Here is Hippolytus using the ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς of Rom 9:5 substantively in Εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοητοῦ τινος (Eng trans. Schaff).
This only tells me that the antecedent of ὁ ὢν was obvious to him in context, so that the subject of the quotation--namely, Christ--could be safely omitted.
Hippolytus could have written ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται. He didn't. He just wrote ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς γεγέννηται. Says it all, and proves you wrong in insisting on a relative in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς.
Even your substantival usage of the attributive participle (all articular participles are attributive) requires a relative in English, does it not? I am by no means "wrong in insisting on a relative in ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς." The attributive participle and the relative clause are agnates in Greek. Since English does not have an exact equivalent, the next best option is the relative clause. I have about seven grammars in my possession, and a few more I have access to online, and they all say the same thing: an attributive participle should usually be translated
as a relative clause.
[To JM] ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς = ὁ .... Θεὸς can only denote the Father, per John 1:1b. So Hippolytus used this clause to refer to the Father, a long time prior to the arrival of the hardcore Trinitarans and pseudo-Sabellians post Nicea. You've got nothing to say except to still critique me? It's you who's give up.
Hippolytus
doesn't use the passage ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς to refer to the Father: you are once again misrepresenting your sources. Hippolytus says ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς of Christ, based upon Romans 9:5.
To be clear, when dealing with an attributive (dependent) construction, not an indepedent, there is no reason to prefer an anaphoric usage of the definite article in English over a relative (which is also anaphoric).
This indicates a possible reason why Hippolytus chose to read ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς substantively,
Again, this is a normal quotation, just like we quote portions of verses elliptically in the same manner. Only here, we need to add a personal pronoun before the relative clause according to the English idiom when we translate it. So it is an English issue.
and hence appositively, and not as an attributive,
That's the same blunder TRJM makes, by treating the attributive participle, specifically, as an
independent substantival apposition, which negates the attributive characteristic of the construction. All articular participles are attributive, a substantival usage simply means the head noun is implied. An adjective or adjectival participle in an
attributive position would have an adjectival force and would not normally be treated appositionally. You can note this, for example, in Wallace's
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 48 where he alleviates the potential confusion via footnote. But in reality, saying we should prefix a relative with an anaphoric use of the definite article plus an additional word "one" before a relative is not an efficient usage of the English language and you are playing with semantics.
See Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS - he's a Greek scholar (he's also Grecian). Whatever he says, I tend to believe. Take the issue up with him.
No, "God" isn't his "name". His name is "the Logos" or "the Logos of God" ....
"..... because Θεός as predicate
denotes property or essence (or authority etc), not an individual. Thus, no question arises
as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many . . . per Chrys C. CARAGOUNIS (Jn 1:1).
Being a Greek scholar can be a benefit. However, Greek or no really doesn't matter, since Koine Greek is a specialized field. Unless you want to apply those same rules to say, a statement, "the Father is God," where "God" is a predicate, you're really just reading way too far into things.
As I've already told you, I don't see any reason to break up the ὁ <participle><participle clause> Θεὸς syntax, which is standard grammar found in other places.
The article belongs to the participle, and Θεὸς is a predicate. The trouble is that you are breaking off ὁ ὢν from ὁ Χριστὸς. There's no
grammatical reason to do that--it would not even be a natural way of reading the text. In order to sever that connection, you would add a period after σάρκα. However, the manuscripts don't support that and nothing in the grammar (contrary to what you and TRJM have been saying) suggests a period belongs there. In fact, the grammar strongly suggests
not ending the sentence after σάρκα. If you add a period, it's under the presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." There's no secret about this.