circular grammatical claims of zero merit - apposition, second predicate

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
This has been a theme of the “Christ is God” approach to Romans 9:5.

Here are two examples.

1) Christ and God are in apposition.

This is true in some punctuations and interpretations.
Not true in others.
Essentially it is a preferred conclusion wrongfully cast as a grammatical fact and cause.

2) God is the second predicate of “who is”.

This was true of the incorrect interpretation of Murray Harris after he passed over his #5, essentially the AV text.
Thus, it was his preferred conclusion.
This was wrongfully cast as the grammatical cause.

Circularity, the jewel.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
False claims were made to buttress the circular arguments.

”God blessed.. “ could only be adjectival to Christ with a hyphen.

The comma before God proved God was in apposition to Christ.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian is surprised that the English adverb modifies the English adjectival God blessed.

Romans 9:5 - Benjamin Hall Kennedy on early ECW

However, you should review the grammar rules more carefully, before stating I need to brush up. That was a reference to your English problems, around hyphens, especially, but it also applies to commas.
www.purebibleforum.com

Later he basically agrees but puts in a red herring about intensifier.

Romans 9:5 - Benjamin Hall Kennedy on early ECW

However, you should review the grammar rules more carefully, before stating I need to brush up. That was a reference to your English problems, around hyphens, especially, but it also applies to commas.
www.purebibleforum.com
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here are some new ones.

Brian Winter said:
In the English construction "who is God over all," "God" would be a predicate nominative because it follows a linking verb. In the construction "Who is over all, God" "God" is used as an apposition because it follows a comma. These both perform the same function of renaming or redefining the subject noun. In either case, they redefine or rename the preceding subject and both mean the same thing. Again, I'm simply referring to English. In the Greek ὁ (ὢν) ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς would be considered a second predicate (or predicate nominative) to Christ, since a linking verb is involved. Does that help clear up what I am saying?
Click to expand...

The first sentence is circular, you have to prove the connection to the linking verb, not just make an assertion.

The second sentence was wrongfully extrapolating from Murray Harris, there is no de facto apposition, just because of a comma. e.g. The comma can just indicate the beginning of a separate phrase. (God blessed for ever.)

The rest is circular.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Look for the spot, and response, where I asked Brian about God doing double-duty (and it would need a comma after God for that purpose, which he does not give in his text.)

Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides!

Facebook - Pure Bible - Romans 9:5 https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/posts/4529689933789527/ Some improvements to the Facebook page will be made here. ===================================================== Romans 9:5 (AV) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh...
www.purebibleforum.com

Steven Avery said:
If you want this reading to work as “Christ...who is...God” then you must have punctuation after God, likely a comma. Without that you have a grammatical mess, with God having two roles.

Noun Apposition to Christ
Adjectival with blessed — Christ who is “God blessed” - the "natural association"

You are playing two ends against the middle.

You rail falsely against the AV comma placement, and you rail falsely about a supposed need for a hyphen, but at least be honest enough to show your comma after God.

With that comma you radically change the syntax, and allow God to have a type of dual use.
Click to expand...

No answer yet.

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

Brian cannot accept that his interpretation needs the comma, to allow the double-duty, because that would acknowledge changing the AV.

Brian Winter said:
My "interpretation" is a straight reading of the AV, I don't propose a comma after "God."
Click to expand...

This is similar, slightly modified.

Steven Avery said:
The AV follows the Greek word order.

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.

Those who want to correct the AV look at it this way.

Christ came,
(Christ) who is over all
(Christ is) God
(Christ is) God blessed for ever

This is awkward in many ways.
Notice how the one word God is used double-duty.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
You are operating in an echo chamber, I don't know what audience you are addressing. It is essentially you and me having this conversation.

Steven Avery said:
Christ came,
(Christ) who is over all
(Christ is) God
(Christ is) God blessed for ever

This is awkward in many ways.
Notice how the one word God is used double-duty.
Click to expand...
You've deliberately distorted what I wrote. I do not have "God" doing double duty, nor did I make any such new translation. I only stated what the passage is saying based upon the predicates in the verse.

"Christ . . . who is over all"​
"Christ . . . who is . . . God"​
"Christ . . . who is . . . blessed forever."​
​
This is precisely the same way it was expounded by the Greek writer Zechariah in the 6th century. Again, you're not in good company here, as you can note from everyone who read this passage in the 1600s and 1700s (before commas were syntactic and before they were standardized in their present usage in 1906).

Brian Winter said:

Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13 as testifying of the Deity of Christ​

Writers who remark on the usage of the Greek article of Titus 2:13 are marked with a triple asterisk (***) before their name.
  1. *** Salomo Glassius, (1593-1656), Philologiae Sacrae, Qva Totius Sacrosanctae Veteris & Novi Testamenti, Scripturae, Tum Stylus Et Literatura, Tum Sensus Et Genuinae Interpretationis Ratio Expenditur; Libri Quinque, etc., (1686 Edition) p. 502. Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Ephesians 5:5, Jude 4. Latin, commenting on the usages of the Greek article (De Articulo Graecorum). English translation below:

    Note

    Whenever an article is added emphatically to the first word, it includes all other additional epithets, and shows that there is a conversation about the same subject. (Quandoque articulus emphatice prime voci additus, reliqua omnia epitheta adjecta includit, & de eodem subjecto sermonem esse ostendit.)

    Jude v. 4 καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι. This article, common to all these epithets, shows that Christ is here called "the only master, God and Lord." Erasmus, by converting the first accusative into the nominative, weakens the sentence in a most savage way, for he translates: "And God, who is the only master, and our Lord Jesus," etc. (Ac Deum, qui folus est herus, ac Dominum nostrum Jesum, etc.). So also Tit. 2, 13 (which may be seen in this place of Erasmus' annotations), 2 Pet. 1:1, Eph. 5:5 in which, because of the many epithets common to this article, they are not obscure proofs of the true divinity of Christ." (in quibus, ob communem hunc plurium epithetorum articulum, non obscura divinitatis verae Christi documenta sunt.)

    The same applies to God the Father, 2 Cor. 1[:3]. Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως.

    It must be added, however, that this observation (that if two things are conjoined--the first with an article placed before it, and the latter without an article--they speak of that [same] subject) is not universal. It is the opposite among Matt. 21:12, Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45, where we find οἱ πωλοῦντες καὶ ἀγοράζοντες [viz. plural references to epithets, the nominative standing for any case in which they may be found] are conjoined. The former contains the article, but not the latter. And yet some are understood as sellers, others as buyers. From this it is clear that they are not the most effective/substantial, where emphasis on the article is taken for proving articles of faith, nor are they of such importance to be strengthened by this unique class of proofs.

    - Glassius, Sacred Philology (end quote)

    Glassius indicates two things above: it must be applied to epithets yet it does not work with plural epithets as in Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45. Sharp explains it virtually the same way. Glassius does not express "unsteadiness and uncertainty" in regards to the interpretation of Jude 4, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 and Ephesians 5:5, which he says "are not obscure proofs of the true divinity of Christ" (The Latin obscura, "obscure," literally means "shadowy or indistinct"). He cautions, however, that proving or strengthening articles of faith by appealing to the presence or absence of an article does not make the most effective argument.

  2. *** Theodore Beza, 1588 Edition Textus Receptus, p. 353 col. 2 line 23 (also produced in his 1598 edition), Textus Receptus, notes that the reading of Titus 2:13 reads with an article only before "God," and not before "Savior," thus involving one person. He notes the use of the Greek language "certainly requires" the passage speaks of one person, Christ, "since there is only one article." He therefore concludes that "Jesus Christ is here openly called 'great God,' who is by metonym called our blessed hope." This was the primary Greek source for the 1611 edition of the AV.

  3. Geneva Bible (1599), footnote, Romans 9:5, "A most manifest testimony of the Godhead and divinity of Christ." Titus 2:13, while the English presents an archaic English construction (Cf. "of God, and of the Father" in Colossians 2:2) the footnote removes any doubt: "Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God, and his appearance and coming is called by the figure Metonymy, our hope."

  4. John Forbes (1616), A Treatise Tending to Cleare the Doctrine of Justification, p. 112 (Commenting on Acts 20:28, that it is "not onely the bloud of a man, and of a iust man, but also that it bee the the bloud of him who is God blessed for ever")

  5. Paul Baynes (1618), A Counterbane Against Earthly Carefulnes, p. 4 (Allusion only to Titus 2:13, referring to"Christ our great God and Sauiour").

  6. Thomas Doughty (1623), Iesus Maria Ioseph, pp. 8, 83, 84 (Romans 9:5, in multiple quotations from Augustine's Confessions, where Augustine professes Christ is called "God").

  7. Nicholas Byfield (1628), The Marrow of the Oracles of God, p. 108. (Titus 2:13, following “mightie God” found in the GNV, paraphrases in a closing comment, “Thus beseeching God to enlarge the comforts of his Spirit in your heart, and to prosper you in all things that concern the blessed hope of the appearing of Iesus Christ our mightie God and Sauiour”)

  8. Andrew Symson, a lexicographer (1632), An Exposition Upon the Second Epistle Generall of Saint Peter, p. 21 (Romans 9:5, independent translation, among passages where "That he is true God may be diversly proved")

  9. William Prynne (1636), Certaine quæres propounded to the bowers at the name of Jesus and to the patrons thereof, p. 7 (Quotes Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13 among the passages that "expressly resolve Christ to be God.")

  10. Francis Cheynell (1650), The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, p. 23, (In his section on the Godhead of the Son, quotes Romans 9:5 and references Titus 2:13 as calling him "the great God.")

  11. Richard Byfield (1653), A Short Treatise describing the true Church of Christ, p. 21 (p. 22 is defective). (Condemning the Socinians, writes that they deny the Deity of Christ, "who is the great God, our Saviour, God blessed for ever.")

  12. *** John Owen (1655), Vindiciæ Evangelicæ Or The Mystery of the Gospell Vindicated, and Socinianisme Examined, p. 61, 336, 342 (Romans 9:5, remarks that the scriptures say Christ is "Godd blessed for ever," and that the Socinians of his day said "true," but that Christ is merely a God by office. p. 336, in his section on "The Deity of Christ Proved," he notes among them "God blessed for ever" p. 342 notes that Christ is by nature "God blessed for ever." p. 258, Titus 2:13, notes that the single article in this construction “signifies one person”)

  13. Bishop John Pearson (1659), p. 263. An Exposition of the Creed.(Romans 9:5. Quotes from the AV. Further comments via footnote on the Socinian attempts to remove "God" from the verse, cites various ancient Christian writers and commentaries)

  14. Ralph Brownrig and William Martyn (1660), Forty Sermons, Vol. 1, p. 156. (Romans 9:5 AV)

  15. Ambrose (d. 1664), Compleat (sic.) Works of Isaac Ambrose (1759), p. 660. In a passing comment, referring to passages speaking of the Deity of Christ : "Unto which of the angels said he at any time, This is the true God, the great God, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen. 1 John v. 20, Tit. ii. 13, Rom. ix. 5."

  16. R. H., Obadiah Walker (1667), p. 332 - The Guide In Controversies. (Romans 9:5 AV, Titus 2:13 AV 1611 punctuation, both against those who deny the Divinity of Christ).

  17. John Tombes (1669), Emmanuel; or God-man, a treatise, etc., p. 168. Romans 9:5

  18. George Bishop, a Quaker (1668), A Looking-Glass for the Times, p. 190. Refers to Jesus as “our great God and Saviour” (Titus 2:13).

  19. *** Various (1672), Θρηνοι̂κος: the House of Mourning, p. 266 (Google Books pagination is broken, link retrieved using a search of the terms. Titus 2:13. Remarks that the Arians and Semi-Arians teach two persons here, but notes that the Greek makes it plain, for had two persons been intended, “there should have been two Articles; but there is but on Article : it is apparent to them that understand the Greek, it is but on Person ; that same person is the mighty God, the great God, and the Saviour Jesus Christ.” p. 267, lists Rom. 9:5, “God blessed for ever” among the readings where Christ is proved to be God)

  20. Thomas Doolittle (1673), The Young Man's Instructor, the Old Man's Remembrancer, p. 125. (Quotes Romans 9:5 AV among passages that show "Christ be both God and man," and reasoning He is one person of the Trinity).

  21. Matthew Scrivener (1674), A Course of Divinity, p. 254. Romans 9:5 AV.

  22. R. H., Obadiah Walker (1675), p. 380 - A Discourse of the Necessity of Church-guides for Directing Christians in N... - Google Books (In a section dedicated to refuting the Socinians and proclaiming the Deity of Christ. The passages from Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13 follow the 1611 punctuation)

  23. Thomas Downe (1677), The First Principles of the Oracles of God, pp. 24, 25 (Romans 9:5 AV. Answering the questions "Hath Jesus Christ two distinct intire natures?" and "How do you prove that Jesus Christ is God?")

  24. Richard Mayhew (1679), The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, etc, p. 33. Titus 2:13 AV and Romans 9:5 AV (col. 2, points 3 and 5).

  25. Pierre Bérault (1683), The Church of England evidently Proved the Holy Catholick Church, p. 70. Romans 9:5 AV.

  26. *** Thomas Goodwin (1683), The Works of Thomas Goodwin (Romans 9:5 on pp. 35, 73, most clearly p. 87. Titus 2:13 on p. 77, uses punctuation in the same spot as the 1611 AV after God, noting that it is "speaking of one, and the same person, Christ. And 'tis here, the putting the Article before great God, and none before Saviour, imports: and so distinguisheth him from God, by the like Phrase generally..."; also understands "God and our Saviour" in 2 Peter 1:1 as affirming Christ as God).

  27. *** John Fell, Obadiah Walker (1684), A Paraphrase and Annotations Upon All St. Paul's Epistles, p. 342. (Titus 2:13 AV, 1611 punctuation, remarks on the usage on the article in footnote 8 against other proposed interpretations)

  28. William Dyar (1684), Christ's Famous Titles, and a Believers Golden Chain, pp. 39, 40 (Titus 2:13 AV and Romans 9:5 AV)

  29. Isaac Marlow (1690), A Treatise of the Holy Trinunity, p. 12. (Romans 9:5 AV)

  30. William Burrough (1694), An Account of the Blessed Trinity, p. 38. (Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13, independent translations)

  31. *** Hippolyte du Chastelet de Luzancy (1696), Remarks on several Late Writings, published in English by the Socinians, pp. 165, 166 (Titus 2:13. Remarks that "We prove from this Text that the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ is the same Person . . . the Greek dialect excludes in this place all the little Criticisms which come in heaps in other places . . . The Great God and Saviour of us, is the same way of speaking as The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, The conjunctive Particle which unites God and Father, uniting also God and Saviour. Nor can they so much as dream here of a deputed God ; since there is an Article here, and the Epithet Great added to it." pp. 157ff Romans 9:5, remarks on those who want to expel "God" from the text as though being not originally in it.)

  32. William Payne (1697), The Mystery of the Christian Faith and of the Blessed Trinity Vindicated, and the Divinity of Christ Proved, p. 85. (Romans 9:5 AV. Notes that here Christ, referred to as "God blessed for ever," is called God).

  33. *** Jean Gailhard (1697), The Blasphemous Socinian Heresie Disproved and Confuted, p. 230. (Titus 2:13, remarks on the rule of the article clearly demonstrates it is spoken of one person according to “the idiom of the Greek Tongue,” and translates it as it is found in the AV. p. 116, Romans 9:5 AV).

  34. Isaac Barrow (1700), The Works of the Learned Isaac Barrow, p. 283 (Quotes Titus 2:13 AV, 1611 punctuation and Romans 9:5 among Passages of the scriptures where Christ is "absolutely and directly named God.")

  35. Matthew Poole (1700), Annotations Upon the Holy Bible, (Google Books pagination isn't working; Annotation on Titus 2:13 AV, 1611 punctuation, states, "from this Text the Divine Nature of Christ is irrefragably concluded, He is not only called God, but . . . the Great God, which cannot be understood of a made God." Romans 9:5 AV quoted many times. He expresses that the passage speaks of Christ as both God and man. Also quoted in his annotation on Matthew 14:21, Luke 23:49, John 16:4, 29:28; 2 Cor. 2:8; perhaps others)

  36. *** John Tolliston, 1630-1694 (1701), Several Discourses of Death and Judgment, p. 323, 324 and also (1717) in Works, Vol. 2, 2nd Ed. - Google Books pp. 182, 183. Many of the works are from the 1600s (Notes that the English of Titus 2:13 admits speaking of only one person, and reinforces this by remarking on the usage of the article in the Greek). I am uncertain when the marks were delivered. Tolliston died in 1694.

  37. Joseph Boyse (1703), A Vindication of the Deity of Our Blessed Saviour, p. 23 on Romans 9:5 (independent translation), p. 22 on Titus 2:13.

  38. Matthew Henry (1704?), in his commentary on Psalm 95, “His being the Creator of all makes him, without dispute, the owner of all. This being a gospel psalm, we may very well suppose that it is the Lord Jesus whom we are here taught to praise. He is a great God; the mighty God is one of his titles, and God over all, blessed for evermore.”

  39. *** Robert Fleming Jr, William Lloyd, Thomas Staynoe (1705) pp. 202-204 Christology: a discourse concerning Christ, considered I. In Himself; II. I... - Google Books (Independent rendering from the Greek in Titus 2:13, though it matches the 1769 AV English in the relevant portion, as calling Christ “the great God and our Saviour.” English, Greek, + remarks on the Rule of the article. Independent rendering in Romans 9:5)

  40. Daniel Whitby (1709) A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament ... By D. Whitby. The Thir... - Google Books p. 510, col. 1. (Independent translation). Whitby would later convert to Unitarianism, and in his retractions at the end of his life (link) adopted a rendering of Romans 9:5 based upon a conjectural emendation involving the transposition of words.

  41. *** William Beveridge, 1710, Sermon on Several Subjects, p. 78 (Titus 2:13); also (1729), The works of the Right Reverend Father in God, Dr. William Beveridge, ... Containining [sic] all his sermons, as well those publish'd by himself, as those since his death, Volume 2, p. 130. William Beveridge lived 1637-1708, and so was contemporary to the early editions of the AV. Remarks on the Greek text of Titus 2:13, AV 1611 punctuation, that "In the Greek text, one and the same article serves both these predicates," (1) the great God and (2) our Saviour which, he says, "we rightly translate of the great God, and our Saviour, not of the great God and of our Saviour; as if the great God, and our Saviour, were two distinct persons: For the Greek idiom would not admit of such an interpretation; constantly requiring that where one only article is used in common to two predicates, they be both referred to the same subjects; and by consequence, that it is Jesus Christ alone who is here called both great God, and our Saviour. The remark reveals both the understanding of the "Greek idiom" and affords us the manner in which it would have been translated at that time, which is as found in the AV 1611 edition).

  42. John Hughes (1712) An essay towards some farther evidence of our Saviour's divinity - Google Books (pp. 73, 74) (Romans 9:5 only)

  43. *** Joannes Ernestus Grabe, George Hickes (1712), Some Instances of the Defects and Omissions in Mr Whiston's Collection of Testimonies from the Scriptures and the Fathers, pp. 23-27 (Titus 2:13, pp. 27, 28 remarks on the rule of the article. Lengthy discussion on Romans 9:5, beginning on p. 23, that the Orthodox since the beginning have understood it of none other but Christ, as "God over all," even the heretics that abuse the passage--a likely reference to Noetus)

  44. *** John Edwards (1713), p. 297 - Theologia Reformata - Google Books (Remarks on the usage of the Greek article in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Follows the 1611 punctuation)

  45. John Moore (1719), A Calm Defence (sic.) of the Deity of Christ. (p. 11, 12, both Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13 are among the scriptures that contain proof of Christ's Deity. pp. 22-24, loose quotes, notes that Jesus is called "great God," no verse reference p. 22. On p. 24, Quotes Theophylact on Romans 9:5, "from hence is Arius confuted and put to shame, St. Paul proclaiming Christ to be God over all.")

  46. John Claggett (1719), p. 25 (The Divinity of the Son of God Defended; Or a Solution of Mr. Chubb's Sophi... - Google Books) (Loosely quoting Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, al as passages testifying of the Deity of Christ).

  47. Patrick Russel (1719), The Deity of Jesus Christ, Asserted and Proved Against the Socinians and Arians. In a Sermon [on Titus Ii. 13], Etc., p. 8. (Romans 9:5 AV. Refutes a perverted translation of the passage. p. 3, quotes Titus 2:13 AV with 1611 punctuation and comments on it, going on to state, "that Jesus Christ is said to be the Great God, as well as our Saviour, will be plain to any that reads the Words seriously, and without Prepossession of Judgment ; especially if he compare this Verse with Verse 10, and consider the Context from thence ; where he will find that the [English] Article is prefix'd before the Words (the Great God) without any Repetition of it before the next clause.").

  48. *** John Guyse (1719), Jesus Christ God-Man: or, the constitution of Christ's person; with the evi... - Google Books (pp. 4, 5 Affirming the text of Romans 9:5 as speaking of Christ as God, and refuting the Socinian attempt to turn “God blessed forever” into “God be blessed forever.” On pp. 58, 59 he affirms Titus 2:13 as speaking of the Deity of Christ, and also supports this by noting the rule of the article)

  49. *** Daniel Waterland (1720), Eight Sermons Preach'd at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, p. 214. (Titus 2:13, remarks on the rule of the article, if strictly followed, indicating that even opponents of that view confess that it is valid, notes Samuel Clarke in the footnote, notes the context is only to the Son.)

  50. James Foster (1720), An Essay on Fundamentals, With a Particular Regard to the Doctrine of the Ever-blessed Trinity. p. 19. (Romans 9:5 AV. An unorthodox interpretation, but still of Christ as "God")

  51. *** Matthew Henry (1721), Posthumous work based upon his notes taken by congregants and family. p. 377 An Exposition of the Several Epistles Contained in the New Testament ... an... - Google Books. States the English text as affirming the Deity of Christ, supports interpretation by remarking on the rule of the article. Cf. his commentary on Ps. 95, above.

  52. *** Edmund Calamy (1722), Thirteen Sermons Concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 37 (Remarks on Titus 2:13, notes how it is read by Clement, Gregory of Nyssa, etc., Notes Dr. Samuel Clarke's admission that the rule of the article can apply here, but that the tenor of the scripture is that they should refer to the Father. He writes in response, "there being no Article prefix'd to Saviour, it follows, that the Great God, and the Saviour spoken of, must be the very same, even Jesus Christ, who is mention'd." p. 38 Romans 9:5. Notes that [the Socinians] were saying the word "God" may not have been originally in the text. He notes in footnote that the passage was utilized in the first Council at Antioch against Paul of Samosata as proof of the eternal Deity of the Son.)

  53. *** Gerard De Gols (1726), A Vindication of the Worship of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Supreme God, p. 37 (Titus 2:13, remarks on the usage of the article, noting that "the grammatical construction requires both be ascribed to God." p. 42, Romans 9:5 AV, "for Christ is not only here call'd God, but God with the most exalted Epithet, over all, even as it is given to God the Father. )

  54. Alexander Moncrieff (1730), p.17 The Proper, True, and Supreme Deity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, P... - Google Books (Independent rendering of Titus 2:13 is the same as what we find in the 1769 edition. Romans 9:5 on p. 20, independent translation)

  55. *** Robert Witham (1733), Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ, p. 298 (Notes the rule of the article in this passage, that "the same Greek Article falls upon the Great God and our Saviour Christ, so that even Mnsr. Simon in a Not on these words says the Construction is, and the coming of Jesus Christ, the great God, our Saviour, and blames Erasmus, and Grotius, for pretending that this pLace is not a Confutation of the Arians." pp. 43, 44, Romans 9:5)

  56. *** Charles Wheatly (1738), The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, (Titus 2:13 AV 1611 punctuation. Remarks on the usage of the article via footnote. Romans 9:5 on pp. 149-151)

  57. *** John Gill (1746-48), Exposition... (Romans 9:5 AV, as he is using the AV, the comma after "God" in Romans 9:5 is probably a printing mistake and does not affect the meaning. Titus 2:13 AV 1611 punctuation, "not two divine persons, only one, are here intended . . . and the propositive article is not set before the word 'Saviour', as it would, if two distinct persons were designed; and the copulative 'and' is exegetical, and may be rendered thus, ' and the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ'").

  58. Samuel Mather (1760) - A Dissertation concerning the most venerable name of Jehovah - Google Books (Independent rendering, AV reading not mentioned. However, in the relevant portion he translates similarly to the AV, (with the exception of "that" for "the") "that Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," and notes it as speaking of Christ's Deity).

  59. Titus Knight (1760) pp. 16, 27 -Queries and Observations Relating to the Divinity of the Son of God - Google Books (Titus 2:13 rendering matches what we find in the 1769 edition of the AV. Romans 9:5 independent translation)

  60. Thomas Brooks (1763), A Golden Key to Open Hidden Treasures, p. 212 (Note also that he utilizes the 1611 punctuation in Titus 2:13, saying Paul calls Jesus "The Great God" to Titus; Romans 9:5 is missing a comma, which may be a printer's error)

  61. William Burkitt, (1st edition was in 1700, currently I have no access) 4th edition, 1709 p. xxvii; 1765 Edition p. 698 Expository Notes with Practical Observations, on the New Testament of Our L... - Google Books (follows the 1611 punctuation. Pg. 434 is Romans 9:5 (under v. 4), Pg. 790 also remarks on 2 Peter 1:1 as referring to Christ as God)

  62. *** Thomas Ridgley (1770), A Body of Divinity, p. 88 (Romans 9:5 AV. Note also on p. 89, column 2, he notes that Christ is called "Great God" in Titus 2:13, utilizing a quotation of the verse as punctuated in the 1611 edition, but also noting the rule of the article in his footnote. On p. 90, he continues to state Christ is also called "God" in 2 Peter 1:1--accepting both the text and its marginal note as speaking of Christ as God)

  63. *** Jacques Abbadie and Abraham Booth (1777), The Deity of Jesus Christ Essential to the Christian Religion, p 249. (Romans 9:5 AV. Quotes Titus 2:13 with 1611 punctuation, understands "and" in the sense of "even," remarks on the usage of the article.

  64. *** John Fletcher and Joseph Benson (1790), A Rational Vindication of the Catholick Faith, Being the First Part of A Vindication of Christ's Divinity, p. 97. Christ is called "Great God" in Titus 2:13 and "God blessed forever" in Romans 9:15. Goes on to quote the Greek text of Titus 2:13, and renders it as speaking of one person, and then Romans 9:5 AV)

  65. *** John Fawcett (1781), The Christian's Humble Plea for His God and Saviour, p. 8. (Via footnote, remarks on the usage of the article in Titus 2:13, that one person is in view; Romans 9:5 pp. v, vi)

  66. Caleb Alexander (1791), An Essay on the Real Deity of Jesus Christ, pp. 16, 17. (Romans 9:5 AV, criticizes the Socinian transposition of words. Titus 2:13 AV with 1611 punctuation, and remarks of Jesus Christ that He is "God our Saviour."

  67. Sinclare Kelburn (1792), The Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ Asserted and Proved, p. 51 (Romans 9:5 AV, comma is omitted. On the following page, Titus 2:13 with 1611 punctuation is also cited as another proof of the Deity of Christ. Not only does he reason it from the English, but he states such is indicated in the construction of the words in the original)

  68. David Simpson (1798), p. 281. An Apology for the Doctrine of the Trinity - Google Books. (Also quotes some early Christian writers who quote Romans 9:5 as affirming the Deity of Christ)
Click to expand...
I'm in good company, and well-grounded on my point.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
You've deliberately distorted what I wrote. I do not have "God" doing double duty, nor did I make any such new translation. I only stated what the passage is saying based upon the predicates in the verse.

"Christ . . . who is over all"​
"Christ . . . who is . . . God"​
"Christ . . . who is . . . blessed forever."​
​
This is precisely the same way it was expounded by the Greek writer Zechariah in the 6th century.
Click to expand...

That is a definite alternate translation to the AV, especially if your Greek text shows God as punctuated as an independent word, separated from blessed.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Christ ... who is over all, God blessed for ever.

Now I understand why you go through hoops about the natural association.
Your text has no association at all.
The blessing itself can be from Paul. (Yet didn't you say the blessing is from God? That would be double duty.)

So who gives the blessing?

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

FYI - There are tons of commentators in that era who do not say the verse is read as "Jesus is God".
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator

Origen

You should be reading Murray, not a review of Murray, to get the most accurate account. Worthless snarky comments indicate to me that your realize your position, which definitely attempts to correct the AV, (no doubt any more) is kaput. The reviews have a solid place, the Murray text has a...
www.purebibleforum.com
 
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
That is a definite alternate translation to the AV, especially if your Greek text shows God as punctuated as an independent word, separated from blessed.
Click to expand...
You really don't know how a Greek predicate construction functions in an equative clause, do you? Because you'd both realize I was right and would stop making this silly claim. If I felt it would do good to explain it yet again, I would. But you're interested less in hearing and more in word catching pseudo-Aha! moments.

Steven Avery said:
So who gives the blessing?
Click to expand...
I've answered this already. "Blessed" in the sense of "Praised, extolled, exalted, magnified" by His people and His creation. This is an adjective, not a participle verb. Thus unlike a participle it does not require a subject, object, verb construction. The reading of the AV employs a postpositive adjective (thus, no camma. Cf. the English translation of Hippolytus, "He who is over all, God blessed [postpositive], has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God forever." etc.)
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
"Blessed" in the sense of "Praised, extolled, exalted, magnified" by His people and His creation.)
Click to expand...

So far I have not seen a single commentary that says that Paul is talking of God being blessed by his people and his creation.
It looks like you are fishing. Do you want to add in the angelic host?

Find such commentators. You have dozens to search out.

Clearly, the AV says no such thing.

And you are changing the AV text to -

“God IS blessed for ever (by creation, etc)”

Even is you claim apposition you have the same double trouble.

“Christ ... (who is) God IS blessed for ever (by creation, etc)”

Without your needed IS, or comma, God is the one blessing. Ooops.
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
So far I have not seen a single commentary that says that Paul is talking of God being blessed by his people and his creation.
It looks like you are fishing. Do you want to add in the angelic host?
Click to expand...
It's a simple dictionary definition of the term. "Bless," in a verbal sense, also means to "praise, glorify," and in an adjectival sense (as it is here) it means, in this context, also means, "venerated, honored in worship, praised, extolled, magnified, exalted." Perhaps I should have answered the question "who is doing the blessing?" more pointedly that "blessed" in the passage is an adjective, not a verb, so it does not require an S-V-O construction at all.

Steven Avery said:
“God IS blessed for ever (by creation, etc)”

Even is you claim apposition you have the same double trouble.

“Christ ... (who is) God IS blessed for ever (by creation, etc)”

Without your needed IS, or comma, God is the one blessing. Ooops.
Click to expand...
Well, you are certainly sparing no expense trying to butcher my argument.

Let's simplify this. Greek adjectives are placed next to the noun they modify. They are either attributive or predicative, and which one depends on which one has the article. In Greek, they do not form compounds next to each other like this, and they do not require linking verbs. "God" and "blessed" juxtaposed in the sense of this passage means "God is blessed," not "blessed by God." We add the is in this small construction because so simple a predicate construction in English requires it. However, it does not need to be supplied if it is already stated in the larger context. The article belongs to Christ, who is called "God," and is described as "blessed for ever." Follow?

To give a fresh perspective, let's form an easy to understand, parallel construction:

"from whom is Steven Avery, who is over all forum members, the Administrator extraordinaire at the moment."
  1. "Steven Avery" is the subject.
  2. "Administrator" is a predicate nominative that "renames" Steven Avery (i.e., Steven Avery is the administrator). It is placed in apposition to "who is over all forum members."
  3. "Extraordinaire" is an adjective that describes Steven as the Administrator. It is placed in the postpositive position, and it means he is outstanding at his job (and that I don't need to add the verb "is" to assert it!).
In other words:
  1. "Steven Avery . . . who is over all forum members,"
  2. "Steven Avery . . . who is . . . the Administrator,"
  3. "Steven Avery . . . who is . . . extraordinaire at the moment."
...contains three distinct affirmations about Steve: (1) He is over all forum members. (2) He is Administrator. (3) He is outstanding at the moment.

Easy, right? Now that I've explained this, Romans 9:5 for you should be simple.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
"from whom is Steven Avery, who is over all forum members, the Administrator extraordinaire at the moment."
Click to expand...

"due to the efforts of Steven Avery, who is over all forum members, the Administrator is encouraged every day"

That could refer to somebody totally different as the Administrator. Maybe Nick Sayers.

You gave a circular example, because you know beforehand that Steven is the Administrator.
You pull this illogical stuff all the time.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
Let's simplify this. Greek adjectives are placed next to the noun they modify.
Click to expand...

What is the best way, and alternate ways, to say "God blessed" (or God-blessed) when it is a single adjectival unit, and there is no independent noun. You seem to struggle with the English, always trying to place in verbs and nouns. Remember, it is NOT "God is blessed".
 
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
"due to the efforts of Steven Avery, who is over all forum members, the Administrator is encouraged every day"

That could refer to somebody totally different as the Administrator. Maybe Nick Sayers.

You gave a circular example, because you know beforehand that Steven is the Administrator.
You pull this illogical stuff all the time.
Click to expand...
Steven, I can read the Greek. It is actually an extremely simple passage to understand. The only way this passage does not speak of Christ as God is if you force punctuation to make it a doxology to the Father.

There's no third option. If there were, how is it the Socinians, Unitarians, and Jehovah's Witnesses have all failed to exploit it? The Socinians/Unitarians have been at it for roughly 400 years!

Can you please inform me as to how θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in Greek can be read like an English compound, and mean "blessed by God"? Or have you contacted your friend in Athens to help you? You could also email a college professor, or a native speaker.

You're thoroughly confused in your statements at the top of the page because you can't follow the difference between the Greek and English construction. The Greek is a predicate construction. But the AV renders "God" in apposition to Christ. The same meaning is conveyed.

Greek: ὁ Χριστὸς Christ (subject), ὁ ὢν who is (participle) ἐπὶ πάντων over all (1st predicate) θεὸς God (2nd predicate nominative) εὐλογητὸς blessed (predicate adjective) εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας forever.

=English: Christ (subject), who is over all (predicate), God (apposition) blessed (postpositive adjective) forever.
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
You did not answer this question.
You are to supply the Greek text for comparison.
Click to expand...
The burden is not on me, but on you to substantiate the assertion that θεὸς εὐλογητὸς means "blessed by God." The problem is you've already decided I'm wrong. You know this, don't you? And so your course after that is not to give the evidence a fair hearing, but to go to extraordinary lengths to prove you're correct in saying I'm wrong. Thus you're not actually supporting your interpretation in any substantial way. And at this point, you've opened up so many fronts that you are too invested to even consider you yourself may be wrong.

Steven Avery said:
What is the best way, and alternate ways, to say "God blessed" (or God-blessed) when it is a single adjectival unit, and there is no independent noun. You seem to struggle with the English, always trying to place in verbs and nouns. Remember, it is NOT "God is blessed".
Click to expand...
My English is fine. Your conditions above and your interpretation require the use of a participle verb (verbs ending -ed, -ing). A participle is a verb that has an adjectival force, and is sometimes described as a verbal adjective. This is what is messing you up, reading what is really a simple adjective (bles-sed) as a past participle verb (blest). It is also why you require the conditions of a subject-object-verb construction be met.

Thus the Greek construction you are asking for, under the requirements above is ευλογημένος από τον Θεόν. This uses the perfect participle (i.e., verbal adjective) form of the verb ευλογεω to form an adjectival phrase describing Christ as "blessed (v. blest) by God."

Back to the reading at hand, Greek adjectives describe the noun they are paired with (they must also have the same case and gender), and the "position" (predicate or attributive) depends on whether or not an adjective has the article:

As an Attributive Adjective (the adjective has the article)

θεὸς ὁ εὐλογητὸς = "the blessed God"​
ὁ εὐλογητὸς θεὸς = "the blessed God"​
ὁ εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς = "the blessed God" (more emphatic)​

As a Predicate Adjective (the adjective lacks the article)
When a linking verb is not stated in context, the verb "to be" is implied. In most (but not all) of these cases, English grammar requires the linking verb to be supplied. However, a predicate construction in English does not always require a linking verb, particularly where the adjective sets off a new clause (e.g., "A lamp bright enough to light the room" = "A lamp that is bright enough to light the room").

ὁ θεὸς εὐλογητὸς = "God is blessed"​
εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς = "God is blessed" (but since Paul emphasizes εὐλογητὸς in the order of words, we translate "Blessed be God")​

When the noun an adjective is modifying lacks the article, the fuller context needs to be checked to determine whether or not that noun should be treated as indefinite. In an equative clause where the adjective follows a predicate nominative, the predicate nominative is treated as the subject it renames.

So again, I reiterate my point:

"Christ . . . who is over all, God (in apposition to "Christ") blessed (adj., bles-sed) for ever" is how I read it. Because the Greek is an adjective, the English is an adjective. Adjectives simply describe the subject. Participles verbs (-ing, -ed endings), on the other hand, have an adjectival quality but perform a verbal (subject-verb-object) action. Blessed (blest), as you read it, is a verb--more specifically, a past participle which by nature has adjectival properties. This is why you're confused about the passage, by accidentally equivocating over the word "blessed."​

I also don't place a comma after God because it does not need one, this is also something you invented out of your own head. When an adjective is in the postpositive position (by this I only mean it is placed after the noun it modifies) and sets off a new clause, it has the force of a predicate. No commas, no linking verb. For example, "A lamp bright enough to light the room" means "A lamp that is bright enough to light the room." As a purely postpositive adjective, one might view it akin to "God Almighty" = "God who is Almighty" = "the Almighty God."​

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top