Continued from the above post
There is nothing to suggest it was correct. Irenaeus and Eusebius have the "Father above all".
Not an accurate quote. Both refer to "the God over all." Eusebius does not quote the passage, and Irenaeus quotes it when reasoning on the scriptures that Christ is both perfect man and perfect God.
The reason for ὁ ὢν forming a new sentence is that it is directly followed by a nominative noun agreeing with the article, and moreover there is no apostolic conception of ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα being Θεὸς in the whole of the NT. It isn't a known relation.
For example, cf. Theodoret (
Letter 146):
That our Lord Jesus Christ is God is asserted by the blessed evangelist John “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.” And again, “That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” And the Lord Himself distinctly teaches us, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” And “I and my Father are one” and “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” and the blessed Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews says “Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power” and in the epistle to the Philippians “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant.” And in the Epistle to the Romans, “Whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.” And in the epistle to Titus “Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
So there are at least three passages in there where it was read by the Greeks differently then I assume you will assert. And again, Gregory of Nyssa (
Against Eunomius, 11.2) writes very expressly how the passages were read in his day:
Nay, I do not even think it necessary to bring forward in detail the utterances of Paul, since they are, as one may say, in all men's mouths, who gives the Lord the appellation not only of "God," but of "great God" and "God over all," saying to the Romans, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever", and writing to his disciple Titus, "According to the appearing of Jesus Christ the great God and our Saviour," and to Timothy, proclaims in plain terms, "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit." (the reading of almost all manuscripts here)
This is not an equivocal statement, as though the readings were in dispute. Likewise Chrysostom (
Commentary on Philippians 2):
Is there a great and little God? With them [the Arians] there is a great and a little God . . . If He were little, how would he also be God? . . . But the Son, he [Arius] says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, "Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory [rather, glorious appearing] of our great God." But can he have said "appearing" of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing "of the great God." Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, "The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." See, the Son is great also. How then do you speak of small and great?" Listen to the Prophet too, calling Him . . . "The mighty God"
Again, when asserting passages where Christ is called "God," he writes
(On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, 5.2),
And Paul said: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever, Amen." And again: "No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." And still again: "through the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." And John calls him by the same name of God when he says: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God."
What I don't find? Their adversaries saying, "no, no, you aren't punctuating the passage correctly" or "You're not following the rules of the article correctly," or "this passage can be understood six different ways."