See , your case is very weak & suspicious indeed. It’s always this one example , which can easily be appositional and therefore not an attributive use at all. The onus is on you to provide sufficient & strong evidence that ὁ ὢν is used in the second attributive position.
No, the burden is on
you to substantiate your ad hoc rationalizations, which you have yet to do, and which the grammars contradict. I gave you more than one example multiple times before, and you know that, so I don't understand "it's always this one example."
It's very simple:
an independent substantival usage of the attributive participle occurs when the head noun is implied, in which case the participle can function like a noun. That is what "independent" means. If its head noun is stated, it is attributive (proper) and would be considered "dependent." So let's look at a few examples of where you are wrong and the head noun is stated:
- ὁ ἀρχιοινοχόος καὶ ὁ ἀρχισιτοποιός οἳ ἦσαν τῷ βασιλεῗ Αἰγύπτου οἱ ὄντες ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ (Genesis 40:5).
- οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄντες (Genesis 24:54)
- ἡ οἰκία ἡ οὖσα ἐν πόλει… (Leviticus 25:30)
- ἡ χήρα ἡ οὖσα ἐν ταῗς πόλεσίν σου (Deuteronomy 16:14)
- ὁ λαὸς ὁ ὢν ὀπίσω Αμβρι (1 Kings 16:22)
- καὶ οἱ δοῦλοι οἱ ὄντες ἐχθὲς... (1 Samuel 14:21)
- ἡ νομὴ ἡ οὖσα τοῗς σκύμνοις (Nahum 2:11)
- οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν Αφαρσαχαῗοι οἱ ἐν πέρα τοῦ ποταμοῦ μακρὰν ὄντες (Ezra 6:6)
- οἱ οὖν Ἰουδαῖοι οἱ ὄντες μετ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ (John 11:31)
- ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς (John 1:18 in most manuscripts, TR, MT, PT)
μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς (John 1:18, Alexandrian variant, 3rd attributive position)
- ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (John 3:13, as found in nearly all manuscripts outside the Alexandrian family, including A*)
- ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (John 12:17)
- οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ οἱ ὄντες κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν (Acts 11:1)
- ὅ δέ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸ τῆς πόλεως αὐτῶν (Acts 14:13)
- τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου (Romans 7:23)
- τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ (1 Cor. 1:2)
- τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ (2 Cor. 1:1)
- τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ (2 Cor. 1:1)
- τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (Ephesians 1:1)
- τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς (Ephesians 4:18)
- πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις (Philippians 1:1)
- τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1 Thess. 2:14)
- ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οἶδεν ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι (2 Corinthians 11:31)
All of these are
dependent, not
independent; all are attributive proper, not substantival. This list is not exhaustive, and several of these occur in the introductions to Paul's epistles, so if you truly did read the GNT I find it hard to believe you could miss them. You would normally take these into English as a relative (a.k.a. adjective) clause, which in English corresponds most closely to the idiom of the Greek language for the attributive participle.
Indeed, doesn’t it strike you as odd that in the entire GNT you cannot find a single example of any participle form of εἰμί other than ὁ ὢν apparently functioning in the second attributive position ?
This is why I say you are arguing from a point of invincible ignorance.
Don't you know that an article before a participle in an attributive position means that the participle is attributive? And that it is only independent (substantival) when the head noun is implied? The verse I provided, ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ὢν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (John 12:17),
is a second attributive construction:
article-noun-article-modifier. A participle in the attributive position still retains its verbal aspect, and so like a finite verb it can be modified by a prepositional phrase or other parts of speech, take an object, etc. The participial phrase modifies the head noun. The participle forms of εἰμί are no exception.
But you seem to treat the article before the participle as a mere substantivizer, which misses the point altogether.
Glad you finally realize that. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα has the sense “insofar as his physical descent is concerned.” I have been trying to explain to Brian that there is no such thing in the GNT of a noun with an “ adverbial accusative” which functions as the head noun of a participle in the second
Attributive position. It is just not possible. τὸ κατὰ σάρκα demands a period. It is a compressed adverbial expression .
You failed to recognize the adverbial accusative every bit as much as cjab, so pretending now you've always been on board is not going to fool anyone. John Milton aptly addressed the rest of this above, so the response is already inexplicable.
An adverb between a noun and a participle doesn't break the attributive participle construction. The construction
article-noun-article-modifier represents the minimal elements required to form that particular construction--it doesn't mean every construction is made up of
only four words or that absolutely nothing can come between the head noun/noun phrase and its modifier.
It is impossible, if you have any natural sense of the Koine of the bible to take ὁ ὢν ;ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς) as being in the second attributive position of an imagined “head noun”, namely ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.
Why are you stating that an adverbial accusative is modifying the noun ὁ Χριστὸς? It is modifying ἐξ ὧν, as I keep saying. The head noun isn't "imagined," since it's plainly written there for anyone to see.