Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[Steven Avery]

As I noted elsewhere, only a few uncials are cited incorrectly as high dots: B, L, 0142 and 0151.

Robert Hommel in discussion with Greg Stafford put together a chart of these manuscripts. While he is an apposition supporter he is a good writer and generally fairer with the evidences.
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2021/06/26/jesus-as-god-in-romans-95/

The picture is a little nicer here.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160730225534/http://www.forananswer.org/Romans/Rom9_5.htm

And I am curious why a point after flesh would be important. It would seem to put "Christ ... who is over all" as a grammatical unit.
Hommel gives some other spots that are clearly significant to interpretation. If I am missing something, please share away.

So as I said before, the ancient manuscripts actually evidence a pause for a breath, not a break in the sentence. There's no real manuscript evidence to support a period.

Brian does not understand that pauses for breath are frequently grammatical pauses. I worked with him on that subject in our discussions on purebibleforum.

 

[Steven Avery]

Abbot (often quoted) has mischaracterized the middot as a "stop," when in fact Dionysius the Thracian tells us, "There are three dots: final, middle, underdot. And the final dot is a sign for a complete thought, while the middle is a sign taken up for a breath, and the underdot is a sign for a thought which is not yet complete, but is still wanting." The middot marked the end of a brief clause or κόμμα (komma), if that sounds familiar to you at all.

The end of a clause (any length) is one type of grammatical stop or pause.

Brian pretends it is only a breath like you might have by fatigue in a run-on sentence.

 

[Steven Avery]

Not at all, because ὁ Χριστὸς is the subject; θεὸς is a predicate.

Brian is the King of Circular Arguments.

If in fact there is a separate doxology to God, then θεὸς is the subject of that doxology.

This is not my primary position, but I always smile at how easily Brian uses circular argumentation, hoping it will not be noticed.

 

[Steven Avery]

And I am curious why a point after flesh would be important. It would seem to put "Christ ... who is over all" as a grammatical unit.

Drop this. Error on my part.

 

[brianrw]

Robert Hommel in discussion with Greg Stafford put together a chart of these manuscripts. While he is an apposition supporter he is a good writer and generally fairer with the evidences.

The charts have some mistakes that I pointed out. I can view these manuscripts through the INTF. Stafford is wrong on B; as Metzger notes, the punctuation is a middot (not a high dot) and has been added by a second hand (Metzger: "B (sec. man.)"). I've looked at it several times and it's simply squeezed between the two letters. High dots in B occur above the letter height, as we find after ἀμήν. 0142 and 0151 also have a middot, not a high dot.

So the two manuscripts regarded as "most ancient," ℵ and B, have no punctuation here at all. L, 0142 and 0151 from the 9th century and after are comparable in age to the early minuscules.

The end of a clause (any length) is one type of grammatical stop or pause.

Brian pretends it is only a breath like you might have by fatigue in a run-on sentence.

You're confusing me with Dionysius the Thracian who says it is a pause for taking up a breath. And Metzger, who said the same.

You make this comment because you're not looking at the manuscripts themselves; you think the situation is one way when it's not. When you look at many of the manuscripts, the only explicable explanation is that. For example, L is punctuated as follows (the text contains a large omission through homoioteleuton and differences of spelling (omitted letters in brackets):

L (9th century)

...κατὰ σάρκα · οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται · ὧν ἡ υ[ἱ]οθεσία · καὶ ἡ δόξα · [omission] καὶ ἡ λατρ[ε]ία · καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι · ὧν οἱ πατέρες · καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα · ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς , εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν.​

This is among the earliest extant manuscripts that employ a low dot (period) and a space to mark the end of a sentence, here after ἀμήν.​

​

Other manuscripts employ the middot more frequently:

G (012)

ὧν πατέρες · καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ · Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα · ὁ · ὢν · ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς · εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν​

(this manuscript contains two articular omissions)​

Metzger himself gives several examples on pp. 60, 61 of his article on the Punctuation of Romans 9:5, and, notes (as I have):

In the light of the preceding data perhaps the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after σάρκα in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the sentence. From such paleographical information, however, one cannot determine what kind of punctuation, if any, Paul in dictating the epistle, or Tertius in inscribing it, would have regarded as appropriate.​

So there is a reason why I say a middot is not to end the sentence.

Brian does not understand that pauses for breath are frequently grammatical pauses. I worked with him on that subject in our discussions on purebibleforum.

Stafford and Metzger both admit the same, but you've chosen to launch a series of ad hominem attacks against me to the extent that I'm just making that whole thing up. Once (or rather, if) you gain experience both in Greek (in which you have no background) and look at the manuscripts for yourself, you'll see that precisely what I am saying is true.

 

[Steven Avery]

You're confusing me with Dionysius the Thracian who says it is a pause for taking up a breath. And Metzger, who said the same.

You wrote on PBF

"Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop."

EDITED You have an artificial approach that does not acknowledge that these pauses can be important grammatically. As if the only grammatical point that would effect grammar is a full stop.

e.g. In English a semi-colon or a colon, longer pauses, often are fundamental to the grammar of a sentence.

You had similar confusions with the English comma in Romans 9:5, which I can pull out again if you like. You denied the clear grammatical import in a very humorous way. Personally, I was more interested in your false attempts about commas and hyphens and the AV text, since you make a claim that you accept the AV text as accurate.

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

For me, the question of points in the manuscripts is minor, but I do point out the error in your approach.

 

[brianrw]

"Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop."

Did you miss where I said, "pause for taking up a breath"?

You tried to spin it, but it was too late. You have an artificial approach that does not acknowledge that these pauses can be important grammatically. As if the only grammatical point that would effect grammar is a full stop.

I didn't spin anything, and I'm not sure the point of this. I'll refer you again to Dionysius the Thracian, who says that the middle dot is a sign for taking up a breath. It is the same source I quoted over in your forum. I quoted Metzger there, too. I have no idea what "artificial" approach means.

You had similar confusions with the English comma in Romans 9:5, which I can pull out again if you like. You denied the clear grammatical import in a very humorous way.

I said the "God" is an apposition set of by a comma after "over all." You were, and still are, contending that in order for there to be an apposition there has to be a comma after God. And that's because you believe otherwise "God blessed" is a compound adjective meaning "blessed by God." Which the Greek construction does not allow.

Personally, I was more interested in your false attempts about commas and hyphens and the AV text, since you make a claim that you accept the AV text as accurate.

I never proposed inserting commas and hyphens in the AV text. I never proposed any change at all. I said the passage calls Christ "God" and that "blessed" is a predicate adjective in the postposition.

I asked you to stop misrepresenting my position and making defamatory comments probably a hundred times in your forum. I'd appreciate it if you would knock it off.

 

[Steven Avery]

Let

I didn't spin anything, and I'm not sure the point of this. I'll refer you again to Dionysius the Thracian, who says that the middle dot is a sign for taking up a breath. It is the same source I quoted over in your forum. I quoted Metzger there, too. I have no idea what "artificial" approach means.

Simple question.
Can this middle dot have grammatical significance?
Analogous e.g. to the significance of a colon or semi-colon?

 

[Steven Avery]

“What Is a Comma? While a period ends a sentence, a comma indicates a smaller break. Some writers think of a comma as a soft pause—a punctuation mark that separates words, clauses, or ideas within a sentence.”

in other words, pauses and grammatical elements are frequently the exact same thing, indicated by a comma. And even more so by semi-colons and colons. This is Logic 101 in English.

The frequent attempt of Brian to try to separate a comma pause from grammar can be thrown in the trash heap and has acted as a diversion on two forums.

 

[brianrw]

Simple question.
Can this middle dot have grammatical significance?
Analogous e.g. to the significance of a colon or semi-colon?

Syntactic commas developed in places where pauses in speech were commonly taken up for breathing or dramatic affect; periods developed where thoughts were completed, etc. You are applying a modern standard to something which in the past was neither standard nor consistent, as though it always was.

Yes, a middot may occur where we would place a comma or colon. But this requires clarification. The word κόμμα actually means "short clause." In other words, it would be treated like a comma (the comma for awhile was used alongside but later replaces it) between short clauses and a colon before a list or give emphasis to something about to follow. But this is not reliably so. Depending on the manuscript it occurs in places it shouldn't with that usage, and places with that usage where it should it doesn't. The age of the manuscript also has a bearing on how the punctuation was used at that point in time. Thus Metzger's assessment.

Take for instance G:

G (012)
ὧν πατέρες · καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ · Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα · ὁ · ὢν · ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς · εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν
(this manuscript contains two articular omissions)

I know you don't understand the Greek itself, but does that really appear to you as the type of grammatical punctuation you are referring to?

Then we have an entirely different situation in the other example I provided.

L (9th century)
...κατὰ σάρκα · οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται · ὧν ἡ υ[ἱ]οθεσία · καὶ ἡ δόξα · [omission] καὶ ἡ λατρ[ε]ία · καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι · ὧν οἱ πατέρες · καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα · ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς , εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν.
This is among the earliest extant manuscripts that employ a low dot (period) and a space to mark the end of a sentence, here after ἀμήν.

Here the punctuation has become more standard in breaking up clauses, and is certainly more than the very limited punctuation we find in the more ancient uncials. The placement of the middot shows the scribe employed it to break the text up into smaller clauses where we might find a comma. So we can reliably state that the scribe of L used it equivalent to our commas. It certainly isn't all periods, colons, or semicolons. The only meaningful punctuation in the sentence, grammatically speaking, is the comma that comes between θεὸς and εὐλογητὸς and the low dot (full stop) that occurs after ἀμήν.

“What Is a Comma? While a period ends a sentence, a comma indicates a smaller break. Some writers think of a comma as a soft pause—a punctuation mark that separates words, clauses, or ideas within a sentence.”

in other words, pauses and grammatical elements are frequently the exact same thing, indicated by a comma. And even more so by semi-colons and colons. This is Logic 101 in English.

The frequent attempt of Brian to try to separate a comma pause from grammar can be thrown in the trash heap and has acted as a diversion on two forums.

And that's the modern English definition, with a preconceived bias toward standardized syntactic punctuation. In Greek, a comma is a clause--like "Johannine Comma." We're dealing with punctuation in Greek manuscripts, not English, and you have no idea what you are talking about. My comments are sourced. You don't have a Greek background, much less experience with the usage of punctuation in ancient manuscripts. I actually do. Anyway, some light reading for you:

Aristophanes’ breakthrough was to suggest that readers could annotate their documents, relieving the unbroken stream of text with dots of ink aligned with the middle (·), bottom (.) or top (·) of each line. His ‘subordinate’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘full’ points corresponded to the pauses of increasing length that a practised reader would habitually insert between formal units of speech called the comma, colon and periodos. This was not quite punctuation as we know it – Aristophanes saw his marks as representing simple pauses rather than grammatical boundaries – but the seed had been planted.​

...​

Cicero, for example, one of Rome’s most famous public speakers, told his rapt audiences that the end of a sentence “ought to be determined not by the speaker’s pausing for breath, or by a stroke interposed by a copyist, but by the constraint of the rhythm”.​

(https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20150902-the-mysterious-origins-of-punctuation)​

​

So the development of punctuation took centuries and the standardization took another significant period of time.

 

[Steven Avery]

Syntactic commas developed in places where pauses in speech were commonly taken up for breathing or dramatic affect; periods developed where thoughts were completed, etc. You are applying a modern standard to something which in the past was neither standard nor consistent, as though it always was.

You have claimed that the AV is 100% accurate to the Greek text. Then you tried to claim that the commas were not really correct, because they were originally done as elocutionary, not syntactical.

So I have one simple request for you.

Translate the Greek text to English using your preferred modern syntactical commas.

Thanks!

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

This will tell us nicely whether all your English comma claims are substantive, or phony baloney diversion .

 

[The Real John Milton]

ok

 

[cjab]

(continued from the above post)

But I didn't exactly say that, did I? Nor did I "infer it." I said in Hebrew, there is a relativizar, אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה. The relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר literally means "who". This was taken into Greek as the attributive participle.

The attributive participle in Greek has an equivalent function to a relative clause. Any of the grammars will tell you that in most cases the best English equivalent is a relative clause. The attributive participle is adjectival, as is the relative clause.


This statement is not accurate, as I have said before. Abbot (often quoted) has mischaracterized the middot as a "stop," when in fact Dionysius the Thracian tells us, "There are three dots: final, middle, underdot. And the final dot is a sign for a complete thought, while the middle is a sign taken up for a breath, and the underdot is a sign for a thought which is not yet complete, but is still wanting." The middot marked the end of a brief clause or κόμμα (komma), if that sounds familiar to you at all. Thus as Metzger notes, "the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after σάρκα in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the sentence." (p. 99). Of course, Dionysius the Thracian was not a Christian at all.

Both p27 and p46 are defective. No interpunct is present in Aleph, B*, F, K, 0285 (6th century), 0319. Uncials A, B(c), C, L, Ψ, 040 (high dot after "amen"), 049, 056 (high dot after "amen") have a middot; Codex G has a middot after both "over all" and "God," a reading also found in later minuscules. 623 and 2110, though classed as minuscules, have an uncial text and both contain a middot (noted also below).

D (06) arranges the text as follows:

καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα​

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς​

εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας​

ἀμήν​

As I noted elsewhere, only a few uncials are cited incorrectly as high dots: B, L, 0142 and 0151. However, these are not correctly cited. In B, high dots actually occur above the letter height, whereas here there is a middot added by a later hand; the original text had no punctuation here. 0151 is a commentary manuscript that typically uses a middot and a space to break off a verse from the commentary, which begins on a new line. The end of the sentence is actually signified by a double point. In 0142, since there is a high dot after "amen," it is easy to discern the punctuation is a middot since it occurs in the middle position of the letter (the same as is found in preceding clauses).

Only L looks like a high point, but it also stands in other places where the sentence is incomplete and there is a comma after θεὸς. Since Greek punctuation began undergoing evolution after the 7th century AD (L is from the 9th century), the way punctuation is used was already beginning to change. The majority of minuscules have a middot, comma, or no punctuation at all.

So as I said before, the ancient manuscripts actually evidence a pause for a breath, not a break in the sentence. There's no real manuscript evidence to support a period.

 

[cjab]

(continued from the above post)

But I didn't exactly say that, did I? Nor did I "infer it." I said in Hebrew, there is a relativizar, אֲשֶׁר אֶֽהְיֶה. The relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר literally means "who". This was taken into Greek as the attributive participle.

The LXX is not a transcription but a paraphrase. Everyone accepts ho on means the (one) being / the one who is in Ex. 3:14. So it isn't being translated as a relative.

The attributive participle in Greek has an equivalent function to a relative clause. Any of the grammars will tell you that in most cases the best English equivalent is a relative clause. The attributive participle is adjectival, as is the relative clause.

This is nonsense where ho on starts a sentence or forms a predicate

This statement is not accurate, as I have said before. Abbot (often quoted) has mischaracterized the middot as a "stop," when in fact Dionysius the Thracian tells us, "There are three dots: final, middle, underdot. And the final dot is a sign for a complete thought, while the middle is a sign taken up for a breath, and the underdot is a sign for a thought which is not yet complete, but is still wanting." The middot marked the end of a brief clause or κόμμα (komma), if that sounds familiar to you at all. Thus as Metzger notes, "the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after σάρκα in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the sentence." (p. 99). Of course, Dionysius the Thracian was not a Christian at all.

Both p27 and p46 are defective. No interpunct is present in Aleph, B*, F, K, 0285 (6th century), 0319. Uncials A, B(c), C, L, Ψ, 040 (high dot after "amen"), 049, 056 (high dot after "amen") have a middot; Codex G has a middot after both "over all" and "God," a reading also found in later minuscules. 623 and 2110, though classed as minuscules, have an uncial text and both contain a middot (noted also below).

D (06) arranges the text as follows:

καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα​

ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς​

εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας​

ἀμήν​

As I noted elsewhere, only a few uncials are cited incorrectly as high dots: B, L, 0142 and 0151. However, these are not correctly cited. In B, high dots actually occur above the letter height, whereas here there is a middot added by a later hand; the original text had no punctuation here. 0151 is a commentary manuscript that typically uses a middot and a space to break off a verse from the commentary, which begins on a new line. The end of the sentence is actually signified by a double point. In 0142, since there is a high dot after "amen," it is easy to discern the punctuation is a middot since it occurs in the middle position of the letter (the same as is found in preceding clauses).

Only L looks like a high point, but it also stands in other places where the sentence is incomplete and there is a comma after θεὸς. Since Greek punctuation began undergoing evolution after the 7th century AD (L is from the 9th century), the way punctuation is used was already beginning to change. The majority of minuscules have a middot, comma, or no punctuation at all.

So as I said before, the ancient manuscripts actually evidence a pause for a breath, not a break in the sentence. There's no real manuscript evidence to support a period.

I'll let the others respond on this.

(Ignore previous message - something went wrong with my smartphone).

 

[brianrw]

You have claimed that the AV is 100% accurate to the Greek text.

That's not really a claim I made, though, is it?

Then you tried to claim that the commas were not really correct, because they were originally done as elocutionary, not syntactical.

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

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

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

So I have one simple request for you.

Translate the Greek text to English using your preferred modern syntactical commas.

I put a comma after "flesh." You've clearly missed my point (that a middot in some of the ancient uncials and most of the minuscules does not operate like a period, but signifies a pause for taking up a breath) and converted it into something completely different. In Romans 9:5 it is, however, in a place where we would expect a comma in English grammar.

The LXX is not a transcription but a paraphrase. Everyone accepts ho on means the (one) being / the one who is in Ex. 3:14. So it isn't being translated as a relative.

Well, cjab, if we unpack that claim you'll run into problems, because for example the bulk of English translations do in fact use "who is" for ὁ ὢν in Revelation 1:8 where it is functioning as an indeclinable noun, and that translation is consistent throughout the book. I am only addressing your point that "who is" for ὁ ὢν is "nonsense."

This is nonsense where ho on starts a sentence or forms a predicate

Not at all. "Who" always sparks a relative clause, and a relative clause is adjectival. The relative clause and attributive participle in Greek are agnates, as Funk notes above. Adding "he" or "the one" just inserts a subject where the English requires it, but it is still a relative clause. The relative (a.k.a. adjective) clause in English takes up the adjectival function of the attributive participle according to the idiom of the English language.

When The Real John Milton quoted what he called a "grammar" (but turned out to be a blog), there was a video attached to it. I skimmed it out of curiosity. It may benefit you to observe how the lecturer explains why the article (in such cases as you note) is treated like a relative:

(at one point in that example he accidentally says "adverbial participle" when it ought to be "adjectival participle"). It will also help you see why Mounce, Mathewson and Emig refer to the article as a pronoun (Mounce, relative pronoun).

It’s interesting that the poster calling himself “John Milton” disappears completely and “brianrw” appears in his place a couple of weeks later. Is it possible that the latter is the same person as the former with another new name ? What name did “ John Milton” go by in the old Carm ? Anyone knows ?

The answer is "No," I'm not John Milton.

 

[Steven Avery]

I put a comma after "flesh."

That would be your only punctuation to the English text?

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

That simply makes no sense.
Absurd. - Even if you change the word order of the second line.

Try again.

Translate the Greek text to English using your preferred modern syntactical commas.

Thanks!

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

This will tell us nicely whether all your English comma claims are substantive, or phony baloney diversion .

Try to answer the actual question, no more cutesy diversion attempts.

And what errors do you see in the AV text other than your claim of mistaken elocutionary punctuation rather than modern syntactical punctuation.

 

[brianrw]

That would be your only punctuation to the English text?

No, I thought you were asking in relation to the manuscripts. My point is that the middot stands where there should be a comma, not a period in the English.

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

That simply makes no sense.
Absurd. - Even if you change the word order of the second line.

Try again.

I've said the AV reading is fine enough times that I feel I don't need a periodic checkup on it by Steven Avery on it. I'm not sure what the "try again" is all about, except for being obnoxious.

You seem to imagine I have a problem with the AV punctuation or translation. I actually have a problem with you personal interpretation of saying it means Jesus is blessed by God forever, which the Greek does not support. I find that to be a corruption of the text through exposition.

Try to answer the actual question, no more cutesy diversion attempts.

I told you before the AV reading is fine. You already knew my position so why are you claiming I'm diverting from it?

And what errors do you see in the AV text other than your claim of mistaken elocutionary punctuation rather than modern syntactical punctuation.

You're attempting to prove by assertion, whereas I actually substantiated my point. At no point did I spend any time mentioning "errors" in the KJV when conversing with you. But since you can't seem to draw a distinction between your personal interpretation of the KJV and the KJV itself, when I disagree with your interpretation, you accuse me of attacking the KJV.

My point (again, you've missed it) is that the middot is not a period, and it should not be inferred from a middot that the English should have a period after "flesh." Do you really have such a problem with this?

These manuscripts were written to be read in churches, which is why they've dotted places where there should be a breath with a middot. Have you ever served as a reader? Because I have, and in long passages the breathing is important.

Nahhhhh

I know Brian from way back and he is a dyed in the wool Appositionist. Dunno much about John Milton but the styles are very different.

While I appreciate you vouching for me, I don't know (or at least don't remember) you from "way back." I didn't know you at all or anything about you a year or two ago. Most of our conversation has involved you consistently attacking me and my character for disagreeing with you over your positions on Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13, and your blasphemy towards the name of God that I don't even want to repeat here. So we're not exactly close.

 

[Steven Avery]

So everything you wrote criticizing the supposed non-modern AV elocutionary punctuation was simply diversion nonsense.

Your syntactical translation is actually identical to the punctuation you criticized.
You were playing a shell game.

edited--rule 12

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

Note: Brian claims to agree with the AV, however it does not support apposition. Thus Brian went to the elocutionary comma charade, now abandoned.

edited from PBF, my home forum, so I can’t give the url.

“You are reading in "syntactic" issues in based upon how you understand pauses in speech and punctuation in modern times. Punctuation as we utilize it was actually codified around 1906, but at the time of the AV translation commas were not syntactic:”

edited

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

 

[cjab]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/punctuation/Punctuation-in-English-since-1600​

Well, cjab, if we unpack that claim you'll run into problems, because for example the bulk of English translations do in fact use "who is" for ὁ ὢν in Revelation 1:8 where it is functioning as an indeclinable noun, and that translation is consistent throughout the book. I am only addressing your point that "who is" for ὁ ὢν is "nonsense."

Any participle can be transposed into a relative and finite verb. Obviously I was referring to there being no relation to an antedent subject in the contexts of ho on to which I deferred.

So you're admitting that the subject may come from the article itself without reference to an antecedent subject?

Not at all. "Who" always sparks a relative clause, and a relative clause is adjectival. The relative clause and attributive participle in Greek are agnates, as Funk notes above. Adding "he" or "the one" just inserts a subject where the English requires it, but it is still a relative clause. The relative (a.k.a. adjective) clause in English takes up the adjectival function of the attributive participle according to the idiom of the English language.

When The Real John Milton quoted what he called a "grammar" (but turned out to be a blog), there was a video attached to it. I skimmed it out of curiosity. It may benefit you to observe how the lecturer explains why the article (in such cases as you note) is treated like a relative:

(at one point in that example he accidentally says "adverbial participle" when it ought to be "adjectival participle"). It will also help you see why Mounce, Mathewson and Emig refer to the article as a pronoun (Mounce, relative pronoun).

I have no problems with this, but I fail to see how any of this changes anything I have already said on the relation between the participle article and the noun or subject being governed by the ordinary rules of grammar, such as priority being given to an article-participle-clause-noun construct.

The answer is "No," I'm not John Milton.

I never believed you were.

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes, a middot may occur where we would place a comma or colon. But this requires clarification. The word κόμμα actually means "short clause." In other words, it would be treated like a comma (the comma for awhile was used alongside but later replaces it) between short clauses and a colon before a list or give emphasis to something about to follow.

How would you show a semi-colon?

You do realize that such a punctuation in English can divide thoughts in a manner similar to how a period or stop divides thoughts.

You seem to work with the fallacy of the false dichotomy. If it not a full stop, it does not matter.