Chrysostom

[Steven Avery]

Discourses and Dissertations on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice: And on the Principal Arguments Advanced, and the Mode of Reasoning Employed, by the Opponents of Those Doctrines as Held by the Established Church. With an Appendix Containing Some Strictures on Mr. Belsham's Account of the Unitarian Scheme, in His Review of Mr. Wilberforce's Treatise; Together with Remarks on the Version of the New Testament, Lately Published by the Unitarians, Volume 2, Part 2 (1817)
William Magee
https://books.google.com/books?id=jFIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA106

Erasmus details

Erasmus Annotationes
https://books.google.com/books?id=SekxAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA230

 

[Steven Avery]

The divinity of Christ, a sermon. With an appendix on Romans ix. 5, and Titus ii. 13
Benjamin Hall Kennedy (1883)
https://books.google.com/books?id=lLQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA26

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

Biblical Notes and Dissertations, Chiefly Intended to Confirm and Illustrate the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ: With Some Remarks on the Practical Importance of that Doctrine (1830)
Joseph John Gurney
https://books.google.com/books?id=cJxhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA423

Adds Grotius into the Erasmus mix

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

Scripture and Scholarship in Early Modern England
edited by Ariel Hessayon, Nicholas Keene
https://books.google.com/books?id=P0bObTmMazAC&pg=PA127

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

 

[Steven Avery]

Homily 16 on Romans
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm

And this is also the reason of his setting down such things as set forth God's gift, not such as were encomiums upon them. For the adoption came of His grace, and so too the glory, and the promises, and the Law. After taking all these things then into consideration, and reflecting how earnest God along with His Son, had been for their salvation, he lifts up his voice aloud, and says, Who is blessed forever. Amen.

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia....Homilies_on_The_Epistle_To_The_Romans,_EN.pdf

After speaking of kinsmen then, he proceeds,
"To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the father's, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

For when he tells of any great and unutterable thing of this kind, he ends in wonder with a doxology. And this he does in regard to the Son also. For in that passage also he went on to the very same thing that he does here. "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all God blessed forever. Amen.

Homily 16
https://books.google.com/books?id=cCZLAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA279

And what is this ? one asks. For if with a view to the

==================================================|

Homilies Against Arians
https://books.google.com/books?id=jzYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA119

==================================================|

On the Incomprehensible Nature of God
https://books.google.com/books?id=0CAnDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA300
https://books.google.com/books?id=sJ1ZMYr7NAwC&pg=PA145

On the Incomprehensible Nature of God 5.2.
And Paul said: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever, Amen.” And again: “No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” And still again: "through the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” And John calls him by the same name of God when he says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.”

==================================================|

 

[Steven Avery]

On the Right Use of the Early Fathers: Two Series of Lectures, Delivered in the University of Cambridge (1857)
John James Blunt
https://books.google.com/books?id=gQYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA470

Sermons on Biblical and Theological Subjects. (1864)
Thomas Allin
https://books.google.com/books?id=_lRpAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA309

 

[Steven Avery]

Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew
The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom.
Matthew I. 17.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Romans 9:5

How then was He of the root of Jesse? How was He a rod? how Son of man? how was Mary His mother? how was He of David’s seed? how did he “take the form of a servant?” .how “was the Word made flesh?” and how saith Paul to the Romans, “Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all?” . Therefore that He was of us, and of our substance, φυρματο.and of the Virgin’s womb, is manifest from these things, and from others beside; but how, is not also manifest. Do not either thou then inquire; but receive what is revealed, and be not curious about what is kept secret.

 

[Steven Avery]

Burgon says ..
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA212

We find that the expression ‘ who is over all [things], God blessed for ever * is expressly acknowledged to refer to our Saviour by the following 60 illustrious names:— ... Chrysostom, 8 times ... All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal GODhead of Christ.

 

[Steven Avery]

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

This seems to be above

29) Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew
The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom.
Matthew I. 17.

How then was He of the root of Jesse? How was He a rod? how Son of man? how was Mary His mother? how was He of David’s seed? how did he “take the form of a servant?” .how “was the Word made flesh?” .and how saith Paul to the Romans, “Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all?” Therefore that He was of us, and of our substance, φυρματο.and of the Virgin’s womb, is manifest from these things, and from others beside; but how, is not also manifest. Do not either thou then inquire; but receive what is revealed, and be not curious about what is kept secret

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

30 and 31 are nothings

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

This seems to be above.

32) Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans
The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Roman
Homily XVI on Rom. ix. 1.

Ver. 4, 5. “To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the father’s, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

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

33) Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans
The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans Homily XIX on Rom. xi. 7.

Romans 9:5
For when he tells of any great and unutterable thing of this kind, he ends in wonder with a doxology. And this he does in regard to the Son also. For in that passage also he went on to the very same thing that he does here. “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all God blessed forever. Amen.

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

34 is nothing

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

35) Chrysostom: Homilies on First and Second Corinthians
Homilies on First Corinthians.
Homily XX

[6.] Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, (Ps. cx. 1.) “The Lord saith unto My Lord;” and again, (Ps. lxv. 8.) “Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;” and, “Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all.” And in many instances you may see these names changing their places. Besides, if they were allotted to each nature severally, and if the Son were not God, and God as the Father, yet continuing a Son: after saying, “but to us there is but One God,” it would have been superfluous, his adding the word “Father,” with a view to declare the Unbegotten. For the word of God was sufficient to explain this, if it were such as to denote Him only.

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

36 - looks like index from 35

37= nothing

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

38)
Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews
The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John.
John 1.1

“Yet observe,” says he, “the Father is named with the addition of the article, but the Son without it.” What then, when the Apostle says, “The Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ” ; and again, “Who is above all, God”?

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

39)
Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews
The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John.
John 4.21,22

. Or rather, one would not be wrong in calling both these things “salvation” which He said was “of the Jews”; which Paul implied when he said, “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.”

 

[Brianrw]

(edits will be made directly to this post)

Chrysostom (347-407)​

1. Homilies on 1 Corinthians, 20.6 – "Nor yet, if you observe, has he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture uses also often to interchange them; as when it says [viz., of the Son], 'The Lord says unto My Lord;' and again, 'Wherefore God Your God has appointed You;' and, 'Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all.' And in many instances you may see these names changing their places."
   
   
2. On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, 5.2 – You have heard, therefore, that the Father is called Lord. Come now, and let me show you that the Son is called God . . . Paul said: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever, Amen." And again: "No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." And still again: "through the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." And John calls him by the same name of God when he says: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God."
   
   
3. Homily III (IV).3 On the Gospel of John – Consider now that the case is the same in this place. He did not use the expression as assigning limits, since he did not say, "had a beginning," but "was in the beginning"; by the word "was" carrying you forward to the idea that the Son is without beginning. "Yet observe," says he, "the Father is named with the addition of the article, but the Son without it." What then, when the Apostle says [viz., of the Son], "The Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13); and again, "Who is above all, God"? (Romans 9:5)
   
   
4. Homily XIX on Romans – For when he tells of any great and unutterable thing of this kind, he ends in wonder with a doxology. And this he does in regard to the Son also. For in that passage also he went on to the very same thing that he does here. “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all God blessed forever.”
   
   
5. Homily Homily XXXIII on John 4:21, 22. He speaketh of His own Coming. Or rather, one would not be wrong in calling both these things “salvation” which He said was “of the Jews”; which Paul implied when he said, “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.” Seest thou how He commendeth the old Covenant, and showeth that it is the root of blessings, and that He is throughout not opposed to the Law, since He maketh the groundwork of all good things to come from the Jews?
   
   
6. Homily on Matthew 1:17,speaking of Christ's manifestation in the flesh:
   how “was the Word made flesh?” and how saith Paul to the Romans, “Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all?” Therefore that He was of us, and of our substance, and of the Virgin’s womb, is manifest from these things, and from others beside; but how, is not also manifest. Do not either thou then inquire; but receive what is revealed, and be not curious about what is kept secret.

Scripture and Scholarship in Early Modern England
edited by Ariel Hessayon, Nicholas Keene
https://books.google.com/books?id=P0bObTmMazAC&pg=PA127

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

Erasmus is not a good source in this instance. Erasmus' views on many passages concerning the Deity of Christ was clouded by his personal inclination toward Arianism, though he outwardly purposed to follow the Orthodox faith. He is the cause of many of the troubles stirred up by the Socinians and Unitarians over such passages. He was sharply criticized for his treatment of such passages both during his lifetime and after.

His assertion that such words were missing in these writers has long since been dispelled.

Regarding the "relative pronoun," Beza aptly refutes Erasmus on this point in his annotations to the 1588 and 1598 editions of the Textus Receptus:

Who is, ὁ ὢν. That this is the authentic punctuation and interpretation of this passage is revealed partly in the supreme consensus of all our manuscripts, partly also in the very series of orations. For it was proper that the Deity of Christ also be explained, so that it might appear what excellence of the Israelite nation is in him, that Christ was born of it. That is, that He is both man and God, and not merely because he was the most excellent of all men. For why else would that τὸ κατὰ σάρκα be added if he were but a mere man? Certainly nothing here is violent or far-fetched, and I cannot be surprised enough that Erasmus had come to mind to say that the meaning of this sentence was to be written ὂς ὢν rather than ὁ ὢν. For, on the other hand, if you read ὂς ὢν, the construction of the words will expire, unless you subscribe ἐστιν after εὐλογητὸς. And no one who meets the Greek utterance afresh is unaware of the prepositional clause with the participle [i.e. ὢν] often constructed in place of a provocative verb with a finite verb, so that ὁ ὢν means nothing else than ὅς ἐστι. He, however, devised two other punctuations, contrary to the fidelity of all the manuscripts which we have observed (God knows by what conscience. Far be it from me to insult even the living, let alone the dead), that they might be outright rejected. One is that, attaching a period after πάντων, what follows constitutes a new clause. Thus, Ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων. Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, “…who is over all. God be blessed forever.” The other, he says, is to finish the sentence after σάρκα, then connecting the following words in this way: Ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. “God, who is above all, be blessed forever.” (Translation credit, Brian Winter)​

The same construction is found in 2 Corinthians 11:31, ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, where the article of reference (rather than a pronoun) is utilized. This construction is frequently utilized in the Greek New Testament (e.g. John 1:18 ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, 3:13 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, etc.), as well as the Greek Old Testament.

 

[Steven Avery]

William Magee, perhaps the best contra-Erasmus writers on Romans 9:5 is given in the first part of the first post, without the text, which I now place some here.

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

Here is the

Erasmus Annotationes on Romans 9:5
http://books.google.com/books?id=SekxAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA230

His Paraphrase text would be helpful, also the correspondence with Albert Pio.

Edward Lee is with Aquinas (often overlooked) contra Erasmus
https://books.google.com/books?id=hg9bLcQ8esoC&pg=PA162

Jan Krans gives Ersamus background, including Valladolid, and could use a careful study
https://archive.org/details/BeyondW...ConjecturalCriticsOfTheNew/page/n125/mode/2up

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

Here are two spots where the Erasmus notes are well handled from the "Orthodox" perspective. (Gurney url was above.)

(It would also be good to check out Edwin Hamilton Gifford who went toe-to-toe with Benjamin Hall Kennedy and also the Italian paper from Faggio which may cover Erasmus.)

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

Discourses and Dissertations on the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and Sacrifice: And on the Principal Arguments Advanced, and the Mode of Reasoning Employed, by the Opponents of Those Doctrines as Held by the Established Church. With an Appendix Containing Some Strictures on Mr. Belsham's Account of the Unitarian Scheme, in His Review of Mr. Wilberforce's Treatise; Together with Remarks on the Version of the New Testament, Lately Published by the Unitarians, Volume 2, Part 2 (1817)
https://books.google.com/books?id=jFIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA106

William Magee on Chrysostom and Erasmus (and Belsham on Erasmus) and more.

Continues - extensive

William Magee (archbishop of Dublin) (1766-1831)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Magee_(archbishop_of_Dublin)

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

Joseph John Gurney has additional complementary material.

Biblical Notes and Dissertations (1830)
Joseph John Gurney
https://books.google.com/books?id=cJxhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA423

Joseph John Gurney - (1788-1847)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_John_Gurney

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

Less important

John Calvin and his notes by John Owen (1788-1867) published 1849 make a couple of points involving Erasmus and Chrysostom.
https://books.google.com/books?id=YyJVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA341

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

Some less exhaustive debunkings of Erasmus

Gerard de Gols (1726)
https://archive.org/details/vindicationofwor00dego/page/40/mode/2up

Alvah Hovey
https://books.google.com/books?id=kXo9AAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA220

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

Sympathetic to Erasmus and Grotius

Benjamin Dawson (1765)
https://books.google.com/books?id=7_ZhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA38

 

[Steven Avery]

And I had covered a lot of the Erasmus material here.

Pure Bible Forum
Erasmus at Valladolid and Romans 9:5
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index...030/#post-6091

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

Lu Ann Homza discusses Valladolid on p. 93 and 113 - excellent!
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3039329?seq=16#metadata_info_tab_contents

Valladolid and Erasmus material in this Erasmus book
https://books.google.com/books?id=9zOPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA62

Ezra Abbot discusses Erasmus in various spots, outside the context of Chrysostom. Valladolid effects changes by Erasmus.
https://books.google.com/books?id=830FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA108
https://books.google.com/books?id=830FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA116
https://books.google.com/books?id=830FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA144

Peter G. Bietenholz is generally good on scholarship and has references, p. 50-51and p. 61, includes Fausto Sozzini and Daniel Zwicker
http://books.google.com/books?id=1cxY0mm2ZwMC&pg=PA50

Coogan
http://books.google.com/books?id=hg9bLcQ8esoC&pg=PA112
interesting - Bellarmine contra Transylvanians who use Erasmus
.. this next url is unwure
http://books.google.com/books?id=hg9bLcQ8esoC&pg=PA162
or 16

 

[Steven Avery]

A few more to go over in Linkman with

erasmus romans 9:5 not coogan not krans not hovey not farrar not gifford not homza not chrysostom not abbot not keene not aff not bietenh not gols not dawson not drummond not valladolid not kettner not alberto

In search bar - not much there, I got the goodies above, Lange is one to check.

 

[Steven Avery]

Erasmus' views on many passages concerning the Deity of Christ was clouded by his personal inclination toward Arianism, though he outwardly purposed to follow the Orthodox faith. He is the cause of many of the troubles stirred up by the Socinians and Unitarians over such passages. He was sharply criticized for his treatment of such passages both during his lifetime and after.

Theodore Letis wrote about this aspect of how the Socinians and Unitarians worked with Erasmus material.
(Sometimes improperly, as in Romans 9:5, and the heavenly witnesses, although it would be good to revisit Letis details.)

Then there is interplay with Jan Krans, who does make a pithy critique of Letis, but does not really cover this point of Socianian piggy-backing.

Grantley McDonald made this a major theme of his work, and he acknowledged missing Letis.

 

[Steven Avery]

Summary - sometimes Brian is more complete, sometimes less

Homilies on First Corinthians. - Brian #1
Homily XX.6
[6.] Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, (Ps. cx. 1.) “The Lord saith unto My Lord;” and again, (Ps. lxv. 8.) “Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;” and, “Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all.”

On the Incomprehensible Nature of God 5.2 - Brian #2
You have heard, therefore, that the Father is called Lord. Come now, and let me show you that the Son is called God . . . And Paul said: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever, Amen.” And again: “No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” And still again: "through the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” And John calls him by the same name of God when he says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.”

The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John. - Brian #3
John 1.1
Consider now that the case is the same in this place. He did not use the expression as assigning limits, since he did not say, "had a beginning," but "was in the beginning"; by the word "was" carrying you forward to the idea that the Son is without beginning. "Yet observe," says he, "the Father is named with the addition of the article, but the Son without it." What then, when the Apostle says [viz., of the Son], "The Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ"; and again, "Who is above all, God"?

The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans Homily XIX on Rom. xi. 7. - Brian #4
For when he tells of any great and unutterable thing of this kind, he ends in wonder with a doxology. And this he does in regard to the Son also. For in that passage also he went on to the very same thing that he does here. “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all God blessed forever. Amen.

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

To ADD - FOUR

Homilies Against Arians (check this work)
https://books.google.com/books?id=jzYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA119

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

Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew
Matthew I. 17.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Romans 9:5

How then was He of the root of Jesse? How was He a rod? how Son of man? how was Mary His mother? how was He of David’s seed? how did he “take the form of a servant?” .how “was the Word made flesh?” and how saith Paul to the Romans, “Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all?” . Therefore that He was of us, and of our substance, φυρματο.and of the Virgin’s womb, is manifest from these things, and from others beside; but how, is not also manifest. Do not either thou then inquire; but receive what is revealed, and be not curious about what is kept secret.

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

The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John.
John 4.21,22
. Or rather, one would not be wrong in calling both these things “salvation” which He said was “of the Jews”; which Paul implied when he said, “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.”

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

Homily 16 on Romans (different than Homily XIX)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm

Chrysostom on Rm 1600

www.clerus.org

And this is also the reason of his setting down such things as set forth God's gift, not such as were encomiums upon them. For the adoption came of His grace, and so too the glory, and the promises, and the Law. After taking all these things then into consideration, and reflecting how earnest God along with His Son, had been for their salvation, he lifts up his voice aloud, and says, Who is blessed forever. Amen.

Earlier on Homily 16- not about over all or God blessed

Homily XVI: Rm IX. 1.

Chrysostom on Rm 1600

www.clerus.org

And what is this? one asks. For if with a view to the belief of others he was willing to become accursed, he ought to have also wished for this in the Gentiles’ behalf. But if he wishes it in the Jews’ behalf only, it is a proof that he did not wish it for Christ’s sake, but for his own relationship to them. But in fact if he had prayed for the Gentiles only, this would not have been equally clear. But since it is for the Jews only, it is a clear proof that it is only for Christ’s glory that he is thus earnest.

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

About three of the eight might show apposition, but that would require Greek analysis.

 

[Brianrw]

Summary - sometimes Brian is more complete, sometimes less

I'm aware of several other quotations, but it's not adequate that there is a quotation only. I noted the clear examples that show how Chrysostom understood the text. How the early writers comment on the verse tells us how they understood the construction, and there is no ambiguities mentioned or present in any of there commentaries.

he lifts up his voice aloud, and says, Who is blessed forever. Amen.

The context of the quotation from Homily 16 should be extended:

After taking all these things then into consideration, and reflecting how earnest God along with His Son, had been for their salvation, he lifts up his voice aloud, and says, "Who is blessed forever. Amen." So himself offering up thanksgiving for all men unto the Only-Begotten of God.​

This very aptly states the same thing I have been saying to you about where the blessing is coming from.

o ADD - FOUR

Homilies Against Arians (check this work)
https://books.google.com/books?id=jzYBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA119

This work is more of a biography that utilizes snippets and summaries of Chrysostom's remarks. "Homilies against the Arians" is a subject header in that work.

About three of the eight might show apposition, but that would require Greek analysis.

Greek quotations don't work the same as English, because it is an inflected language, word order is quite flexible and therefore many quotes are elliptical among the ancient writers. When you see a commentator saying Christ is ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, "God over all," they are essentially taking that from ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς. If he quotes "who is blessed forever," it is ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. If they say, "God blessed forever," it is then (ὁ) Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.

Also, smaller constructions may look different in English even though the meaning is not. If I reduce it to ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν, when that comes into English it is "God is blessed" (a predicate adjective). However, in the longer context we have an equative clause, so placing "blessed" in the postpositive position has the same force of the predicate adjective. While the English expression changes, the meaning does not. Most simply, the meaning of the Greek does not change when it comes into English, though the form of the English expression will reflect how a translator best feels the meaning can be related in English.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm aware of several other quotations, but it's not adequate that there is a quotation only. I noted the clear examples that show how Chrysostom understood the text. How the early writers comment on the verse tells us how they understood the construction, and there is no ambiguities mentioned or present in any of there commentaries.

That means you are not doing real scholarship, only posting what you consider confirmation bias.

By comparison, I am posting any relevant texts I find, that is real scholarship, albeit with limited resources.

Thank you for the Arians note.

Yes, what you can tell from the English is often limited. The English translator can easily push the meaning closer to their ideas, especially when the Greek or Latin is ambiguous.

However, there are many quotes from many writers that do tell you from context, either an understanding of apposition, or no indication of apposition whatsoever, at least in specific usages.

The learned men of the AV have a far higher respect to the Greek word order than piddle Greek seminarians. This is understandable, the most natural way of thinking about a sentence is in the order it is written, or spoken.

This is why you have to de facto pretend that the AV text has a comma after God, because the natural reading as given in the AV does not support your apposition theory. And then to hide that, you have to go into your silly comma theories, as if there is a Chinese wall between elocutionary and syntactical commas, and the elocutionary comma pause has no grammatical relevance. Stuff like that really hurts your credibility. However, I now sympathize a bit more with your pained attempts, since you work your ideas backwards, from doctrinal preference to text. See your comment right above in this post.

 

[Brianrw]

Returning to the matter at hand, and of note, is that Chrysostom in the Greek states that Christ is referred to as God in the construction ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, "who is God over all/who is over all, God," which is certainly not the reading you were hoping for.

That means you are not doing real scholarship, only posting what you consider confirmation bias.

By comparison, I am posting any relevant texts I find, that is real scholarship, albeit with limited resources.

No. I am simply looking for places where Chrysostom quotes the passage in such a way that gives good insight as to how he understands the construction. One might enter a verse search into https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/ and pop up a bunch of references and paste them and pretend they've performed "real scholarship." The process I undertake is far more laborious than that, and it is not completed in day.

This is why you have to de facto pretend that the AV text has a comma after God, because the natural reading as given in the AV does not support your apposition theory.

The AV construction literally uses an apposition to preserve the order of the Greek words, so it's interesting you keep fighting me on this. For example, Steven Avery, Administrator extraordinaire is Subject (Steven Avery)-->[identifier comma]-->Appositive (Administrator)-->Postpositive adjective (extraordinaire). The postpositive adjective does not require a comma; you came up with the above requirement on your own. That is manifestly the same English construction you are looking at with "Christ . . . , God blessed forever," where "God" is an appositive to Christ and "blessed" is an adjective in the postpositive position. It is a valid way to translate the predicate nominative from the Greek construction, and in fact the best way to emphasize "over all" and preserve the juxtaposition of "God" and "blessed."

Whether you translate it in English as "God over all, blessed" or "over all, God blessed," there is no difference in meaning. Both refer to Christ as God.

This is understandable, the most natural way of thinking about a sentence is in the order it is written, or spoken.

The most typical word order in Greek (though it is not fixed) is verb, subject, object. But because the language is inflected (having nominative, genitive, accusative, and grammatical gender), there is significantly more flexibility than English, and word order is more about emphasis. English word order is subject, object, verb.

You also should not insult individuals who have taken time to learn the language, when you yourself have not bothered to learn it at all.

 

[Steven Avery]

Returning to the matter at hand, and of note, is that Chrysostom in the Greek states that Christ is referred to as God in the construction ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, "who is God over all/who is over all, God," which is certainly not the reading you were hoping for.

You are very confused. I am not "hoping for" one thing or another. As I am just enjoying determining the actual scholarship, which in fact afaik has never been done in English, although one web site was very helpful with about fifty usages. I went through all of them except Augustine is incomplete and needs a return.

Many writers do in fact write as if the text says Christ is God over all. When they do, I want to see the quotes, in context, and appreciate having one spot where it can be studied and discussed. When they do not, I want to also look at the context and usage.

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

Clearly, Burgon was grossly exaggerating in how he categorized the quotes. He is still very helpful, as well once you correct his claim. The problem was not his count of quotes, it was his claims. To his credit, he did not add a comma to the AV text.

He was saying the Socinian gloss was false. In that sense his argument is correct.

Some do, some don't.

 

[Steven Avery]

You also should not insult individuals who have taken time to learn the language, when you yourself have not bothered to learn it at all.

If the person does inane defenses of his new Winter Rule, the nonsense will be exposed. And I have found that often those involved in the languages, often piddle Greek seminarians, are the blindest of all. They simply can not think properly, especially if they have a false agenda. (examples: The Critical Text is right, the AV is wrong in not saying Jesus is God.)

Look at Professor Barry Hofstetter trying to defend the grammar of the short corruption earthly witnesses text. It was very easy to expose his fake arguments. (Well, easy, it did take a little time to dissect his fakery.) His defense was the same as yours, and similarly worthless.

Here is a post just the other day, the whole thread is good on the heavenly witnesses.

Biblical Greek Studies of the New Testament
www.facebook.com/groups/biblicalgreekstudies/posts/2051081548348955/?comment_id=3221086228015142

Btw, if anyone wants to pick up the ball that was dropped by Barry Hofstetter, please go ahead.
Please explain why Barry uses supposed analogies of verses with mixed gender nouns, when the discordance only has to do with one or more neuter gender nouns. (The moment there is a masculine or feminine noun it is no longer relevant.)
Please share if you agree with Barry that the participle controls the grammatical gender of 1 John 5:8. Thus meaning that even if it were 3 feminine nouns you would still have masculine grammar.
Thanks! All contributions appreciated!

Yet, Hofstetter knows the language. He even is a teacher. Yet his arguments are rock-dumb. And it is impossible for him to accept correction.

There is a gentleman on that thread who is fluent, a native Greek speaker. He used to support the short text. When he looked at the grammar he flipped to the truth, the heavenly witnesses are part of the original text.

Dealing with you on some topics, especially around your Winter Rule, is very similar to dealing with Hofstetter. He is way ahead of you in smugness and arrogance, but the basic motif is similar.

Similarly, your approach to Romans 9:5 as only looking for quotes that match your confirmation bias is unscholarly. Your efforts still help the studies, but they would be much better if you were really interested in the full survey. The fact that you do not understand this really hurts your credibility.

You would do much better using your Greek skills defending the AV text (heavenly witnesses, 1 Timothy 3:16) rather than clumsily attacking the AV text on three or four verses. You are a prisoner of your bogus rule, and your fake comma claim on Romans 9:5..

 

[Brianrw]

You are very confused. I am not "hoping for" one thing or another. As I am just enjoying determining the actual scholarship, which in fact afaik has never been done in English,

You've pretty much dismissed a host of evidence with "nope, wrong, mistaken, bogus," and other statements that could broadly fall under the umbrella of appealing to the stone and proof by assertion. So I think you are having a hard time dissociating your personal interpretation of the scriptures with the scriptures themselves. I don't think you're willing to be wrong, so I think that is leading you to be incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Clearly, Burgon was grossly exaggerating in how he categorized the quotes. He is still very helpful, as well once you correct his claim. The problem was not his count of quotes, it was his claimsh. To his credit, he did not add a comma to the AV text.

This conversation could be so much more productive if you simply stopped misstating and misrepresenting my views. It's a complete waste of my time. I didn't correct Burgon's claim. Our point of contention was over you saying "God blessed" means "blessed by God," which the Greek (I have truthfully said more times than I can count now) does not allow. The problem is that you see the English "God blessed forever," and you think it agrees with you.

Burgon is right, that the passage is among Irenaeus' texts that prove Christ is both perfect God and perfect man. Irenaeus quotes the full passage of Christ, and does not reveal any part of it to form a doxology to the Father. If we don't force a doxology to the Father by introducing punctuation, the passage speaks of Christ as both over all and God. But vs. Steven Avery (and Steven Avery virtually alone) "God blessed" has the idiosyncratic meaning of "blessed by God," and therefore every time it occurs in the English language (he can't be informed from the Greek) it must therefore mean what he incorrectly thinks it does.

If the person does inane defenses of his new Winter Rule, the nonsense will be exposed. And I have found that often those involved in the languages, often piddle Greek seminarians, are the blindest of all. They simply can not think properly, especially if they have a false agenda. (examples: The Critical Text is right, the AV is wrong in not saying Jesus is God.)

Ad hominem attacks are the last recourse when an argument is being lost. I haven't changed or reformulated any rule, but you sure have tried your best to butcher, obfuscate, exaggerate, and absolutely misrepresent virtually everything I am saying. Which is completely obnoxious, and is flat out slander, and needs to stop.

Winter Rule,

Literally, singular, personal epithet is a succinct statement that covers every point of the rule as expounded by Glassius and Sharp. It is, in fact, more Glassius than Sharp. It's certainly not my own. You can stop being silly now.

He was saying the Socinian gloss was false. In that sense his argument is correct.

Some do, some don't.

Please note the ones who don't, and that would not include writers who actually don't quote the verse.

 

[Steven Avery]

You've pretty much dismissed a host of evidence with "nope, wrong, mistaken, bogus," and other statements that could broadly fall under the umbrella of appealing to the stone and proof by assertion. So I think you are having a hard time dissociating your personal interpretation of the scriptures with the scriptures themselves. I don't think you're willing to be wrong, so I think that is leading you to be incredibly intellectually dishonest.

You are just fabricating, onto very sad railing accusations.

For many days I have been gathering the quotes, and respect the ones that say that Christ is God over all from the ECW. The effort to make a summary is very much in process. We now have the best summary of the ECW in existence in English, but it still would be nice to find some of the other dozen where Burgon gives the speaker but we have no quote. The Italian paper by Faccio might help. There might be a quote apparatus that would help. Also we have some like Gregory of Nyssa where we only have a small sampling of what Burgon said there should be.

You decided to take an unscholarly route of ignoring quotes that do not fit your confirmation bias. Sad that you took that route.

And why are you fabricating dismissals? It is very tacky. And the scholastic dishonesty there is all on you.