Origen

[Steven Avery]

Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=830FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA135

(continues)

 

[Steven Avery]

ACCS
https://books.google.com/books?id=Di41DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA238
https://books.google.com/books?id=SO1MnvC3ruYC&pg=PA246

 

[Steven Avery]

Burgon
Origen 5 ... All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal Godhead of CHRIST.
5 iv. 612.
Revision Revised
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA213

Ezra Abbot on the Burgon claim
https://books.google.com/books?id=tQonAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA134

Metzger on the Burgon list recommends Abbot and offers Alfred Durand, (1857/8-1928) a French writer
https://books.google.com/books?id=cS2hDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA64

Again, it is generally overlooked that there is a distinction between the AV beautiful high Christology text and the faux mistranslated "Jesus (or Christ) is God" texts. Murray and the modern corruption versions are helpful in sorting all that out.

Here is Durand.

“La divinité de Jésus-Christ dans S. Paul, Rom ix, 5'
(pp. 550-570)
Alfred Durand
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44102285

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

 

[Brianrw]

Abbot recognizes that the AV rendering speaks of Christ as God, and was seeking to discredit the reading.​

Caution is again urged when noting the grammatical arguments of Ezra Abbot (a Unitarian) in passages concerning the Deity of Christ. Here, he is no friend. On p. 112, Abbot writes,

But the construction followed in the common version is also grammatically objectionable; and if we assume that the Apostle and those whom he addressed believed Christ to be God, this construction likewise suits the context.​

The "common version" is another name by which the AV was referred, and there is nothing "grammatically objectionable" about the reading.

Abbot's Misuse of Origen​

Abuses of Origen's works are common among Unitarians and the Watchtower Society. While Origen may have held views bordering on heterodox if not outright, he did in fact proclaim the Trinity and I could demonstrate this in a number of clear instances. Here, the passage in Against Celsus is utilized out of context to sully the reading of Romans 9:5. Celsus was accusing Christians of elevating Christ above the Father, but Origen says that is not true, as Christ says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."

Origen, Commentary On Romans (Rufinus translation)​

It is clear from this passage that Christ is the "God who is over all." The one who is over all has nothing over him, for Christ does not come after the Father but from the Father. The Holy Spirit is also included in this, as it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord fills the earth, and whoever contains all things knows every sound." So if the Son is God over all and the Spirit is recorded as containing all things, it is clear that the nature and substance of the Trinity are shown to be one and over all things.​

Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=830FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA135

This Pseudo-Ignatius is a fourth century Arian interpolator (who does not quote the text)​

The unknown Arian interpolator, seizing on the name of Ignatius, writes,

I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born [only ] in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance; others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all.​

​

Again he writes, "And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son." He does not quote the passage from Romans 9:5, so it is no surprise that Burgon didn't cite him.

Abbot has a double standard​

If Abbot understands ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as meaning "God over all," then there should be no trouble in him understanding ὁ Χριστὸς . . . ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς as "Christ . . . who is God over all."

 

[Steven Avery]

You seem to be focused on Abbot, not Origen. Abbot of course is worthless in defending the Socinian gloss, however he is one contributor as to what early church writers say. Note above that his analysis was recommended by Metzger.

Here is Erasmus.
It is true that Origen was changed at times by Rufinus, so it is hard to evaluate.

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

Erasmus, the Growth of a Mind (1972)
James. D. Tracy
http://books.google.com/books?id=RqvtT9d522IC&pg=PA155

In many other instances the Fathers mistook either the text or, Erasmus thought, the position of the Arians. ... The passage in Origen’s Commentary on Romans, contending that this doxology should be predicated of Christ, was manifestly interpolated by some orthodox writer, probably St. Jerome 196

The Erasmus Annotationes is online, e.g. here is 1535:
https://books.google.com/books?id=X6poAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA392

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

For Bibliography Additions

 

[Steven Avery]

Erasmus added right above,

Also Posts 2 and 3 have been filled out on Origen.

Additional Origen notes:

Benjamin Hall Kennedy
https://books.google.com/books?id=lLQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA27


John Pye Smith (with Venema reference)
https://books.google.com/books?id=3c0tAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA376

 

[Brianrw]

You seem to be focused on Abbot, not Origen.

I'm focused on both, just I know Origen only quotes this passage in this place. I addressed what was in the snippet above, and provided a fuller quotation of Origen and the exact referenct. His commentary on Romans 9:5 is clear. If Rufinus did alter it, then it is Rufinus who testifies about the passage as a doxology to Christ as God in the late 4th, early 5th century. But the "maybe it was interpolated" card has little use if there is nothing to substantiate it. Unless demonstrated otherwise, the testimony of Origen should be regarded as what is found in his commentary. Such is the nature of criticism.

The passage in Origen’s Commentary on Romans, contending that this doxology should be predicated of Christ, was manifestly interpolated by some orthodox writer, probably St. Jerome

My reading is that "it is probable that this passage was corrected by Jerome, or if there was any other translator..." Though I admit that while I understand the Latin, the lack of context makes it very difficult for me to follow just exactly I am supposed to be seeing. Theophylact employed this passage against the heresy of the Arians in his commentary. To my recollection, Erasmus cited both Origen and Basil in this place as affirming the Deity of Christ, and of Basil in particular, to the extent that there is no other way to understand the passage except as a doxology to Christ as God.

As for Abbot, he may be a contributor, but he is muddying the waters with comments like above. There is no reason to make Origen a witness to his position, while at the same time dismissing what is otherwise a very clear testimony ascribed to Origen--the only testimony we have--and insinuating it was inserted by Rufinus except to make a clear testimony murky. On the snippet you quote, he also impugns Burgon's fidelity for ignoring an Arian interpolator who doesn't quote the verse at all, then later, when it doesn't suit him, he dismisses witnesses because they don't quote the verse at all. These are all common Unitarian tactics. These are not the sorts of things I usually leave unaddressed.

 

[Brianrw]

Benjamin Hall Kennedy
https://books.google.com/books?id=lLQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA27

It's silly in this text that he says the early writers made mistakes because there was no punctuation in the Uncial manuscripts. The Greek constructions were designed to operate without it. The usage of the article governs the translation and there is no word distinguishing a new thought has been submitted. Punctuation came later.

John Pye Smith (with Venema reference)
https://books.google.com/books?id=3c0tAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA376

The bottom paragraph is just flat wrong--bad information derived from bad sources (Wettstein, a Socinian and Crellius, an Arian)

Origen's only testimony is in his commentary on Romans 9:5 (so far as we have), that Paul speaks of Christ as God.

Basil, On John 17.3 (4th century), "Did the Apostle, when he styled the Saviour 'God over all,' describe Him as greater than the Father? The idea is absurd . . . When the apostle said of the Son, we look for 'that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,' did he think of Him as greater than the Father?"

Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 11.2 (4th century), "Nay, I do not even think it necessary to bring forward in detail the utterances of Paul, since they are, as one may say, in all men's mouths, who gives the Lord the appellation not only of 'God,' but of 'great God' and 'God over all,' saying to the Romans, 'Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever', and writing to his disciple Titus, 'According to the appearing of Jesus Christ the great God and our Saviour,' and to Timothy, proclaims in plain terms, 'God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit.'"

Eusebius doesn't quote the verse.

In short, the situation is quite the opposite.

 

[Steven Avery]

Why would you think that Basil was reading Titus 2:13 in the identity mode?

And Gregory of Nysas could easily be interpreting, whether right or not, from our AV text.

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Thus you, again, are not really giving arguments for the Sharp mistranslation.

Why not try to give 3 ECW that really support Share’s error. Or 2. Or 1.

You are making the same error as Christopher Wordsworth..

 

[Steven Avery]

The Greek constructions were designed to operate without it. The usage of the article governs the translation and there is no word distinguishing a new thought has been submitted. Punctuation came later.

You are giving a circular apologetic, based on Sharp’s ignorance of Greek and his agenda to “improve“ the AV.

if an apostolic writer wanted to write “Jesus is God”, he could write it directly, not hide it in a fake claim around a grammatical nuance that often only shows relationship or connection, as you acknowledged on Ephesians 5:5 and others. The idea that identity - “is” - is mandated is total nonsense.

 

[Steven Avery]

understand the passage except as a doxology to Christ as God.

Romans 9:5
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.

I think you are reading one of the identity mistranslation versions.

”who is over all” is beautiful, high Christology, akin to many verses.

 

[Brianrw]

You are giving a circular apologetic, based on Sharp’s ignorance of Greek and his agenda to “improve“ the AV.

I've addressed the topic from every angle used by even the writers you produce, and every avenue a grammarian and translator would pursue to make sure a translation is correct.

I am not trying to "improve" or change the AV; it's just fine. I am expounding it as I have always read it, and as it was handed down to me, and as the rules of English grammar demonstrate. All the writers from the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s I have found, who are not Socinians emending the passage, all read it the same way as I am. I'm saying you're not reading it correctly, and you're promoting the spurious arguments of Unitarians.

I hope you may pardon the assumption, but from your comments here and many places, while you call others ignorant in Greek or speak of "mistranslations," I wonder how well you actually understand it for yourself without the commentary of others? As much as the article is used in the New Testament, it's hard not to observe. I've already produced a number of writers even before Sharp that understood the Greek grammar the same way Sharp did.

if an apostolic writer wanted to write “Jesus is God”, he could write it directly, not hide it in a fake claim around a grammatical nuance that often only shows relationship or connection, as you acknowledged on Ephesians 5:5 and others.

Here again, you are not stating the usage correctly. Such an exception you note above holds true when there are proper names involved. When a proper name is not involved, but rather a title of dignity and the like, to distinguish between persons, you would either place an article before both or omit it before both. E.g.:

τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν (1 person) - "of God and our Father" = "of our God and Father" or "of God, even our Father."​

​

τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν (2 persons) - "of God, and [also] of our Father"​

​

Or:

τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, "of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" (1 person)​

​

τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ "of the Lord and our Savior, Jesus Christ" (1 person)​

​

Both speak of Christ as "Lord," but one gives the prominence to "our Lord," the other "our Savior." Both could be translated, "of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ," though the nuance is lost.​

​

τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 persons) "of the Lord, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ"​

Why would you think that Basil was reading Titus 2:13 in the identity mode?

Except Basil understood Christ as the "Great God," there is no reason to entertain what follows: "did he think of Him as greater than the Father?" Besides that, Basil applies the whole verse to Christ.

And Gregory of Nysas could easily be interpreting, whether right or not, from our AV text.

In other words, to you the actual truth is unknowable, but the possibility that you are reading it wrong and everyone else is reading it correctly is precisely nil?

I think you are reading one of the identity mistranslation versions.

I don't use the other translations. I'm following the reading as it was understood when the passage was put into the AV, and how it was handed down to me.

If an apostolic writer wanted to write “Jesus is God”, he could write it directly

Paul is writing a doxology to Jesus, who despite having come as an Israelite according to the flesh, is Himself "God over all," and "blessed for ever." That's just the context, and how Paul wrote it. If you were Paul, maybe you would have written it differently?

 

[Steven Avery]

As much as the article is used in the New Testament, it's hard not to observe. I've already produced a number of writers even before Sharp that understood the Greek grammar the same way Sharp did.

Actually I had my page up on pre-Sharps a year back, and had research on this for years.
Erasmus and Beza are handled separately, as are references to possible Sharp plagiarism sources, like Royaards.

incredible Glassius analysis of misplaced grammar and article arguments

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/incredible-glassius-analysis-of-misplaced-grammar-and-article-arguments.1573/

Glassius and Rambach and Dalthus are among those who discussed the article way before Sharp. Erasmus and Beza as well. However, NONE of them made the Sharp blunders. Your statement "the same way Sharp did" is simply false.

Beza might have been the closest, but then the Geneva Bible is proof of the pudding that he did not go haywire, with only 2 Peter 1:1 having the mistaken identity translation.

Recently I added John Milton, Matthew Henry, Thomas Ridgley and Daniel Whitby as being in the mix. (You supplied one or two? Matthew Henry. Did I miss any?) While they may embrace the identity translation and interpretation on a verse or two, they do not fall into the Granveille Sharp blunders.

Only Sharp was so much an ignoramus that he tried to change a connection or relationship tendency (as you acknowledged earlier) into a "Rule" of identity with a boatload of exceptions. It is amazing that people are still duped today by the modified Daniel Wallace Rule for Fools.

 

[Steven Avery]

Paul is writing a doxology to Jesus, who despite having come as an Israelite according to the flesh, is Himself "God over all," and "blessed for ever." That's just the context, and how Paul wrote it. If you were Paul, maybe you would have written it differently?

Once again, you are mangling the AV text into your attempted correction.
The text says "Christ..over all".

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.

I will point this out most every time you mangle the text.

At the very least you should put a note in that you believe in correcting the AV text when you put in a false quote as above.

 

[Steven Avery]

I don't use the other translations. I'm following the reading as it was understood when the passage was put into the AV, and how it was handed down to me.

You did not give any evidence from 1611. If they had even mild simpatico with Erasmus then your statement is simply false. Even putting Erasmus aside, you are giving generally commentators from 1650-1750. A lot of the writing was reactive, after Schlichting started the Socinian style nonsense around 1650 to try to change the punctuation and translation from the low-Christology side.

Often things are handed down incorrectly.

 

[Steven Avery]

In other words, to you the actual truth is unknowable, but the possibility that you are reading it wrong and everyone else is reading it correctly is precisely nil?

Everyone else? Did you post the actual sections from all the Greek writers? Latin writers?
Are you conveniently forgetting those who do not use the verse the way you desire.

You should write more accurately. Start a thread with "everybody", starting with Origen and Hippolytus and Eusebius (yes, Origen is through Rufinus and may support identiy reading.)

In fact, we could start a thread that is ONLY Ante-Nicene and look for your consensus!

 

[Brianrw]

I will point this out most every time you mangle the text.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am doing. In Romans 9:5 it is, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς is, "who is over all, God." When you pull the quote out in the Greek to say what Paul is calling Christ, it becomes ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, since the participle is removed. That translates "God over all" because the article makes the construction a substantive. No Greek scholar would translate that construction as "the one over all God." Your authors do the same thing. I have no problem if you'd prefer I stick to "over all, God."

You should write more accurately. Start a thread with "everybody", starting with Origen and Hippolytus and Eusebius (yes, Origen is through Rufinus and may support identiy reading.)

In fact, we could start a thread that is ONLY Ante-Nicene and look for your consensus!

Eusebius does not quote the text. You got him from Abbot, though Abbot admits "he nowhere quoted the passage." I pointed that out already here. This is a shaky argument, because the same type of thing was done with Gregory of Nyssa in 1 Timothy 3:16 to say he most probably did not read "God." That argument evaporated when 22 clear quotations were found.

He is also not "ante-Nicene." Origen (accepting it was translated as written) and Hippolytus do use it to speak of Christ as God. Did you not bother to follow the references I gave both for them as well as Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian who also use it to speak of Christ as God? Irenaeus is possible, when speaking of Christ as perfect God and perfect man, but the context is more complicated so I leave him indeterminate. I'd have to see how many more ante-Nicene writers quote it. I think you are under the impression I just quoted Burgon, but have not gone through them myself?

Also, the references to all 36 English writers are at the link I keep reproducing. Feel free to make corrections; you only commented on one or two.

I feel you are just skimming the posts.

Glassius and Rambach and Dalthus are among those who discussed the article way before Sharp.

I have read the examples provided by Erasmus, but what I have read are not what you would call Sharp related texts, but places where excessive theological significance is applied to the article as applied to Christian terms that do not hold true across the New Testament (whether before God or not before God, whether before the Law or not before the law, whether before men or not before men, etc). In other words, overstressing its usage beyond what is grammatical. There are many foolish examples in there, but none that I saw pertaining to Sharp's rule. The underlying rule Sharp is following is grammatical, and there are no exceptions in the Greek New Testament when it is applied correctly. The problem is that several authors have stretched and misused the rule; this does not, however, invalidate the rule, but reproves their usage of it.

Recently I added John Milton, Matthew Henry, Thomas Ridgley and Daniel Whitby as being in the mix. (You supplied one or two? Matthew Henry. Did I miss any?) While they may embrace the identity translation and interpretation on a verse or two, they do not fall into the Granveille Sharp blunders.

I will refer you back to the 36 English authors I provided references for (link). I supplied more than "one or two" (i.e. Henry, Ridgley):

1. Thomas Goodwin (1683)
2. Robert Fleming Jr and William Lloyd (1705)
3. John Tolliston (1717)
4. John Guyse (1719)
5. We've discussed Matthew Henry (posthumous, 1721). I found an earlier comment from Henry's works while he was alive in 1704 (in his commentary on Psalm 95) that reinforces Henry was of the view that Titus 2:13 speaks of Christ as God.
6. John Gill (1746-48)
7. Jacques Abbadie and Abraham Booth (1777)
8. Sinclare Kelburn (1792)
9. We've discussed Ridgley (1770)
10. Patrick Russel (1719) may be speaking of the Greek article, though he doesn't quote the Greek it may be the English article he's speaking of. I find it best to assume it's the English article.

I stopped in 1798, which is the year Sharp published his remarks.

 

[Steven Avery]

I think you're misunderstanding what I am doing. In Romans 9:5 it is, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς is, "who is over all, God." When you pull the quote out in the Greek to say what Paul is calling Christ, it becomes ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς, since the participle is removed. That translates "God over all" because the article makes the construction a substantive. No Greek scholar would translate that construction as "the one over all God." Your authors do the same thing. I have no problem if you'd prefer I stick to "over all, God." To me, you're just arguing over semantics.

Why do you write:
"who is over all, God."

instead of
"who is over all, God blessed for ever."

They are two very different constructions.
And definitely not just semantics.

 

[Steven Avery]

I will refer you back to the 36 English authors I provided references for (link). I supplied more than "one or two" (i.e. Henry, Ridgley):

While I have interest in any good Bible writer, my focus was on anybody specifically referencing the article as their reason for declaring an identity translation. That includes Matthew Henry definitely and Thomas Ridgley only referring to grammatical criticism and John Gill discussing the propositive article.

Matthew Henry
https://books.google.com/books?id=nLBLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA337

The Ridgley section
https://books.google.com/books?id=pf5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA183
https://books.google.com/books?id=8L6qp_jEwj0C&pg=PA89 1855

(continues)

is pretty long, and mentions "grammatical criticism" and has 2 Peter 1:1 referenced, with some equivocation.

The article and verses in an interesting footnote is post-Sharp.

And I found Ridgley very good on one aspect of the heavenly witnesses, even though he is an equivocator, he was good on how Fulgentius and Facundus relate to Cyprian.

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

It looks like John Gill can be added, as well.

https://www.primitivebaptist.net/Articles/Commentaries/17Titus.PDF

 

[Brianrw]

Why do you write:
"who is over all, God."

instead of
"who is over all, God blessed for ever."

They are two very different constructions.
And definitely not just semantics.

Because the construction is "who is over all, God," where "God" is an appositive to Christ. After that follows an adjectival phrase, "blessed for ever," and your remarks lead me to the conclusion that you are using "God blessed for ever" as "God-blessed for ever" (i.e., "blessed by God forever"), which the Greek does not support and which would be ungrammatical in English. "Christ . . . who is over all, God blessed forever" is how I would translate it; no change to the AV.

Christ is "God blessed for ever," and by this Paul means Him who is together one God with the Father condescended to be born as an Israelite according to the flesh, though His is over all.

If you believe the construction "God blessed for ever" is a passing reference to the Deity of Christ, then we really have no true disagreement and are simply talking past each other.

While I have interest in any good Bible writer, my focus was on anybody specifically referencing the article as their reason for declaring an identity translation. If I remember, that includes Matthew Henry and Thomas Ridgley.

I noted 10 above, not two, who note the usage of the article in this place, from above (you can note the specific references here):

1. Thomas Goodwin (1683)
2. Robert Fleming Jr and William Lloyd (1705)
3. I now add to this list John Edwards (1713)
4. John Tolliston (1717)
5. John Guyse (1719)
6. We've discussed Matthew Henry (posthumous, 1721). I found an earlier comment from Henry's works while he was alive in 1704 (in his commentary on Psalm 95) that reinforces Henry was of the view that Titus 2:13 speaks of Christ as God.
7. John Gill (1746-48)
8. Jacques Abbadie and Abraham Booth (1777)
9. Sinclare Kelburn (1792)
10. We've discussed Ridgley (1770)
11. Patrick Russel (1719) may be speaking of the Greek article, though he doesn't quote the Greek it may be the English article he's speaking of. I find it best to assume it's the English article.

I hope I'm not wasting my time producing such references, as it took a considerable amount of time. I beg your pardon, but any of the writers referencing the English translation and understanding it as referring to Christ as God are either following the English article placed by the translators, or the Greek article placed by the Greeks. The English testimonies are relevant, because I am saying you are misreading the passages, and they are my second, third, fourth witnesses, etc.

Commas in England prior to the mid-17th century (and even to some extent after) were not syntactic but elocutionary. The case for syntactic commas was closed in 1906. But as a consequence, you can't go back from that point to the 1611 edition (which is way over-punctuated) and read the comma as a syntactic device in the same way we do today, or apply modern conventions of sentence structure that weren't necessarily the norm then. This is a mistake writers such as Sharp (in Titus 2:13) increasingly made as time went on, from the mid-1700s and continuing until today. The 1769 edition has more of a syntactic focus on commas, which is also why I take issue with going back to the 1611 edition. It was revised in 1769 to standardize spelling, punctuation, italics, etc. and the commas you keep highlighting were removed. At some point also, the AV was also compared with Stephen's Textus Receptus and revised.