Nope.
See Murray p. 162 and #5.
In that English text, Murray may not discuss who the doxology is to, but it clearly should be Christ.
Thus, it does not fit your dichotomy.
Are you really trying to refute Murray using Murray?

I literally bolded above how Murray clearly writes,
"In Romans 9:5b one may isolate three distinct affirmations about Christ: he is Lord of all, he is God by nature, and he will be eternally praised." (p. 167). That is Murray discussing who the doxology is to, and saying it is Christ, despite you saying otherwise. That is also is every bit as clear as what I have said, a number of times now,
that the passage is a doxology to Christ as God--that He is "over all," is "God," and is "blessed forever."
Who is blessed?
Who is giving the blessing?
I've asked this a few times, and I do not remember an answer.
I realize that you likely see Christ as blessed, but by who?
I've answered every time, most recently
here. The only difference in the interpretation of the
doxology is who it is for: Christ if we read the passage as Paul wrote it, or the Father if we follow the modern critical texts and insert punctuation to avoid calling Christ "God" and force a doxology to the Father. (I'm not making a conjecture with the latter. As Metzger specifically notes in his dissenting opinion, found in the volume accompanying the UBS text,
this is exactly what the UBS committee consciously chose to do).
Who is giving the blessing?
This is a typical Hebrew doxology, where the ones giving the blessing are implied (i.e., His people and creation) and "Blessed" follows the definition "revered, honored in worship, praised, extoled, exalted, magnified." So it is in Romans 9:5 of Christ. Paul uses the same form of doxology in two other places: (1) Romans 1:25, "and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,
who is blessed for ever (ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν). Amen," and (2) 2 Corinthians 11:31, "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which is blessed for evermore (ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας)." I've also noted this before.
Who is blessed
θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in this construction follows one of the simplest most basic uses of the Greek adjective, which is learned at quite an early stage. The two nominatives together like this means "God
is blessed" since the adjective is in the
predicate position (i.e., no article). The addition of
is or
be may be dropped depending on the actual construction, but the underlying meaning does not change. This is why I keep saying
your interpretation requires an emendation of the underlying Greek. The text as Paul has written it--without inserting punctuation into the Greek to force a doxology to the Father--has "God" as a predicate nominative/apposition to Christ (i.e. Christ is God). Thus, together with "Christ" it means "Christ . . . who is . . . God
is blessed."
Lastly, because the whole phrase already contains an equative verb, ὁ ὢν, one does not need to be supplied and the full construction becomes "Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed forever." Thus Christ is "over all," is "God," and is "blessed forever." I can no longer add
is or
be in italics as above because the passage would be misread as a doxology to the Father.
Here is a summary of Murray's overall analysis:
Panayotis Coutsoumpos
View attachment 1929
Gospel Coalition
Ben Witherington III
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...testament-use-of-theos-in-reference-to-jesus/
Witherington has the hymn nonsense, and adds two verses
modification of the Shema in
1 Corinthians 8:6 (
cf. now N.T. Wright,
The Climax of the Covenant), as well as in the
marana tha prayer (
1 Cor. 16:22).
You should be reading Murray, not a review of Murray, to get the most accurate account. Murray indicates some doubt, but says it is because he is reading the passage from the UBS (p. 172)
. He notes that they have punctuated it in a certain manner which I've already discussed above.
Metzger (part of the UBS committee) specifically notes in dissent that the punctuation of the UBS is an editorial decision chosen by the majority to force the passage into a doxology to the Father because they don't believe Paul would call Christ God (which is circular reasoning). That's admitted, and I trust you are not of the view that this was a right decision? But I say again, even the minority of authors you have quoted that prefer to force a doxology to the Father admit my position is valid, whereas
none of these authors have entertained, much less supported yours.
In summary: all other translation possibilities rest on emendations of the text. The alternatives noted in all your sources emend the punctuation of the text to force a doxology to the Father, or otherwise ignore, remove, or transpose the order of Greek words.