS. Thank you for clarifying.

A predicate noun in Greek is anarthrous when it indicates the category or class of which the subject is a particular example, and that speaks to their nature as a member of that class. In English, we take this into the idiom of the English language by using an indefinite pronoun whereas the Greek may be qualitative.

Now if you could show us something conclusive like this, about κύριος. Good luck.

Once again, after being shown examples, you simply appeal to the stone.

Nonsense. The post right above points out that Erasmus, long before Socinians, Beza and Glassius does not accept the identity translation. And Erasmus uses Ambrose (who may be given as Hilary or Ambrosius)

No, it's correct. Erasmus writes, "This can be read in such a way that both belong to Christ, God and Saviour," (Id ita legi potest, ut utrumque pertineat ad Christum, Dei et Servatoris) but then he tries to work around it by appealing to Ambrosiaster, mistaking the interpolator as Ambrose himself (which Beza calls him out on). The individual is Ambrosiaster, which is an interpolator of the writings of Ambrose--a Latin writer and the only one who might appear to depart from the usual Greek and Latin understanding of the passage. He thus negates the attributive usage of τῆς δόξης. Erasmus found himself embroiled in endless controversy for this annotation.

Ambrose uses Matthew 16:27 as an "exact parallel" (Henry Alford) to Titus 2:13, and Matthew 16:27 is clearly two subjects, essentially ending the Titus 2:13 debate.

It's a good cross reference, but not a grammatical equivalent.

Erasmus text in Paraphrase

https://books.google.com/books?id=HrdtK45DK_8C&pg=PA63​

​

17 Erasmus follows Ambrosiaster, who virtually alone among the early church Fathers understands the phrase 'our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ' to refer to the Father and the Son separately and not just to Jesus. This position involved Erasmus in endless controversy, especially with Lee, Sancho Carranza, and a group of Spanish monks; cf the annotation on Titus 2:13 (magni dei et salvatoris) LB VI 971C; Respotisio ad annotationes Lei LB IX 273B-274B; Apologia ad Carranzam LB IX 411D-412C; and Apologia adversus monachos lb ix 1043c. Modem scholars are equally at odds over the meaning of the phrase; cf Fee Titus, Kelly Pastoral Epistles, and Spicq Epitres pastorales on 2:13, and Murray J. Harris, 'Titus 2:13 and the Deity of Christ' Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F.F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris (Exeter and Grand Rapids, Mich 1980) 262-77.​

Precisely. Most of the Unitarian and Socinian arguments stem from Erasmus' annotations on these various passages that proclaim the Deity of Christ, where he unnecessarily muddies the waters (though Catholic in name, he admittedly was an Arian at heart). Since the controversy was long, and Erasmus' comments were made in the formative years of Greek study in Europe, many of them became deeply entrenched from an early time. By now they have either finally become unraveled or are in the process of unravelling. Even his model of pronunciation is now recognized as being incorrect, even though most Greek students have learned it that way.

With reference to the above,

Though you pull out only the Latin portions, Wordsworth's comments (Latin beginning p. 90) are certainly worth the hearing (beginning on p. 65), and particularly where he notes that Wetstein relied much on Erasmus and Grotius who were "chiefly instrumental in propagating the modern interpretation." (p. 100)

 

[The Real John Milton]

No, you were wrong when you said that there were no such studies, and you were wrong when you said that this construction in the gospel of John was primarily indefinite--it's in fact not true at all. I said the same thing Wallace did, with a minor difference in phraseology and no difference in substance. Are you taking exception that Wallace said, "that they could not find" whereas I said "failed to find"? True that Wallace allows the possibility. The problem is that even the "potential" examples he provided he indicates are debatable. So there's a difference between empirical evidence and theoretical evidence.

You left out the rest of Wallace's statement after "in the NT," which I quoted:

In light of your argument that follows, that "In fact it [indefinite] is the best attested semantic force for a pre-verbal anarthrous PN in the Gospel of John, if not in the GNT" this seems to have been deliberate. You left out the point that specifically contradicts you.

I didn't say that, I said your statement which said that the studies could not find any indefinite anarthrous preverbal PNs in the NT was false. I'm getting a little tired of the misrepresentations (plus, it's never a winning strategy, as it wastes everyone's time & energy).

I just did:

I simply noted afterward, in fairness, that Wallace in both places allows that θεὸς may be definite.

You did not, since it may also be definite, even according to your own source.

Wallace notes this in his grammar, that translation is not a good indicator.

Sometimes translation may not be a good indicator but where does Wallace say that about these two translations:

The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet"
&
Jesus answered them, "I tell you the solemn truth, everyone who practices sin is a slave of sin."

It's like saying the NWT of θεὸς in John 1:1c is not a good indicator of how the organization is taking the anarthrous noun there. In fact English translation clearly spells out an indefinite semantic force as opposed to a definite force since it has an indefinite article, whereas Greek does not. Had the NET seen προφήτης at John 4:19 as being definite, the English translation at NET would have given us the following: "Sir, I see that you are the prophet."

Once again, you seem to be engaged in slight of hand and in misrepresenting your sources, which does not bode well for you.

Since English lacks a qualitative construction, these are translated according to the idiom of the English language.

Are you arguing that προφήτης at John 4:19 is qualitative ?

John, the nominative can stand for an address, whether it be θεός or κύριός.

In the GNT the nominative κύριός never stands for address, that is not so with θεός.

Many constructions in the NT are found only once, or a small number of times. That only means they are rare, not that they must be discarded. It doesn't matter how the phraseology is everywhere else, it only matters how it is used here and you're discarding acknowledged examples where κύριός stands in place of a vocative/address/appellation.

Correct, but the nominative κύριός not once indisputably stands for the vocative in the GNT.

Again, as I said above, all the grammarians that I have consulted who cite this passage see this usage as vocative: Wallace, Mounce, Robertson, Köstenberger, Merkle, and Plummer. The same is true of all Greek fathers but one (who is actually regarded as heterodox, and takes it as an exclamation).

You would expect Trinitarian "grammarians" and "church fathers" to tow the party line generally speaking. You need to defend your arguments not just cite sources which agree with you and discount those that don't as "heterodox."

I understand because you are a Unitarian that you absolutely have to muddy the waters for well over a hundred passages of scripture to keep your doctrine, but this passage is not really considered a controverted passage. Neither is John 1:1.

You seem to be doing that at verses like John 4:19. I'm going to keep bringing out clear examples of indefinite anarthrous preverbal PNs and get you to you to deny them. It's going to be fun. Let's start with John 4:19. προφήτης at John 4:19 is qualitative ? Yes or No ?

Yes, you were using a different text than me--my text uses an adjective: ὅτι τυφλὸς ἦν (MT TR) rather than προσαίτης ἦν (NA UBS). I should have looked over at the NA/UBS. Thank you for clarifying.

So is this an example of a definite, indefinite or qualitative τυφλὸς ?

Once again, after being shown examples, you simply appeal to the stone.

You have not shown a single example from any Gospel writer of where any sheep of Christ calls his Shepherd with the "nominative for vocative" κύριός, let alone "examples." Falsehood is not a good strategy.

 

[brianrw]

Falsehood is not a good strategy.

Talking to you is like a massive waste of time. Even when given examples, or when contradicted by the grammars and grammarians, you simply go on as though you were never offered refutation. So you operate on circularity, special pleading, appeal to the stone, and invincible ignorance. You've been already caught in a number of falsehoods and absolute assertions that turned out to be wrong, so to me you simply lack all credibility, as even your statements above demonstrate.

So is this an example of a definite, indefinite or qualitative τυφλὸς ?

τυφλὸς ("blind") is an adjective not a noun.

You have not shown a single example from any Gospel writer of where any sheep of Christ calls his Shepherd with the "nominative for vocative" κύριός

Funny how you now confine this to the Greek New Testament, after being shown examples from the Old.

I didn't say that, I said your statement which said that the studies could not find any indefinite anarthrous preverbal PNs in the NT was false. I'm getting a little tired of the misrepresentations (plus, it's never a winning strategy, as it wastes everyone's time & energy).

The quotation I provided from Wallace was no different than what I had said. You, on the other hand, misrepresented it in your response by omitting a portion that directly contradicted a part of your argument (by omitting the portion in red):

Wallace:
Two subsequent studies on Colwell’s construction concluded that they could not find any indefinite anarthrous preverbal PNs in the NT. It is entirely possible that there are some in the NT, but this is obviously the most poorly attested semantic force for such a construction. (Wallace, Daniel B., The Basics of New Testament Syntax, p. 117)

This is exactly the opposite of what you are arguing.

The woman said to him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet"
&
Jesus answered them, "I tell you the solemn truth, everyone who practices sin is a slave of sin."

It's like saying the NWT of θεὸς in John 1:1c is not a good indicator of how the organization is taking the anarthrous noun there. In fact English translation clearly spells out an indefinite semantic force as opposed to a definite force since it has an indefinite article, whereas Greek does not. Had the NET seen προφήτης at John 4:19 as being definite, the English translation at NET would have given us the following: "Sir, I see that you are the prophet."

Once again, you seem to be engaged in slight of hand and in misrepresenting your sources, which does not bode well for you.

I haven't misrepresented my sources, and this is a terrible analogy. Feel free to read both of Wallace's grammars yourself. As I said above, the idiom of the English language may use an indefinite article while the Greek usage is qualitative.

You would expect Trinitarian "grammarians" and "church fathers" to tow the party line generally speaking. You need to defend your arguments not just cite sources which agree with you and discount those that don't as "heterodox."

Your sect has certainly had trouble establishing historical precedent for their translations, and this is not surprising since it's not even four hundred years old.

Are you arguing that προφήτης at John 4:19 is qualitative ?

I said it was listed by Wallace as a doubtful example of indefinite. He writes that it is the most likely example of an indefinite usage in the Greek NT, but goes on to remark that this is doubtful.

 

[cjab]

No, it's not. We're going further off topic, and this is becoming a huge waste of time.

What you can't deny is that Jesus specifically identified ὁ Θεὸς as the title of his Father which reflects both the Pauline and Johannine usage. Any objections to sticking with it? Or do the ECFs trump Christ?

Also it's not "Arian" to adopt this view.

 

[brianrw]

What you can't deny is that Jesus specifically identified ὁ Θεὸς as the title of his Father . . . Any objections to sticking with it? Or do the ECFs trump Christ?

Why would the ECFs deny that the Father is God? As John notes, Jesus very plainly said "that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ - John 5:18).

Also it's not "Arian" to adopt this view.

The Arians also believed that Jesus was God, but they referred to him as "little" and claimed that he had a beginning of existence.

I never accused you of Arianism. I don't really know your position, in many cases I feel like I am looking at Argument by Gibberish, so it's hard to piece it together. It might help if you said it clearly and simply.

 

[Steven Avery]

This is what Greg Stafford has to say on Titus 2:13 in his 2nd Edition of Defending JWs.
…
We begin with the question of whether or not τού μεγάλου θεοϋ could have been such a fixed title of the Father that the first-century Christians regarded it as a virtual proper name.

Greg Stanford is interesting on this topic.

My major concern is that Stafford actually writes as if all the Sharp categories involving “proper names” and related categories has any substance, when it is actually special pleading vaporware.

Recently dealt with this and brianrw got tied up in knots, he could not unravel what term was in what category.

There is even a hilariously absurd paper.

I’ll plan on bringing over the info.

 

[Steven Avery]

Why would the ECFs deny that the Father is God? As John notes, Jesus very plainly said "that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ - John 5:18).

You are accepting the double error of the Jews.

You seem to believe Jesus was a law-breaker and broke the sabbath.
And thus he was not a lamb without blemish, and could not be our atoning sacrifice.
God forbid!

John 5:18 (AV)
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,
because he not only had broken the sabbath,
but said also that God was his Father,
making himself equal with God.

 

[brianrw]

You seem to believe Jesus was a law-breaker and broke the sabbath.
And thus he was not a lamb without blemish, and could not be our atoning sacrifice.
God forbid!

But I never said he was a "law-breaker," did I? So I would appreciate not having those words put in my mouth. Was Paul also following the "error of the Jesus" when he said that Jesus was "equal with God"?

Recently dealt with this and brianrw got tied up in knots, he could not unravel what term was in what category.

I love these anonymous accusations. In one instance of one verse I said I would err on the side of caution, and that was by not attributing Deity to Christ in a passage where the ECFs clearly have.

You're the one who couldn't understand the "Granville Sharp" rule, who championed Glassius until you realized he didn't support your position at all (then proceeded to malign him), gave examples that didn't fit the rule, followed bad arguments, etc. Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean I was the one who got all tied up in knots. You had a number of terms you didn't understand how they were classed, and I answered to them all. Then you just stayed confused and called me a "mind-reader." You also mistook textual variations as "exceptions to the rule."

brianrw:No, you were wrong when you said that there were no such studies...​

​

I didn't say that, I said your statement which said that the studies could not find any indefinite anarthrous preverbal PNs in the NT was false. I'm getting a little tired of the misrepresentations (plus, it's never a winning strategy, as it wastes everyone's time & energy).

Yes, you did say it:

There have been no studies which have made such an assertion.​

And they did. If they didn't find any, they simply didn't find any. Had I said, "they found that there were no" (not "they found no" or "they failed to find any") that would have been a misrepresentation. But what I said was thoroughly accurate, and any fair reader of this thread would see it. On the other hand, you deliberately omitted the one sentence that directly contradicted what you were trying to argue.

 

[cjab]

Why would the ECFs deny that the Father is God? As John notes, Jesus very plainly said "that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ - John 5:18).

The ECFs multiply God's for the sake of their obession with Christianizing Greek philosophy - a point that was freely conceded by some. Christ also said "ἐγὼ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον" John 8:42. So he clearly didn't see himself as ὁ θεὸς in his human state. And you're evading the crux of my point that Christ reserved the title ὁ θεὸς for the "Father" to the exclusion of himself and the Holy Spirit.

If you call Christ ὁ θεὸς, you are diminishing the Father's title as ὁ θεὸς.

Let's see if we can get a straight answer? How many God persons (ὁ θεὸς) are there?

The Arians also believed that Jesus was God, but they referred to him as "little" and claimed that he had a beginning of existence.

I never accused you of Arianism. I don't really know your position, in many cases I feel like I am looking at Argument by Gibberish, so it's hard to piece it together. It might help if you said it clearly and simply.

I feel the same way about those who can't understand that Titus 2:13 is linking two discrete noun clauses "glory of the great God" and "savior Jesus Christ." What is wrong with you, Sharpe and Middleton and many others, that what is blindingly obvious and reflected in other passages remains hidden here? Yes, there is only one person who will manifest himself, I'll concede, but that person is the savior Jesus Christ resplendent with the glory of the Father.

 

[brianrw]

I'm about at the limit with the three of you here and all the insults. The topic of the thread is Biblical Languages, not theology. All I'm seeing are bad language arguments and theological suppositions.

I feel the same way about those who can't understand that Titus 2:13 is linking two discrete noun clauses "glory of the great God" and "savior Jesus Christ." What is wrong with you, Sharpe and Middleton and many others that you can't see what is blindingly obvious and reflected in other passages?

Nothing is wrong with me and personal attacks aren't constructive. τῆς δόξης is an attributive genitive and would therefore be translated into English as an adjective, "glorious." This is not uncommon in the NT and I even provided examples above.

Middleton actually took a fairly thorough examination of evidence and concluded Sharp was right. I believe he originally sought to disprove Sharp.

 

[The Real John Milton]

τυφλὸς ("blind") is an adjective not a noun.

Yes, my point is that an adjective is far more likely to carry a qualitative semantic force in such a construction. So my question remains. Is it definite, indefinite or qualitative ?

Funny how you now confine this to the Greek New Testament, after being shown examples from the Old.

Are you actually saying that Psalm 34:23 is an example of a disciple of Jesus directly addressing Jesus with the nominative for vocative κύριος ?

I said it was listed by Wallace as a doubtful example of indefinite. He writes that it is the most likely example of an indefinite usage in the Greek NT, but goes on to remark that this is doubtful.

Could you quote Wallace directly on this score ? He really said προφήτης at John 4:19 is the most likely example of an indefinite usage in the Greek NT, but goes on to remark that this is doubtful? What then does Wallace believe προφήτης at John 4:19 to be ? Definite or qualitative ? How about yourself ?

 

[Steven Avery]

No, it's correct. Erasmus writes, "This can be read in such a way that both belong to Christ, God and Saviour," (Id ita legi potest, ut utrumque pertineat ad Christum, Dei et Servatoris) but then he tries to work around it by appealing to Ambrosiaster, mistaking the interpolator as Ambrose himself (which Beza calls him out on). The individual is Ambrosiaster, which is an interpolator of the writings of Ambrose--a Latin writer and the only one who might appear to depart from the usual Greek and Latin understanding of the passage. He thus negates the attributive usage of τῆς δόξης. Erasmus found himself embroiled in endless controversy for this annotation.

Here you get everything wrong.

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

Let's start with the actual facts about Ambrosiaster (a pseudonym given to him Erasmus, who recognized that he was an anonymous writer).

The Identity of the Ambrosiaster: A Fresh Suggestion (1914)
Alexander Souter
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZGFFVAJLqosC&pg=PA224
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/expositor/series8/07-224.pdf

But it happens that it contains so many interesting statements, and is of such special excellence, that a knowledge of the author would
be a real help in the assignment of its place among the historical documents belonging to its period.

The real importance of the three works is now gradually coming to be recognised, since Harnack wrote of the author: “ We ought to call him the great unknown ; for what Western expositor of the early period or the Middle Ages is his equal ? ” “ Both works [the Commentary and the Quaestionos] are admirable in their kind, and perhaps the most distinguished product of the Latin Church in the period between Cyprian and Jerome.” Julicher is no less hearty in his admiration : “ His exposition of the letters of Paul is not only important by reason of many interesting notes on the history of dogma, morals and government, but is also the best written prior to the sixteenth century.”

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

The Significance of Ambrosiaster (2009)
David G. Hunter
https://www.academia.edu/1435143/The_Significance_of_Ambrosiaster

Ambrosiaster’s significance as a biblical exegete, the author of the first complete commentary on the Pauline epistles, was already signaled by Souter, who cited Harnack’s opinion that Ambrosiaster’s writings were “the most distinguished product of the Latin Church in the period
between Cyprian and Jerome”: “We ought to call him the great unknown,” wrote Harnack, “for what Western expositor of the early period or the Middle Ages is his equal?”9

There is now universal agreement that these data are best explained if both the Quaestiones and the Pauline commentary were originally issued
anonymously; the ancient attributions to Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine were probably just educated guesses at our author’s identity.15

But ignorance of Ambrosiaster’s real name does not mean that we know nothing about him. In the commentary on 1 Timothy Ambrosiaster spoke of “the church whose rector at present is Damasus,” which places the Pauline commentary roughly between the years 366 and 384.17 As we will see shortly, the numerous contacts between Ambrosiaster and Jerome enable us to narrow Ambrosiaster’s floruit to the later years of Damasus’s pontificate, that is, to the early 380s. There is little doubt that the author composed his works at Rome: in Q. 115 he spoke of being “here in the city of Rome and its environs” and in the commentary on Romans he spoke similarly.18 .... We have, then, both a secure location and a fairly specific date for both the Quaestiones and the commentary.

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

In the Souter writing you can see many of the conjectures about his identity. Including Hilary, Augustine, Ambrose, Evagrius, Isaac the Jew, and more, although now we are more restricted in geography and date.

Your nonsense about the supposed interpolator is simply your picking up a flaky idea and running with it because the truth does not fit your narrative. Tacky.

Ambrosiaster is a solid and very significant writer, in some ways he is rated above Ambrose.

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

Similarly with your refusal to place Erasmus before Socinus on the non-identity interpretation of Titus 2:13. This is wacky, since Erasmus strongly preferred the non-identity understanding, and quoted Ambrosiaster. Socinus simply followed Erasmus, and even used the Ambrosiaster quote, yet you hilariously claim that Socinus was the first one. Bizarro logic.

Why not simply accept the correction?

Do you really want to continue to confuse and deceive people by pretending Socinus was the originator of the non-identity position in modern times?

As for Erasmus, sometimes he was superb, sometimes, like 1 Timothy 3:16 and the heavenly witnesses, he is weak, albeit informative (he noted the grammatical problem.) You really have to take each issue individually. On Titus 2:13 he was quite excellent!

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

 

[The Real John Milton]

Why would the ECFs deny that the Father is God? As John notes, Jesus very plainly said "that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεόν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ - John 5:18).


The Arians also believed that Jesus was God, but they referred to him as "little" and claimed that he had a beginning of existence.

I never accused you of Arianism. I don't really know your position, in many cases I feel like I am looking at Argument by Gibberish, so it's hard to piece it together. It might help if you said it clearly and simply.

Jesus did not "very plainly say" that, (i.e. that he was equal with God because God was his own Father ) but it was a false accusation against Jesus by Jesus's enemies. You really need to repent.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The following is an excellent study. I suggest a full read. I have inspected his conclusion and it is honest and correct:

We will see that not only is John 1:1 (if it is indefinite) not the “only anarthrous pre-copulative predicate nominative in John’s Gospel to be indefinite” but that all of the proper examples of anarthrous pre-copulative predicate nominatives are indefinite!

 

[The Real John Milton]

I found the following to be troubling concerning Wallace's scholarship :

The next example Wallace gives of the “qualitative” effect of a Colwell construction is 1 John 4:8. He writes:

“It should be translated, ‘God is love.’ Here is an excellent illustration of a qualitative anarthrous pre-copulative predicate nominative. This cannot be translated indefinitely, ‘God is a love’ for ‘love’ (agape) is an abstract noun.... to see agape here as qualitative means that God has the attribute of love or is characterized by love. This, then, becomes an excellent illustration of the fact that usually the anarthrous pre-copulative predicate nominative will be qualitative.” - p. 97, Wallace.

Far from being “an excellent illustration”, the selection of 1 John 4:8 as an example of the “qualitative” influence of a “Colwell construction” is so inappropriate as to make one have serious thoughts about either Wallace’s scholarship or his integrity.

First, it should be obvious that others besides God have the attribute or quality of love. This would not make that quality equal to God’s. Nor would it make any person who shares that quality of love EQUAL to God!

Second, to deliberately select an abstract noun (which is already qualitative by definition, no matter in what position it may be found in a sentence) and then suggest that its position in the sentence has made it qualitative is incredible! !

After all, the whole purpose of this “Qualitative Rule” is to show that, somehow, word position makes a concrete indefinite noun (such as “a god,” “a prophet,” “a devil,” etc.) into a “qualitative” noun! To select an already qualitative abstract noun and pretend that its word position has anything to do with its being qualitative is completely unacceptable!

As we noted at the beginning of this paper, a noun that is usually abstract cannot be used to prove or disprove this “rule.” It is even questionable to use nouns that commonly may have either abstract or concrete meanings (such as “spirit”) unless context shows the concrete meaning was definitely intended (whether literally or figuratively).

 

[cjab]

I'm about at the limit with the three of you here and all the insults. The topic of the thread is Biblical Languages, not theology. All I'm seeing are bad language arguments and theological suppositions.

It's a matter of language as to whether the NT modifies ὁ θεὸς to denote just one specific person as ὁ θεὸς or still allows for more than one as in Greek paganism. If the Son calls the Father ὁ θεὸς, it does suggest one specific person warrants that title, unless the Father dies or is officially "retired." Has ὁ θεὸς become a cognomen in the NT?

There is nothing in Jewish religion that could suggest it.

Nothing is wrong with me and personal attacks aren't constructive. τῆς δόξης is an attributive genitive and would therefore be translated into English as an adjective, "glorious." This is not uncommon in the NT and I even provided examples above.

τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ is just as much an attributive genitive but is not being converted into an adjective. Why are the two genitives being treated differently? So if you have two attributive genitives in direct succession, then it stands to reason you can't convert the first into an adjective so as to give a different sense to the second.

glorious appearance of the great God != appearance of the glory of the great God.

Middleton actually took a fairly thorough examination of evidence and concluded Sharp was right. I believe he originally sought to disprove Sharp.

 

[The Real John Milton]

It's a matter of language as to whether the NT modifies ὁ θεὸς to denote just one specific person as ὁ θεὸς or still allows for more than one as in Greek paganism. If the Son calls the Father ὁ θεὸς, it does suggest one specific person warrants that title, unless the Father dies or is officially "retired." Has ὁ θεὸς become a cognomen in the NT?

There is nothing in Jewish religion that could suggest it.


τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ is just as much an attributive genitive but is not being converted into an adjective. Why are the two genitives being treated differently? So if you have two attributive genitives in direct succession, then it stands to reason you can't convert the first into an adjective so as to give a different sense to the second.

glorious appearance of the great God != appearance of the glory of the great God.

Correct.