the fun-damental questions of interpretation and text/punctuation

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Like John 1:18 the fundamental questions get mixed up here.

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.

This is the balanced and perfect Bible text. It is high Christology like a basic group of texts which I will place on their own thread.

Many have tried to change it in two different ways, by claiming alternate punctuation in the Greek.

1) changing the text to be "Jesus is God"
2) changing the text to be low Christology
 
B

Brianrw

Member
The English of the KJV is not ambiguous in speaking of Christ as God; had the KJV translators intended to form a doxology in their translation, they would have added a verb in italics so as not to leave a fragment: "God be blessed for ever" or "blessed be God forever." The comma functions as an identifier. At the beginning of the Bible version debate, the RV was sharply criticized for its marginal note here, and the rendering of the ASV led to defenders of the KJV being up in arms that Christ's divinity was removed in the passage.

Steven Avery said:
Murray J. Harris gives an exhaustive analysis of the various possible texts.
https://books.google.com/books?id=U9VLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA143
p. 150
Click to expand...
Murray is not demonstrating how there are "various possible texts" for Romans 9:5. Rather, he deals with proposals by various entities who attempt to eliminate the theological difficulty of calling Christ "God." For example, "ὢν as Otiose and θεὸς as articular" means removing the verb ὢν from the text or ignoring it altogether, so that the article no longer points backward to "Christ," but rather forward to "God." The second, to take "ὁ ὢν" as the beginning of a new sentence, "He who is," simply would not be done in the context with an antecedent, "Christ," being present. Greek has a means of making such a distinction clear, but Paul hasn't used that here. The article simply does not belong to θεὸς, and Murray notes that. His "exhaustive analysis" leads to the conclusion that the only way to naturally translate the passage is the one that affirms the Deity of Christ.

While certainly no fan of Metzger in the aspect of textual criticism, his observations on this point are spot on:

The interpretation that refers the passage to Christ suits the structure of the sentence, whereas the interpretation that takes the words as an asyndetic doxology to God the Father is awkward and unnatural . . . If the clause ὁ ὢν κ.τ.λ. is an asyndetic doxology to God the Father, the word ὢν is superfluous, for "he who is God over all" is most simply represented by ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause . . . and thus describes ὁ Χριστὸς as being "God over all." . . . Pauline doxologies . . . are never asyndetic, but always attach themselves to that which precedes . . . Asyndetic doxologies, not only in the Bible but also in Semitic inscriptions, are differently constructed; the verb or verbal adjective always precedes the name of God, and never follows it, as here . . . In light of the context, in which Paul speaks of his sorrow over Israel's unbelief, there seems to be no psychological explanation to account for the introduction of a doxology at this point. (Textual Commentary, 2nd Ed., pp. 460-462)​
​
In his article on the punctuation of the passage in his New Testament Studies (philological, Versional, and Patristic) (Ed. 2019), he notes,

Put another way, in Rom. 9:5 it is grammatically unnatural that a participle which stands in juxtaposition to the phrase ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα should first be divorced from it and then given the force of a wish, receiving a different person as its subject. (p. 67)​

I don't need to elaborate on Burgon's findings regarding the unanimity of the Greek and Latin authors on this point. We would expect discord among them had there truly been alternative translations.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Since it looks like you are trying to look at the intent of 1611
(a bigger issue with Titus 2:13)

Romans 9:5
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3316688&view=1up&seq=364
1636007505154.png


https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Romans-9-5/

Whose are the fathers, and of
whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is ouer all, God blessed for
euer, Amen.

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

Titus 2:13
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1456

1636007747369.png


https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Titus-2-13/

Looking for that blessed hope, and
the glorious appearing of the great
God, and our Sauiour Iesus Christ,

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

Other topics planned for later.

Murray did a good job separating the poor translation identity attempts (I have shown a few of those) from the pure, majestic, King James style text from the bumbling stilksten Socinian attempts.

When Burgon wrote there may not have been any of the identity attempts.

=================================================
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
Murray is not demonstrating how there are "various possible texts" for Romans 9:5. Rather, they are proposals by various entities to eliminate the theological difficulty of calling Christ "God."
Click to expand...

No, Murray is also demonstrating the weak attempts to mistranslate Romans 9:5 as Jesus is God.
Clearly these are not Socinian variants.

He is simply giving a thorough overview, although it is helpful to then put them into the 3 major groups.

The natural reading is a doxology to the Lord Jesus Christ. I've always seen that as correct.

Here are FOUR tries from Murray that make the false Jesus is God translation.

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

3 is a conjecture to make Jesus is God
1636029401940.png

p. 150

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

1636029799944.png

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

1636029799944.png


========================================
1636030521637.png

========================================
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
No, Murray is also demonstrating the weak attempts to mistranslate Romans 9:5 as Jesus is God.
Clearly these are not Socinian variants.
Click to expand...
That is a complete misrepresentation of what Murray has written, unless the loaded terminology is your opinion. I read the entire segment, not just snippets, down to page 172. You can note his objections to the other "translations," and his ultimate conclusion that Christ is being called "God." Metzger says the same thing, only far more concisely.

The only natural way, by the rules of Greek grammar, to translate this passage is that θεός refers to Christ: to arrive at this: ὁ Χριστὸς . . . ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν. The difficulty in English is applying the punctuation so that the passage is not misread.

There certainly is no trouble translating the same construction in Romans 1:25, of Christ ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν, "who is blessed forever. Amen." Nor is there any trouble when the same construction is found in 1 Cor. 11:25. In the former passage, we know Christ is being spoken of. In the latter, 1 Cor., it is the Father, because the article is before θεός, and therefore ὁ ὢν refers to the Father.

On p. 166, Murray leaves two possibilities: translating it exactly as we find in the KJV, with the omission of the word in italics, as speaking of Christ as θεός (i.e., θεός as a second predicate to ὁ ὢν, the subject being "Christ"). His comment makes it clear that the comma before God serves as an identifier, which is in the rules of English grammar. The second he says would be, "Christ, who as God..." etc. I will sharply criticize several of the sentiments of the opinions of others he mentions, as they allow their doctrinal views to stand in the way of the most plain rendering.

Steven Avery said:
3 is a conjecture to make Jesus is God
Click to expand...
It most certainly is not. "He who is over all is God" translates ὁ ὢν as "He who is," and that is precisely the translation he discusses where the construction is forced to speak of the Father, and not Christ. The same goes for, "The one who is God over all, is blessed for all time." Both, beginning with caps, would follow a hard stop (period). He dismisses this rendering on p. 157, after clearly explaining how it "awkwardly separates" ὁ ὢν from it's antecedent, "Christ" and that such a translation would be "unconscionable." (p. 158)

Steven Avery said:
Here are FOUR tries from Murray that make the false Jesus is God translation.
Click to expand...
The issue posted above in the snippet is how to punctuate the passage, not whether or not it speaks of Christ as God. Outside of the conjectural emendation you note from p. 150, every single passage above translates Christ as "God"!

If you note the references, you'll understand he is demonstrating how it is punctuated in various texts and commentaries. Given the unanimity of support of the Greek writers down through the ages, are you contending that they didn't understand how to read their own language? Because my understanding is that we learned the language from them? I'm not aware of any time where the English corrects the Greek? In the KJV here, in conformity with the Greek, Christ is both "over all" and "God."

The article has rules. Most often when the rule is broken in places where Christ is spoken of as God, you will note that there is a preconception or a theological hesitancy to understand it as such. That's where these debates come from.

Steven Avery said:
The natural reading is a doxology to the Lord Jesus Christ. I've always seen that as correct.
Click to expand...
If it's a doxology to the Lord Jesus, then the doxology speaks of Christ as being both "over all" and "God," so I don't know what we are debating. Without "by" or "be," there's no other way to read the English.

Steven Avery said:
Clearly these are not Socinian variants.
Click to expand...
#3 is a conjectural emendation to remove the Deity of Christ, and Abbot is a Unitarian (in former times, they were called Socinians). They deny the Deity of Christ.

Steven Avery said:
Since it looks like you are trying to look at the intent of 1611
(a bigger issue with Titus 2:13)
Click to expand...
Are we following the 1611 edition that is known to have necessitated later corrections to words and punctuation, or the 1769 edition which has purged them? As stated above, the comma before "God" functions as an identifier; "blessed" operates as a postpositive adjective. You are reading it as a fragment, and I still don't understand why, and making an unnecessary claim regarding this passage that unnecessarily hurts your overall case for defending the KJV.

In the 1611 edition, as for the precedent for the English of Titus 2:13, please note how "God and our Father" (1769) is punctuated "God, and our Father" in Galatians 1:3, Philippians 4:20, and 1 Thess. 1:3. Would you say that "God, and our Father," speaks of two persons, or one? Regardless, the commas are no longer there in any of these passages, including Titus 2:13. If I said, "looking for the glorious appearing of the great General and our President George Washington" (as one author has put), you'd understand George Washington was both a great general and our president.
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
Did you agree that Murray’s 6, 8 and 9 are inferior texts to the AV?
Click to expand...
The AV text is fine, speaking of Christ as both "over all" and "God." [Edit note: The word "blessed" here operates as a postpositive adjective]. Robert Hardane, 1837, expresses it well when he comments on this verse in the AV in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (p. 446):

At the same time it imports that he had another nature. Who is over all, God blessed for ever.--This is a most clear and unequivocal attestation of the Divine nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every engine of false criticism has been employed by those who are desirous to evade the obvious meaning of this decisive testimony to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ; but they have never even plausibly succeeded.​
​
The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their explanations, or rather perversions of the word of God, are in nothing more obvious than in their attempts to evade the meaning of this celebrated testimony to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . There is no difficulty in the words--no intricacy in the construction ; yet by a forced construction and an unnatural punctuation they have endeavored to turn away this testimony from its obvious import. Contrary to the genius and idiom of the Greek, contrary to all the usual rules of interpreting language, as has often incontrovertibly shown, they substitute God be blessed, for God blessed for ever ; or God who is over all, be blessed, instead of, who is over all, God blessed, for ever. Such tortuous explanations are not only rejected by a sound interpretation of the origin, but manifest themselves to be unnatural, even to the most illiterate who exercise an unprejudiced judgment.​
​
That's the origin of the so-called alternative translations. As for the rest, entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. The RSV mg and the NRSV mg are acceptable, as is Luther's, Faccio's and the NJB. The NIV might as well not have a translation, as they offer three alternatives where the article allows one, so as to leave the passage without any clear meaning. I would reject Berkeley's and the REB mg as well as Cassirer's.

The Greek is so simply constructed. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς could be translated, "[the one] who is over all, God" or, "[the one] who is God over all things" or "[the one] who is God over all." Note that "the one" stands for the article, which refers back to Christ, and every one of them identifies Him as both "over all" and "God." There's no difference in meaning, only semantics. I am of the opinion that the wording of the KJV that preserves the order of the Greek words would be preferable. Paul clearly intends ἐπὶ πάντων to have preeminence and θεὸς to be followed by εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. The second comma serves as an identifier (i.e., Christ is both "over all" and "God").

In support of this, as I have been saying, and having already noted Pearson ca. 1660 and others in another place, I add in support the testimony of Richard Mayhew in his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, etc (1679), p. 33, col. 2:
rom95tit213d.jpg


Matthew Scrivener in A Course of Divinity (1674), p. 254:
rom95tit213g.jpg


And Joseph Boyse in his A Vindication of the Deity of Our Blessed Saviour (1703), p. 23 on Romans 9:5 (and you may note in the preceding page, he notes that Christ is called "Great God" in Titus 2:13):
rom95tit213a.jpg


And in the Compleat (sic.) Works of Isaac Ambrose (1759), p. 660 (note that Ambrose actually died in 1664, putting this work much earlier in time than the published date).
rom95tit213h.jpg


And Thomas Brooks in his A Golden Key to Open Hidden Treasures, (1763), p. 212 (Note also that he utilizes the 1611 punctuation in Titus 2:13, saying Paul calls Jesus "The Great God" to Titus)
rom95tit213f.jpg


And Thomas Ridgley's A Body of Divinity (1770), p. 88 (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)
rom95tit213c.jpg


And Jacques Abbadie and Abraham Booth in 1777 (The Deity of Jesus Christ Essential to the Christian Religion, p 249), concerning the passages in question:
rom95tit213.jpg


Or Sinclare Kelburn's The Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ Asserted and Proved, p. 51, in 1792 (and on the following page, Titus 2:13 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)
rom95tit213e.jpg


Or William B. Allen [Edit: Daniel Dana] in 1810:
rom95tit213b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
And Thomas Ridgley's A Body of Divinity (1770), p. 88 (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)
View attachment 1892
Click to expand...

His 1855 John M. Wilson editor puts in a somewhat complex Romans 9:5 note here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=pf5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA251

Ridgley accepts five identity changes to the AV text, based on the article.
Correction, that is the 1814 editor James Patriot Wilson, Sr. (1769-1830), writing after Sharp.

Tweaking, the 1770 edition looks to have the similar Ridgley note (this is important as one of many pre-Sharps, and can help us find his plagiarism sources, in addition to Royaards.

Note first that he is clear that he is supposedly correcting the AV, thus setting the stage for the Sharp title where he is correcting the AV.

1636113876432.png


Then he gives his verses in a note.

1636112937678.png


The notes by James P. Wilson are here in 1814.
https://books.google.com/books?id=axw3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA318

He simply uses the Ridgley note (it would be good to check the Ridgley 1731 edition) and adds:

Vide Granville Sharp on the Greek article, and Middleton on the same subject.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that this set edited by James P. Wilson is to be distinguished from a later two-volume set edited by John M. Wilson, published in Edinburgh (1844) [an 1855 edition of which was reprinted by Still Water Revival Books in 1993], who also included his own notes, and a biographical sketch of Ridgley.

Log College Press
Wilson's Notes on Ridgley's Body of Divinity
https://www.logcollegepress.com/blog/2019/4/12/wilsons-notes-on-ridgleys-body-of-divinity
Click to expand...

By contrast, here is John M. Wilson, in the 1855 edition, parroting Sharp.

1636113110987.png


Info on Ridgley:

James Ridgley - DNB (source for Wikipedia, too)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ftopAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA282

Yet his scheme of the Trinity, denuded of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, is essentially Sabellian, and in easing the difficulties of Calvinism he follows the Socinians in limiting the penalties of Adam's sin to death and temporal discomfort.
Click to expand...

You I believe only want to “correct” the AV I two spots.

Not much of a “Rule”. :)

Everyone makes up reasons to apply it where they feel it fits for their doctrine, and they paste up a Potemkin Village apologetic edifice.

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

Ridgley on the heavenly witnesses, p. 93-95 - 1770 edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=8L6qp_jEwj0C&pg=PA93

The 1814 edition of James Wilson adds an interesting note.
https://books.google.com/books?id=axw3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA329

In 1855 John M. Wilson added contra claptrap.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pf5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA252

=======================================
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
Note first that he is clear that he is supposedly correcting the AV, thus setting the stage for the Sharp title where he is correcting the AV.
Click to expand...
The rule of the article can be demonstrated by how the Greek writers read and commented on these texts. Our "rules" come from observation of it. Since the Greek authors uniformly understand Titus 2:13 as speaking of Christ as God.

What you commented on Ridgley was already provided in my note above, and Ridgley says he does not rely on such "grammatical criticism" to make his point. He continues that the English text refers to one person, and therefore of Jesus as God.

Earlier authors above from the 1600s and 1700s who also commented didn't require any note of clarity from the Greek when commenting on the English text in that same passage (Titus 2:13):
  1. Ambrose who died in 1664, 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."
  2. Richard Mayhew in 1679, in point 3 on p. 33: "Christ is called a great God. "Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." (Titus, ii. 13) Not only God and great God, but also, the great God."
  3. Boyse in 1703: "When he is call'd the Great God, 2 Titus. v. 13."
  4. Thomas Brooks in 1763: "So Tit. ii. 13, Looking for that hope, and the glorious appearance of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Who is it that shall appear at the last day in the clouds but Christ, who is called the great God, and our Saviour?"
The closer you approach 1881 from 1769, you'll start to see more comments involving the Greek. That's because you are in a period still of heated controversy between the Orthodox and the Unitarians/Socinians. In addition, when English texts go so long without revision, readings once clear start to appear obscure and then it is accused of being "wrong," even if it wasn't originally so. In the 1769 edition, the comma was removed, making it more clear to readers of that time that Christ is both "the great God" and "our Saviour."

Steven Avery said:
You I believe only want to “correct” the AV I two spots.

Not much of a “Rule”. :)

Everyone makes up reasons to apply it where they feel it fits for their doctrine, and they paste up a Potemkin Village apologetic edifice.
Click to expand...
I don't want to correct the AV in any spots.

The rule as it stands in NT Greek is absolute, so long as it is followed correctly. There's about 80 instances where it is so utilized in the Textus Receptus without any controversy, and in many places of God the Father. Clearly, the translators had no problem understanding the rule of the article. Sharp's problem is confined to the selection of variant readings as relates to the Deity of Christ, and where he seems to go against the rule by involving proper names. To be clear, Sharp himself says it cannot be used of proper names.

Since Sharp utilized some variant readings that are not found in the Textus Receptus; there is nothing to "correct" in those texts. The readings don't match the necessary conditions. (e.g., 2 Timothy 4:1 TR, τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and not τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, = 2 articles, 2 different people). Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 already refer to Christ as "God and our Saviour," so again there is nothing to correct. While I note the Greek writers who advance Ephesians 5:5, the question is whether they understood "Christ" as a proper name or title. I feel Paul uses it as a proper name, and that therefore Sharp's rule--correctly followed as he states it--does not apply. Chrysostom treats it as a title, which is legitimate, too. But I prefer to err on the side of caution. 1 Timothy 5:21 and 2 Thess. 1:12 both contain commas in Beza's Textus Receptus, which was the main text utilized by the KJV translators. I believe that accounts for every instance?

As for 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and 1 Timothy 5:21 and Ephesians 5:5, the single article still has the function of referencing the uniting of Father and Son in their various ways.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
As for 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and 1 Timothy 5:21 and Ephesians 5:5, the single article still has the function of referencing the uniting of Father and Son in their various ways.
Click to expand...

Sure.
Except for the grammatical charlatans who insist that the connection or uniting must be identity.
Mark them.
 
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
Except for the grammatical charlatans who insist that the connection or uniting must be identity.
Click to expand...
I believe my opinion, though it is my own, also reflects the general consensus on those passages. While Ephesians 5:5 has some patristic support, and pre-Sharp support (Ridgley, al), the others don't seem to have any known patristic support, and that strengthens the point here that the rule didn't apply due to a proper name.

Still, you have to distinguish between the rules of the article itself, and abuses of the rules. Not only Sharp, but also some of his critics, used examples that actually did not fall under the rule as properly defined (either to promote or criticize the rule). The problem in each of these cases is not the rule, rather, the misapplication of it.

Brian Winter said:
As for 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and 1 Timothy 5:21 and Ephesians 5:5, the single article still has the function of referencing the uniting of Father and Son in their various ways.
Click to expand...
To be specific: united under one kingdom (Ephesians 5:5), united under one grace (2 Thess. 1:12), and one charge of Paul equally before them both (1 Timothy 5:21).

Steven Avery said:
This is Daniel Dana in 1810, William Allen is the printer.
Click to expand...
Oops! Thanks for the correction. I fixed it above.

Steven Avery said:
So you accept #8 NJB but reject 6 Berkeley and 9 Cassirer?
Click to expand...
I don't approve of inserting English words unsupported by the Greek, and I don't understand the rationale of turning an article followed by the verb "to be" as "He who is" when there is a direct antecedent for the article.

Steven Avery said:
Tweaking, the 1770 edition looks to have the similar Ridgley note
Click to expand...
The work was first published 1731. Unfortunately I can't find the copy.
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
Updates and corrections will be made directly to this post.

This is a survey of readings, so there may be some mistakes that will be revised as references are more thoroughly examined.

Survey of English Comments on the Passages of Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13​

Some quoted the texts verbatim from the 1611 or 1769 AV editions, others used independent translations (i.e., translations not conforming to the AV, editions unknown if applicable). Most of them simply reason from the English rendering. Some of them note the rule of the Greek article to reinforce it against the Socinians, etc. As it is a survey, I didn't make much effort in correcting any mistakes in the title that came from copying and pasting from Google books. In some cases references simply cover to the beginning of whatever section. "Independent" translation simply means the source edition, if applicable, is unknown.

Note that English punctuation prior to the mid-eighteenth century was not syntactical, but elocutionary--that is, merely as a form of articulation--and excessive punctuation was common in English works prior to the 18th century.

By the end of the 16th century . . . their purpose was elocutionary, not syntactical . . . Excessive punctuation was common in the 18th century: at its worst it used commas with every subordinate clause and separable phrase...[Encyclopedia Brittanica]​

Thus in most of the following works, the punctuation is treated in the same manner depending on how the author chose to articulate. The AV 1769 edition followed a more syntactical approach in its revision. However, it was not until 1906 that the current usage was established, and that more strictly in American English.

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. Some are bold to highlight a note of some importance.
  1. John Brooke (1578), A Christian Discourse, p. 54b, (Titus 2:13 - referencing the verse in a doxological statement, “looking for that blessed hope and notable appearing of the glorie of the mightie God, which is our Sauiour Jesus Christ, unto whom be glorie for euer, Amen.” Marginal note referencing Titus 2).

  2. *** 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., (1668, 1686 Editions consulted) 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.

  3. *** Theodore Beza, 1588 Edition Textus Receptus, p. 353 col. 2 line 23 (CSNTM 8539) (also produced in his 1598 edition). In a lengthy footnote, writes 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." Beza's 1588 and 1598 editions were the primary Greek source for the 1611 translation of the AV.

  4. Geneva Bible (1580, 1599, 1602 editions consulted), footnote, Romans 9:5, "A most manifest testimonie of the Godhead and diuinitie 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 mightie God, and his appearance and comming is called by the figure Metonymie, our hope." The title page indicates that the text was "translated out of Greeke by Theod. Beza," (i.e., using his Greek text) and the note here briefly expresses what Beza has placed in a footnote of his Greek editions.

  5. Huge Broughton (1611), A Svpplication to the Kinges Maiestie, p. 19 (Commenting on the book of Revelation, he writes, "and the troupes that give glorie to God and the Lambe: and pray onely to the Lambe, the great God and Saviour," referencing Titus 2:13 AV word order)

  6. 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")

  7. David Pareus, Henry Parry, Zacharias Ursinus (1617), The Summe of Christian Religion, p. 437 ("2. He is called God absolutely and simply, as is the Father. 3. The Epithetes or titles of diuine honour, which are euery where in the scriptures attributed vnto the Sonne: as, God blessed for euer: The great God, and Sauiour," etc. Both texts here are from the then recently published AV 1611 edition)

  8. Paul Baynes (1618), A Counterbane Against Earthly Carefulnes, p. 4 (Titus 2:13, "Gods righteousnes is sometime put for that righteousnes that is in Christ our great God and Sauiour, and is by faith laid holde of by vs."). (1628), Christian Letters, "through him our great God and Sauiour, who hath washed vs with his bloud."

  9. 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").

  10. 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”)

  11. 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")

  12. Edmund Lechmere (1632), A Disputation of the Church, p. 165, "The same Apostle in his Epistle to the Romas doth avouch our blessed Saviour, in plaine termes, to be God," and afterward quotes the verse, ending in, "God blessed forever."

  13. George Downame (1633), A treatise of Justification, p. 128. (Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1 AV, "the righeousnesse of God and our Saviour Iesus Christ; which is an excellent testimony to prove the Deity of our Saviour, like to that, Tit. 2, 13 for it is not said of God, & of our Saviour, as noting two persons, but of God and our Saviour, as betokening one.")

  14. 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.")

  15. 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.")

  16. 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.")

  17. *** 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”)

  18. 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)

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

  20. 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."

  21. 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).

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

  23. 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).

  24. *** 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)

  25. William Lyford (1655), The Plain Man’s Senses Exercised to Discern Both Good and Evil, p. 94. “Christ is called God properly, and absolutely in his Nature by the Apostle. Rom. 9.5 . . . over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. The Apostle there doth distinguish in Christ two natures, God and man, and as truly as he is man of the seed of David, so truly is is God over all blessed for ever.”

  26. 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).

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

  28. 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)

  29. 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?")

  30. Elizabeth Bathurst (1679), Truth's Vindication, p. 7. (Romans 9:5 AV, among passages showing Christ is of the same Eternal substance with the Father, being both one with and equal to the Father.)

  31. 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).

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

  33. *** 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).

  34. *** 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)

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

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

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

  38. *** 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.)

  39. 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).

  40. *** 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).

  41. 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.")

  42. 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)

  43. *** 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.”

  46. *** 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)

  47. William Sherlock (1706), Scripture Proofs of Our Saviour’s Divinity Explained and Vindicated, pp. 37-39. (Criticizing the Socinians for falsely claiming “God” was not a part of the original text, identifies Romans 9:5 as a “Proof of the Eternal Godhead of Christ ; for the Blessed One is the Blessed God : But yet we must not part with any word of Scripture, especially such a material word as God, upon such slight and frivolous pretences.” He notes that it, “says no more of Christ, than what is said in other Places of Scripture: As, that he is over all; that he is God; that he is the Blessed.”

  48. 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.

  49. *** 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).

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

  51. *** 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)

  52. *** 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)

  53. 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.")

  54. 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).

  55. 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.").

  56. *** 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)

  57. *** 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.)

  58. 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")

  59. *** William Lorimer, A Plain Explication of the First Eighter Verses of the First Chapter of the Gospel Written by St. John, pp. 34, 35. (Titus 2:13, notes that the single article denotes one person is in view)

  60. *** 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.

  61. *** 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.)

  62. *** 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. )

  63. 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)

  64. *** Robert Witham (1733), Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ, p. 298 (Notes the rule of the article in this passage, that "And that this Title of great God, is here given to Jesus Christ, may be shewn from the Text it self, especially in the Greek . . . 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.)

  65. *** Richard Challoner (1735), The Young Gentleman Instructed in the Grounds of the Christian Religion, pp. 127, 128. Romans 9:5, “God blessed for ever,” Titus 2:13, “great God and our Saviour” among passages where Christ is “absolutely called God.” On Romans 2:13, he notes the Great God and Saviour are under one article in the Greek.

  66. *** 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)

  67. *** 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'").

  68. 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).

  69. 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)

  70. 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)

  71. 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)

  72. *** 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)

  73. *** 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.

  74. *** 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)

  75. *** 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)

  76. 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."

  77. 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)

  78. 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)

Alternative views​

  1. *** Samuel Clarke, an Arian (1738), The scripture doctrine of the trinity..., pp. 279, 281. (Titus 2:13, of the Father. Remarks on the usage of the article in a lengthy exposition that includes 2 Peter 1:1, and notes the usage of the article in both places can indicate a single person. Clarke dismisses this on flimsy grounds, because--he says--sometimes persons don't have the article before their names, so that may be why it happens here. But there is found no satisfactory rebuttal of the rule itself).

  2. *** Johannes Crellius, a Socinian (1691) - The Unity of God. Asserted and Defended, p. 189 notes arguments to the contrary relying on the use of the article in Titus 2:13, but dismisses it by noting that a same construction is used in Jude 4, speaking of two persons. He does not substantiate why; ironically, Jude 4 is one of the Christological passages offered by Sharp as speaking of one person. (Note: the TR contains a comma in the Greek text between τὸν μόνον δεσπότην Θεόν and καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, which breaks up the construction). Romans 9:5, p. 58, wrongly states the reading should translated be "a God over all to be blessed for evermore."

  3. Stephen Nye, a Unitarian (1687), A Brief History of the Unitarians, Called Also Socinians, pp. 117, 140. Romans 9:5, p. 117 Claims that "God" is missing from the Syriac, as well as passages from Ignatius and other Fathers, and thus concludes that "It is very probable . . . that the word God was not originally in this text, for they read it thus." In Titus 2:13, p. 140, makes "the glory" the subject, so that Christ is the glory of the great God. This abuses the attributive genitive, which means "glorious."

  4. John Biddle, a Unitarian (1691), The Faith of One God, who is Only the Father, pp. 15, 40. While noting the passage of Titus 2:13 held by several of the ancient writers to be speaking of God, he misuses the genitive construction τῆς δόξης to mean "of the glory," saying it speaks not of the "glorious appearing," but the "appearing of the glory." Thus he says it means, "The Son shall appear in the glory of the Father." This view is taken up in modern times by Gordon Fee, and for a time appears to be the main contention of the Unitarian/Socinian faction. After quoting the passage of Romans 9:5 from the AV, he attempts to correct it from the Greek based on the omission of an article before "God." He also explains at length how Romans 9:5 should really be "who is over all a God to be blessed for ever," subordinate to the Father. In early Socinian theology, it was said Jesus was merely a God by office.

    In another work, A Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity, p. 38 Biddle makes the postpositive placement of the adjective "blessed" after "God" all the more clear when he speaks of Christ as "a God blessed forever."

  5. Matthew Tindal, a controversial Deist (1695), A Third Collection of Tracts, proving the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only True God; and Jesus Christ the Son of God . . . Disproving the Doctrine of Three Almighty Real Subsisting Persons, etc. p. 29. Tindal rejects the AV rendering of Romans 9:5, stating that "God" is omitted in the Syriac and (incorrectly) by Cyprian and Chrysostom, but "allowing" that the word "God" be rightly read in this place, promotes the reading "the God over all be blessed forever. Amen."

  6. The Racovian Catechisme, a nontrinitarian Polish Brethren (Socinian) statement of faith (1652), p. 40. Circumvents the translation of Titus 2:13 by changing “glorious” to “the glory,” thus making Christ the glory of God. This abuses the adjectival usage of the genitive in this place.
Sharp's work was published in 1798.

Again, this is a quick survey so corrections are welcome.
 
Last edited:
B

Brianrw

Member
Steven Avery said:
Whitby has a lot more in:

The Last Thoughts of Dr. Whitby
By Daniel Whitby
https://books.google.com/books?id=XGtAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA56
https://books.google.com/books?id=UUtVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA79
Click to expand...

Whitby's late Unitarian Conversion​

Whitby began following Unitarianism toward the end of his life and his Last Thoughts served as a retraction. You seem to be drawn too closely to their arguments in matters concerning the Deity of Christ, and I am telling you in those places they always wrest the rules of Greek grammar, or the text itself, so that the passages do not read thus.

Whitby promotes the conjectural emendation of ὁ ὢν to ὢν ὁ in Romans 9:5​

His explanation on Romans 9:5 is absolutely terrible, and certainly not one I would expound here. He follows the Socinian/Unitarian emendation through transposition of the article and verb: that is, altering ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς into ὢν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. The Socinians have also tried to wrest θεὸς from the text, or to alter the end of the text in English translation. Promoting multiple views doesn't matter to them, as long as they are able to muddy the true interpretation of the text. How he actually reads the text is at the same time blatantly obvious, as testifying of Christ as God. Otherwise, there would be no need for the emendation.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian Winter said:
Daniel Whitby (1709) A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament ... By D. Whitby. The Thir... - Google Books p. 510, col. 1. (Independent translation)
Click to expand...

Whitby has a lot more in:

The Last Thoughts of Dr. Whitby
By Daniel Whitby
https://books.google.com/books?id=XGtAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA56
https://books.google.com/books?id=UUtVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA79
Brian Winter said:
Whitby promotes the conjectural emendation of ὁ ὢν to ὢν ὁ in Romans 9:5
His explanation on Romans 9:5 is absolutely terrible, and certainly not one I would expound here. He follows the Socinian/Unitarian emendation through transposition of the article and verb: that is, altering ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς into ὢν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. The Socinians have also tried to wrest θεὸς from the text, or to alter the end of the text in English translation. Promoting multiple views doesn't matter to them, as long as they are able to muddy the true interpretation of the text. How he actually reads the text is at the same time blatantly obvious, as testifying of Christ as God. Otherwise, there would be no need for the emendation.
Click to expand...

And I think his analysis is more on Hippolytus and ECW than the decrepit emendation, attempt.

Again, you insist that this is a dichotomy, when I showed you with Murray that the interpretations run in 3 groups.

A. Jesus is God (6,8,9) - textually worthless, although you would allow 6 and 9
B. Beautiful high Christology (AV and similar, where generally the doxology is seen to the Lord Jesus Christ.)
C. Socinian glosses (worthless(
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top