Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[brianrw]

“He who is over all, God blessed, has been born”

Looks to me that

Christ (who is) God blessed.

Is the sense.

Very few are going to read that English the same way you do. You need to mention specifically that you believe "Christ (who is) God blessed" means "Christ (who is) blessed by God." You're not being clear about it.

 

[Steven Avery]

Very few are going to read that English the same way you do. You need to mention specifically that you believe "Christ (who is) God blessed" means "Christ (who is) blessed by God."

How do you read this English “God blessed”?

He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever.

 

[John Milton]

A parenthesis in the looser sense isn't an exception, because in the Greek as in English you can hang off a single noun multiple participles with individuated participle clauses, as to which participle clauses: they may be, in so far their participle are concerned and along with their participle, effectively parenthetical, even if they don't conform to Winer's "whole sentence" parenthesis definition.

Is this English? Parenthetical expressions by most definitions have no grammatical connection to the sentence. All of phrases in Romans 1:1-7 and Romans 9:5 do have a connection to the grammar of the sentence therefore they aren't parenthetical. The only possible exception is
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν and in that case it must be acknowledged as an exceptional case where εὐλογητὸς doesn't come first. (The only other instance I know of being mistranslated Hebrew.)

Moreover you can construct a never-ending sentence using multiple or multiply nested participle clauses. It's poor syntax, but it's possible. Winer doesn't really give any thought to the artificial prolongation of sentences in this manner. He's citing a general rule.

That is to say, individiual participle clauses can be construed as parenthetical vis-a-vis their participle, in a less pedantic sense of "parenthesis", as in Rom 1:3 and 1:4 where successive participle clauses bear no relation to each other.

So, you know better than your own favored scholar now. What a joke!

Here you are seeking to construct the "never ending sentence" by seeking to decontextualize a participle and its clause where (a) we would have no issue in otherwise seeing it in the first attribute position in a new sentence,

There is an issue with it starting a new sentence. It is has a different arrangement than any other doxology.

(b) the participle and its clause bears no contextual relation to τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.

I never claimed it did. Why do you keep attributing your thoughts to me?

It is clear you have yet to provide any adequate answer to why you are continuing a τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause, as if τὸ κατὰ σάρκα itself had never been written. If you want to read a sentence in a way which reeks of incredibly bad grammar, then I suggest it is on your shoulders; and nothing can be resolved by so doing.

It is clear you aren't truthful since you've claimed I have said this.

 

[John Milton]

“He who is over all, God blessed, has been born”

Looks to me that

Christ (who is) God blessed.

Is the sense.

That is impossible. You need to take another look. I've explained this to you clearly and given you examples.

 

[John Milton]

How do you read this English “God blessed”?

He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever.

There is no doubt it is a poor translation. It should say blessed God and then it would be clear to those, like yourself, who misunderstand it. Though it is possible that the translator gave that rendering with the intent to obscure the meaning and then the fault doesn't fall to you.

 

[brianrw]

There is no doubt it is a poor translation.

How do you read that English?

The English translator uses a postpositive adjective in the English (like "God Almighty"), which is usually attributive unless it sets off its own clause, in which case it would function like a predicate. This construction was designed to allow the adjective to sit as close to the head noun as possible and yet still be followed up by a prepositional or adverbial phrase. Hippolytus actually quotes the passage, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς and then follows it with the verb γεγέννηται, "has been born."

 

[John Milton]

Steven understands θεὸς εὐλογητὸς as meaning "blessed by God," as in God blesses Christ, and views "God blessed" as a compound adjective to that effect.

Yes. That is very clear.

I don't know why he doesn't just come out and say it. I've had to deal with endless badgering from him for telling him the Greek construction doesn't allow it.

He won't find a single instance where the phrase will bear that meaning. His misunderstanding seems to be the result of the KJV translators closely following the order of the words in the original language.

 

[brianrw]

You've yet to show any example of a sentence or clause not being contextualized by τὸ κατὰ σάρκα where the sentence or clause continues on afterwards (without a parenthesis in the loose senser comprising a self-contained τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause).

The pool of examples in the NT is extremely limited in the case of (τὸ) κατὰ σάρκα. Your problem is that you have not substantiated any rule that states an adverbial usage of the accusative ends the sentence. You've actually been given examples of that in Acts 2:30 (TR, MT), which doesn't end the sentence, but you made a garbled attempt at dismissing it. So the only other place it is used in the GNT, it doesn't end the sentence and there is no rule stating it should.

You've lost the argument, you're only doing a disservice to those who don't know better.

 

[John Milton]

The English translator uses a postpositive adjective in the English (like "God Almighty"), which is usually attributive unless it sets off its own clause, in which case it would function like a predicate. This construction was designed to allow the adjective to sit as close to the head noun as possible and yet still be followed up by a prepositional or adverbial phrase. Hippolytus actually quotes the passage, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς and then follows it with the verb γεγέννηται, "has been born."

Right.

 

[cjab]

The pool of examples in the NT is extremely limited in the case of (τὸ) κατὰ σάρκα. Your problem is that you have not substantiated any rule that states an adverbial usage of the accusative ends the sentence. You've actually been given examples of that in Acts 2:30, which doesn't end the sentence, but you made a garbled attempt at dismissing it. So the only other place it is used in the GNT, it doesn't end the sentence and there is no rule stating it should.

The τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause in Acts 2:30 is so parenthetical it is even given its own parantheses. See:

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 2 Apostolic Bible Polyglot

biblehub.com

You've lost the argument, you're only doing a disservice to those who don't know better.

You have no argument, except to introduce appallingly bad grammar into otherwise unremarkable scriptural texts in order to promulgate erroneous teaching found nowhere in any other doctrinal writings, except those of much later devotees of God the Word and other such non-scriptural ideas.

 

[John Milton]

The τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause

That's not a clause.

in Acts 2:30 is so parenthetical it is even given its own parantheses. See:

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 2 Apostolic Bible Polyglot

biblehub.com

It's not parenthetical. It has a grammatical connection to the sentence and its removal will alter the sense of the sentence.

You have no argument, except to introduce appallingly bad grammar into otherwise unremarkable scriptural texts in order to promulgate erroneous teaching found nowhere in any other doctrinal writings, except those of much later devotees of God the Word and other such non-scriptural ideas.

Weird. The ones who disagree with the grammar (and indeed don't know it) are saying the ones who agree with the grammar have bad grammar. Do you see your problem?

 

[brianrw]

The τὸ κατὰ σάρκα clause in Acts 2:30 is so parenthetical it is even given its own parantheses. See:
ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 2 Apostolic Bible Polyglot

I don't need to view it through an interlinear. The attributive participle still retains its verbal nature, so that ὁ ὢν serves as a predicator for the prepositional phrase. You seem to be confusing "clause" and "phrase" with "sentence."

You have no argument, except to introduce appallingly bad grammar into otherwise unremarkable scriptural texts in order to promulgate erroneous teaching found nowhere in any other doctrinal writings, except those of much later devotees of God the Word and other such non-scriptural ideas.

Yes, I do. And I don't need this sort of lecture from someone who is self-teaching themselves Greek from an outdated Greek grammar from 1822 that they clearly aren't using correctly.

I can recommend far better and more clear grammars than Winer for a beginner.

 

[cjab]

That's not a clause.

I meant "the whole clause"

It's not parenthetical. It has a grammatical connection to the sentence and its removal will alter the sense of the sentence.

It is a pleonasm because "according to the flesh" is inferred by the Christ sitting on David's throne, and thus it is parenthetical. It is also a great example of "according to the flesh" qualifying the rest of the sentence.

Weird. The ones who disagree with the grammar (and indeed don't know it) are saying the ones who agree with the grammar have bad grammar. Do you see your problem?

No.

 

[brianrw]

It is a pleonasm because "according to the flesh" is inferred by the Christ sitting on David's throne, and thus it is parenthetical.

Fyi - "infer" means "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises"; "Imply" means "to express indirectly" (M-W.com) An author may imply something, or I might infer it. I'm not trying to be obnoxious by mentioning this, I just thought it might be helpful to you since you've been using this word incorrectly.

It is a pleonasm because "according to the flesh" is inferred by the Christ sitting on David's throne, and thus it is parenthetical.

You're using a fancy word but it really doesn't mean anything here. There is nothing "redundant" about the presence of "according to the flesh," since he is qualifying the fact that Christ is David's descendent insofar as the flesh is concerned. But in truth, he is the Son of God.

I meant "the whole clause"

A clause is defined as "a group of words containing a subject and predicate and functioning as a member of a complex . . . or compound . . . sentence" (M-W.com). It is not the sentence itself. Because the attributive participle in Greek has a verbal function, it can set off its own clause dependent upon the head nominal.

We don't have an equivalent construction in English, but as the attributive participle is an agnate of the relative clause in Greek, we use a relative clause as its nearest equivalent.

No.

And of course, that is part of the problem, and why they say "a little Greek is a dangerous thing."

 

[John Milton]

I meant "the whole clause"

It's not a clause. Google it.

It is a pleonasm because "according to the flesh" is inferred by the Christ sitting on David's throne, and thus it is parenthetical.

It introduces the idea that there is some other state or condition that the author is aware of and distinguishing. It would be hard for you to be further off the mark.

It is also a great example of "according to the flesh" qualifying the rest of the sentence.

If you think it is parenthetical it doesn't modify the sentence. You can't even be consistent on details like this.

No.

Of course you don't! That's why you repeat the same debunked assertions. Great job, forum jester! ?

 

[John Milton]

"a little Greek is a dangerous thing."

And that is why I stay away from their beaches.

 

[Steven Avery]

He won't find a single instance where the phrase will bear that meaning. His misunderstanding seems to be the result of the KJV translators closely following the order of the words in the original language.

Note that Brian fully agrees with the AV text.

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.

And it looks like you understand and acknowledge that the actual AV text does point to the interpretation I am giving. Or at least allows it and it looks like the natural interp.

God blessed (is Christ) for ever.

And it definitely does NOT point to the apposition "Christ is God" interpretation given by brianrw. (I do not know if that is your interpretation.) There really are only three major possible interpretations. Apposition, Christ is blessed, and the third I know you understandably reject. As it starts a doxology to God totally independent of a connection to Christ.

(Just as a sidenote, there may be an interpretation that tries to put the blessings to Israel, through the Christ, rather than directly.)

As does Hippolytus even more clearly.
Nobody has tried to actually give an alternate for the Hippolytus section:

How do you read this English “God blessed”?

He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is yet God for ever.

This Romans 9:5 construction is fairly unique in the Bible, with an unusual one-time word order θεὸς εὐλογητὸς. Murray Harris comments on this unusual reversed word order and also speaks of the "natural association" of the two words. spin was in the same ballpark when he wrote of both words being nominative and singular and masculine as helping to understand how they are connected. And spin wrote of εὐλογητὸς being nominalized, which, if he is correct, eliminates the interpretation that has it as an adjective describing θεὸς .

Since it is unique in word order there is no surprise that you do not have other spots saying the same thing.

You might be limited by searching in the NT and Greek OT. And I believe spin is well versed on Classical Greek as well as the Bible Greek, and when he talks of a feature of the language he would be drawing on the wider Greek corpus.

btw, John Milton, I do appreciate your efforts on this question. It is refreshing that you are at least considering alternatives and looking for examples. Please do not take my exploratory studies as negative to your efforts.

 

[John Milton]

Note that Brian fully agrees with the AV text.

So? It's a possible rendering of the text. But he doesn't agree with your understanding of it, and he is correct not to. Your understanding is wrong.

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.

And it looks like you understand and acknowledge that the actual AV text does point to the interpretation I am giving:

God blessed (is Christ)

As does Hippolytus even more clearly. (Nobody has tried to actually give an alternate for the Hippolytus section above.)

I am saying that the text means "blessed God" not "God blessed (is Christ)." I am saying that you are misunderstanding what the AV says because that's not the order modern English would express the thought. If the translators meant it in the way you are taking it, they would've supplied the missing verb as they do in every other instance.

This construction is fairly unique in the Bible, with an unusual one-time word order θεὸς εὐλογητὸς. Murray Harris comments on this unusual reversed word order. So there is no surprise that you do not have other spots saying the same thing.

In what context does he make the remark about it being unusual? It makes a difference. Most likely he is referring to the fact that εὐλογητὸς comes at the beginning of doxologies. If that is the case, his remarks don't have any bearing on yours. You might want to check that out.

You might be limited by searching in the NT and Greek OT.

I'm not. I searched all the ones I had access to.

And I believe spin is well versed on Classical Greek as well as the Bible Greek, and when he talks of a feature of the language he would be drawing on the wider Greek corpus.

This is why you shouldn't make assumptions. I read Classical Greek as well, but it doesn't really matter. The remarks I made about the Greek are true and his weren't. Even you haven't disputed this. More and more you are giving the impression that you only take seriously the claims that agree with your assumptions.

 

[Steven Avery]

I am saying that the text means "blessed God" not "God blessed (is Christ)." I am saying that you are misunderstanding what the AV says because that's not the order modern English would express the thought. If the translators meant it in the way you are taking it, they would've supplied the missing verb as they do in every other instance.

brianrw has taken the position that modern English or 1611 English give the same text, including commas. So I do not see a reason to fish around to try to change the AV text.

The question of a missing verb is pronounced in the apposition and doxology interpretations.
We even discussed this earlier! I complimented you for noting that the AV does NOT have a verb here and that works against the doxology interpretation.

In the God blessed (is Christ) interpretation the verb could only be given by a wooden duplication of the word Christ.
Thus there is no missing verb, simply a very smooth ellipsis.
(Unlike the apposition and doxology interpretations, which are awkward to the max.)

 

[Steven Avery]

This is why you shouldn't make assumptions. I read Classical Greek as well, but it doesn't really matter. The remarks I made about the Greek are true and his weren't. Even you haven't disputed this.

Actually it does matter. It is one thing to read Classical Greek and another to be an expert. From what I can see over many years, spin has a very strong and wide background. He posted on the earlier IIDB and FRDB forums, which are in archives, before the current one.

My considerations are exploratory.
Clearly you think your remarks are true, as does spin.

You have at least attempted to say exactly why you disagree, and how you think the text would be handled to get the meaning
God blessed (is Christ)

All that is appreciated.