Romans 9:5 - God blesses Christ, no apposition - why not with TR Greek?

[Steven Avery]

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.

Single use of God. The one who blesses.
The AV follows the TR word order.

ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

The claim has been made that this does not work with the TR Greek.
Why? No clear reason given.

If that claim is made, then show the adjusted Greek that would give that singular usage of God blessed understanding.

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

See my Trichotomy post.
Reading the AV in its natural sense, God is only there once, as part of God blessed.

Yet all the scholars diverge, generally in two opposite directions, both different than the AV.

Many want God to be in apposition to Christ, so they can claim the text says "Christ is God"
Others want to to remove Christ from being "over all" and God blessed. Low Christology

Just take the AV text in its natural sense.

While the AV reads simply beautifully.

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is a condensed sample of the normative way of thinking:

Charles Hawtrey (one likely source for Granville Sharp)

Theanthrōpos Tēs Kainēs Diathēkēs, Or, An Appeal to the New Testament in Proof of the Divinity of the Son of God (1794)
https://books.google.com/books?id=GLQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA82
https://archive.org/details/appealtonewtesta00hawt/page/n105/mode/2up

Note the logic gap, the flying leap.

There is no reason to say that because Christ is God blessed, that he is therefore "God".

 

[Steven Avery]

Question improved here:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ist-and-god-are-in-apposition.2311/#post-9028

Again, can you give an alternate Greek text that matches the sense of a single-duty God, part of the natural association "God blessed", not in apposition to Christ, a Greek proposed text that is different than the TR text used in the AV.

Or, are you really claiming that the idea is impossible to express in Greek?

Or do you agree that the TR text is the way, or a good way, to express that idea?

You must choose one of the three, there are no logical alternatives.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

Brian bets the house on this grammatical claim.

I said it's impossible to translate θεὸς εὐλογητὸς in the sense of "blessed by God" in Romans 9:5. ... The Greek construction you need to convey the meaning "blessed by God" is ευλογημένος από τον Θεόν ('blessed by God") or the like.

The AV did give exactly the meaning of "God blessed == "blessed by God" in English.
So Brian is claiming the AV is wrong.

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.

As for his Greek claim, after reading Murray Harris, and common sense, I am extremely skeptical.

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

The related question is WHO gives the blessing?

 

[Steven Avery]

The related question is WHO gives the blessing?

https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...t-apposition-second-predicate.2314/#post-9059

Amazingly, Brian thinks God IS blessed by his people or his creation.

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is a discussion that understands some of the issues.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/14262/does-romans-95-assert-the-deity-of-christ

Susan
θεὸς εὐλογητὸς.... Greek has a noun "blessing" (> ὁ θεὸς εὐλογίας), and this is instead an adjective, declined with θεὸς,

elika kohen
Not "God of Blessing", but "Blessing of God", or "God-Blessing", like "Divine Blessing": - θεῶν μακαρίαν Pl. Leg. 718b;

God blessed, in the natural association, is adjectival, describing Christ.

Brian, you seem to get lost in trying to find a verb there.

 

[Steven Avery]

Three complementary threads, with references in agreement on no apposition

Romans 9:5 trichotomy interpretation - identity, high Christology, Unitarian - errors on both sides!
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...istology-unitarian-errors-on-both-sides.2285/

Romans 9:5 - God blesses Christ, no apposition - why not with TR Greek?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ist-no-apposition-why-not-with-tr-greek.2323/

the English AV pure Bible text of Romans 9:5 - claims of apposition
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...text-of-romans-9-5-claims-of-apposition.2365/

 

[Brianrw]

Greek Adjectives 101 - No Flying Leaps of Logic!​

Mr. Avery seems to have missed class on this one--or the language altogether, because he has no Greek background and wants to be continually insulting towards those who do. There's no flying leaps of logic involved: Greek adjectives are so simple, they hardly need to be discussed to anyone with the equivalent of one semester study.

The basic rules of Greek adjectives are simple!​

When a noun and an adjective of the nominative case are placed together (like in Romans 9:5), the adjective can be either predicative or attributive. How do we know the difference? Because the predicative will have the article before the adjective. That is all.

What's a Predicate Adjective?​

Normally in English, it involves the construction [noun] [linking verb] [adjective]. Ex. "The sky is blue," "I slept well." Blue and Well are predicate adjectives.
Sometimes in English, it can follow after a noun with the linking equation implied: Ex. "a lamp bright enough to lighten the room" = "a lamp that is bright enough to lighten the room." This would be an elliptical clause where the linking verb ("that is") is supplied. Bright here is considered a predicate adjective.

When the linking verb is absent in Greek it is supplied based on the context where English grammar requires it:

ὁ θεὸς εὐλογητὸς = "God [is] blessed"​

εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς = "God [is] blessed" (however, we respect the emphasis in the word order and translate "Blessed [be] God")​

In these simple cases, we insert the linking verb from the English "to be." This meaning will stay the same in larger constructions, but the insertion of the linking verb may not always be required to maintain this sense in English.

What's an Attributive Adjective?​

An attributive adjective goes before the noun in English and tells us something about the noun: "The blue sky," "the good pizza."

θεὸς ὁ εὐλογητὸς = "the blessed God"​

ὁ εὐλογητὸς θεὸς = "the blessed God"​

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

That is all! No mystery, no trickery. No shady sleight of hand!

Can two adjectives of the nominative case standing side by side form a compound adjective?​

No! The English rule cannot be applied to such a Greek construction.

​

Adjectives do not need to satisfy a subject-verb-object action!​

The job of an adjective is to describe a noun. It is not acted upon by the noun and it does not perform a verbal action.

Here is a discussion that understands some of the issues.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/14262/does-romans-95-assert-the-deity-of-christ

Susan
θεὸς εὐλογητὸς.... Greek has a noun "blessing" (> ὁ θεὸς εὐλογίας), and this is instead an adjective, declined with θεὸς,

elika kohen
Not "God of Blessing", but "Blessing of God", or "God-Blessing", like "Divine Blessing": - θεῶν μακαρίαν Pl. Leg. 718b;

God blessed, in the natural association, is adjectival, describing Christ.

There's a reason the proposal you champion here has a cumulative vote of -3.​

There are a host of blunders and leaps of logic. To name a couple, the word εὐλογητὸς does not occur in Isaiah 61:9 LXX. "Predicate" position is used erroneously ("predicate position" in Greek actually refers to the placement of the article, not the order of words). The odd translation, which you do not provide here, but act as though it refutes me is (quote):

1. Christ, the heir of Abraham and David;
2. A blessing from God which is upon all;
3. For ever.

That's not the reading you are looking for, is it? And it is not the reading of the AV, is it? The problem is you have no base, no anchor, no education that allows you to discern the good from arguments from the bad.

 

[Steven Avery]

There's a reason the proposal you champion here has a cumulative vote of -​

I think you are referring to the writing of "Glorfindel" which I did not even mention or quote.

Please try to understand how the forum discussion works before making all sorts of confusion conclusions.

Thanks.

Similar goes with your concerns about Isaiah 61:9.

Hint: I was specifically quoting Elika Kohen.

When you get this stuff straightened out, we can return to the discussion.

Now, to be fair, lets look at Glorfindel.

1. Christ, the heir of Abraham and David;
2. A blessing from God which is upon all;
3. For ever.

This interpretation attributes the blessing upon all - children, and not necessarily to God, but certainly a blessing through "the Christ".

And I would tend to agree that in the AV text the blessing is from God, not to God.

Otherwise it should say something like God be blessed or God who is blessed.

 

[Brianrw]

And I would tend to agree that in the AV text the blessing is from God, not to God.

You're asserting the same thing over and over again in spite of all the evidence presented to the contrary. If you can find a proper grammatical argument, I'll listen. Glofindel's translation is not even remotely warranted, and is a corruption of the text on many levels.

To be clear on the various translations:

• "From God" would be ἀπὸ θεοῦ.
  
  
• "By God" would be από τον Θεόν or in certain contexts ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ.
  
  
• In order for Ἰσραηλῖται ("Israelites") to be a subject, the singular participle ὁ ὢν must be changed to a plural relative construction ὧν ὁ.
  
  This is true also in the English, where "who is" would need to become "who are."
  
  
• An adjectival construction in Greek involves a noun and an adjective in the same case juxtaposed, and this forms an attributive or predicative construction depending upon the placement of the article.

 

[Steven Avery]

You're asserting the same thing over and over again in spite of all the evidence presented to the contrary. If you can find a proper grammatical argument, I'll listen. Glofindel's translation is not even remotely warranted, and is a corruption of the text on many levels.

To be clear on the various translations:

• "From God" would be ἀπὸ θεοῦ.
  
  
• "By God" would be από τον Θεόν or in certain contexts ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ.

You really think the specific word "from" or "by" must be included to give that sense??

Amazing.

 

[Steven Avery]

Generally spin is closer to:

God blessed (is Christ) for ever.

Rather than

(Christ is) God blessed for ever. (Which I have called a compound adjective.)

Thus God can be considered the subject of the last phrase.

 

[Steven Avery]

Another who notices that God can be blessing Christ in the AV., mentioned elsewhere in PBF but fits here.

Martin Hemsley
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/69794/does-romans-95-refers-to-jesus-as-god

The KJV translation could actually support Christ not being called God if you take it to mean Christ is God blessed.

Clearly correct, on a major point where Brian is wrong.

Martin prefers to add the comma after God, a false English that would create an apposition.

 

[Steven Avery]

Similar James Rosten.
https://www.quora.com/Does-Romans-9-5-refer-to-Christ-being-God?top_ans=294891464

who gets entangled in Trinitarian philosophy.

There are more. Most agree with the ESV. Christ is the blessed God. Young simply translates the words, leaving the order alone. It could be interpreted as Christ is “God-blessed”. People with a particular ax to grind to deny the deity of Christ might capitalize on such a thing. But even if they were correct, which I do not believe, it would not destroy the doctrine of the Trinity.