the false claim that the English AV text would not need a comma after God to show apposition between Christ and God

Steven Avery

Administrator
This is all about the beautiful English text of the AV.

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 goes hand and hand with Brian's other wacky attempt to discount the AV comma usage.

elocutionary and syntactical commas
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/elocutionary-and-syntactical-commas.2313/

Also, time permitting, I will show how many writers realize this, and put in a comma to make the apposition argument. The John Gill commentary was given as an example.

Some earlier material was placed on this thread.

circular grammatical claims of zero merit - apposition, second predicate
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...-zero-merit-apposition-second-predicate.2314/
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Brian has tried to give some very awkward analogy attempts involving lamps and God Almighty. Obviously God Almighty has no relationship at all to "God blessed for ever.." We can bring over his attempts to this thread and answer them here as well.
 

Brianrw

Member
You're really digging a huge hole for yourself in all these threads. At this point, you have way too much invested to even consider being wrong, and your objectivity at this point is highly questionable. You are mistaking an adjective as a past participle verb (a verbal adjective ending in -ed). Specifically, you are equivocating over "blessed" (bles-sed, adj.) and "blessed" (blest, verb).

An adjective in the postpositive position can function as a predicate or attributive. Predicate and attributive adjectives are in many cases interchangeable. An adjective can serve as a predicate in the pospositive position without requiring a verb or additional punctuation in certain cases where it sets off a new clause, and the example I gave was, "a lamp bright enough to lighten the room." In this case, "bright" is actually a predicate adjective that follows the noun without a verb and sets off a new clause.

Constructions involving adjectives in a postpositive position are common in early modern English. Hence the commentators had no trouble understanding that here. I've produced roughly 80 writers for Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13, all before Sharp. Your point here only has force if you can prove what I am saying is unsupported in the literature of that time. However, it turns out your reading is thus far wholly unsupported. Not even by the Socinians/Unitarians and others to whom such a reading would have proved beneficial.

Even in the very Greek text used by the learned men of the AV, the annotation expresses that Christ here is called God.

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. Beza also leaves a note at Romans 9:5 that "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."

  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.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
This thread is about the AV English text.

You are mistaking an adjective as a past participle verb (a verbal adjective ending in -ed). Specifically, you are equivocating over "blessed" (bles-sed, adj.) and "blessed" (blest, verb).

An adjective in the postpositive position can function as a predicate or attributive. Predicate and attributive adjectives are in many cases interchangeable. An adjective can serve as a predicate in the pospositive position without requiring a verb or additional punctuation in certain cases where it sets off a new clause, and the example I gave was, "a lamp bright enough to lighten the room." In this case, "bright" is actually a predicate adjective that follows the noun without a verb and sets off a new clause.

Constructions involving adjectives in a postpositive position are common in early modern English. Hence the commentators had no trouble understanding that here. I've produced roughly 80 writers for Romans 9:5 and Titus 2:13, all before Sharp. Your point here only has force if you can prove what I am saying is unsupported in the literature of that time. However, it turns out your reading is thus far wholly unsupported. Not even by the Socinians/Unitarians and others to whom such a reading would have proved beneficial.

Ok, so you dropped the absurd analogy of God Almighty".

"a lamp bright enough to lighten the room."

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

A totally non-functional analogy attempt.
You are again damaging the natural association of God and blessed.
In English God blessed can mean

"God is blessed", (without apposition)
(Christ is) God blessed (no apposition)

You claim - "Christ is (over all) God who is blessed" - which does not fit the AV punctuation.

You made false hyphen claims to try to avoid this simple truth.
And similar false comma claims.

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

Even Carl Conrad who moderated the b-greek group avoids claiming that Christ and God are appositional. His point is that you would be "enhancing the possible interpretation of the remainder of the verse as appositional" IF there was a comma after KATA SARKA, which would show up as a comma after flesh. That would put Christ and God in a closer connection. Even more so with the common comma after God.

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.

Mitchell Andrews
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-12/0012.html
Carl Contrad
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1996-12/15929.html

As I have pointed out numbers times, all your appositional claims are circular.

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

Steven Avery

Administrator
Does Romans 9:5 refers to Jesus as God? [duplicate]

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

And that would be the most natural reading.

This gentleman tries to work with your awkward construction.

Polyhat
"Who is over all God..."? That doesn't even make sense. It would actually change from "over all" (preposition + determiner/pronoun) to "overall" (adjective) in order to fit the sentence grammar--and still it would have an awkward meaning in this context. If he were "overall" God, what would He be the rest of the time? Sorry, but, I don't accept this explanation which does obvious violence to the grammar and meaning of this Bible verse.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
You should place your list of English commentaries in one place, rather than many. And then point to the list. You can even start a new thread.

Btw, you should drop your psycho-babble stuff.
It is clear that you are wrong on the English of the AV.

You can not admit that because you try to give a pretense of being an AV supporter as the pure and perfect word of God.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Another person reads English properly:
https://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5378&sid=c7e96add372ace3766772548174841bc


_STEVE7150
Romans 9.5 is interesting "Christ came,who is over all,God blessed for ever Amen" KJV
"from whom is the Christ according to the flesh,who is over all,God blessed forever,Amen." NASB
"whom according to the flesh,Christ came,who is over all ,the eternally blessed God,Amen." NKJV
The NASB and KJV say Christ is God blessed but the NKJV says Christ is the eternally blessed God.
I think Hebrews says that a greater can bless a lesser and Christ did say "My Father is greater then i" but that's another subject.
IMHO Romans 9.5 does'nt impact what Paul said in Romans 10.9 which is a very specific statement about salvation.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
An interesting article is by:

===========

Thomas L. Hubeart
Romans 9:5 (KJV vs. NIV) Notes © 1998, 1999 by T.L. Hubeart
http://www.pennuto.com/bible/rom9_5.htm

The plain fact is that the NIV's translation, in calling Christ "God over all," confuses the Persons of the Godhead and is thus theologically unsound....

If any one Member of the Trinity is to be spoken of as "God," it would have to be the Father, who is clearly the leading and directing Person in the Trinity; Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit are repeatedly said to act as directed by Him--e.g., John 5:30, 14:26. And cf. Phil. 2:8-11 for Christ's subordinate position to the Father. Such verses show that the Father has given Him dominion over all--meaning that it is proper to say that Christ is "over all," with the KJV, but that it is improper to call Him "God over all" without reference to the Father, implying that the Father is either subordinate or equal to the Son.

Thus to equate Christ with "God over all" is to imply a second "God," lending credence to such charges as that of the Muslims, that Christians have a plurality of Gods and not one (and to the aberrant doctrines of groups like the Mormons, who actually believe in three "Gods"). At best the NIV translators are here guilty of gross carelessness; at worst of inadvertently perverting the truth of God into abominable heresy ...

One should point out in fairness that not only Carson and White, but many respected commentators have stumbled over this passage by not recognizing the plain truths set forth above by Dr. Holland. Among many writers who might be named, Thomas Scott, Adam Clarke, and Robert Haldane (Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans) seem to bolster the case for a "God over all" reading with emotional arguments rather than real substance, since these writers express concern about giving up a "celebrated testimony to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ" to "Arians and Socinians" (Haldane's words; I note in passing that Burgon in the above referenced passage clearly cites the KJV's rendering as though he understands the same "celebrated testimony" to be inherent in the way it stands--contrary to James White's interpretation).

===========

Note that he is using Trinitarian presuppositions, right up Brian's alley.

All this echoes where I was asking Brian to differentiate between God and God the Father, and he had no real answer.

If Paul is writing that Jesus Christ is God, what God exactly?
Brian does not want it to be God the Father, too Sabellian.
So what God is there left?

===========

As to the references to Joseph Agar Beet, within the milieu of considering questionable stops, he makes some interesting points. However, that is not my position.

Beet does do a good analysis of the lemming approach of then”Orthodox” writers.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
George Warrington Carraway consistently shows the comma as his part of the apposition text.

Full PDF
https://digital.library.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/3953/Carraway_sbts_0207D_10066.pdf

Google for many pages.
https://books.google.com/books?id=je7UAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1

Here is one of many examples.
https://books.google.com/books?id=je7UAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA53

1639914590241.png



He also has the curious:
https://books.google.com/books?id=je7UAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA40

Based on the strong evidence from the structure of the doxology and the argument that the doxology is out of place here, the passage should not be considered a doxology to God, but should be taken as a declaration referring to Christ, the one who is blessed.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Language Pattern Evidence in Romans 9:5 (2019)
Dennis Kenaga,

The King James translators hesitated to give the modern trinitarian interpretation of Rom 9:5, possibly because they did not find a precedent or possibly because the general lack of explicit trinitarian passages in Paul. However the standard English meaning of God blessed is “blessed by God” which is not what the Greek says.

Dennis Kenaga has some good writings about textual criticism errors.
 

Brianrw

Member
I'm going to reiterate again that the KJV is an early modern English translation and the rule of the adjective in this construction has already been stated for you repeatedly as it applies in early modern English. If you want to know how it was read and understood in that proper context, you need to stop asking questions about it on modern forums and go to the list above that makes it very plain how it was read. Don't just trust _STEVE7150 or whoever else on the internet has an opinion.

I still remember the stir one individual I conversed with made over "suffer the little children," as though suffer means to make them suffer.

An interesting article is by:

===========

Thomas L. Hubeart
Romans 9:5 (KJV vs. NIV) Notes © 1998, 1999 by T.L. Hubeart
http://www.pennuto.com/bible/rom9_5.htm

The plain fact is that the NIV's translation, in calling Christ "God over all," confuses the Persons of the Godhead and is thus theologically unsound....
Your giving a theological reason for rejecting a translation. It is either correct or not correct, grammatically.

He also has the curious:
You are supposed to draw something out of the commentaries, but you seem more intent on reading things in. Your methodology is poor because you've decided I'm wrong and you're only trying to prove that. You're not actually trying to understand anything other than what confirms your view.

George Warrington Carraway consistently shows the comma as his part of the apposition text.
Carraway utilizes an appositional construction involving "that is" after a semicolon. In that case, the reading calls Christ God and converts to predicate adjective appositionally. I don't like the translation (it's overcomplicated), but that's not the same as writing "over all, God, blessed forever" which makes the adjective appositional but referring back to Christ.

_STEVE7150
He contrasts two translations, but only noting the difference. Where does he say the NASB and the KJV readings mean "blessed by God?"

Regarding all these forum members, I've read so many bad Greek arguments and bad English readings in forums that I've given up trying to correct them all. Most people who don't know Greek refuse to be corrected, even if they're given the most clearest and simplest explanation as to why they are wrong and what the Greek really says. Instead, they just make worse arguments trying to save their point. If you produce writers that misread the English the same as you, but the Greek does not support it, that should be the end of such a misunderstanding.

However the standard English meaning of God blessed is “blessed by God” which is not what the Greek says.
I will say this source, like some others you have produced, is highly questionable methodologically speaking. In addition, their assessment that "The King James translators hesitated to give the modern trinitarian interpretation of Rom 9:5" is incorrect on two points: (1) that it puts a modern spin on an early modern English construction that none of the above commentators support and (2) that it asserts that the passage, referring to Christ as God, is modern when it is in fact quite ancient. This is the only of the latest string of writers to mention "blessed by God," and they clearly note that "is not what the Greek says." They are at least right in that one thing.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Carraway utilizes an appositional construction involving "that is" after a semicolon. In that case, the reading calls Christ God and converts to predicate adjective appositionally. I don't like the translation (it's overcomplicated), but that's not the same as writing "over all, God, blessed forever" which makes the adjective appositional but referring back to Christ.

Carraway uses the comma in simpler constructions.

As I will seek to demonstrate, the syntax most naturally favors a reading that Christ is over all, God, blessed forever. p 2

Or it could be construed with what follows, which would lend a translation ―the one who is over all, God, blessed forever. p. 74

Harris points out that the phrase could also consist of three predicates, forming a statement something like, the one who is over all things, who is God, who is blessed forever. p. 74-75

Does Carraway understand that he is supporting the three description view? Would have to check, generally these commentators tie themselves up in knots.
 
Last edited:

Brianrw

Member
Carraway uses the comma in simpler constructions.

As I will seek to demonstrate, the syntax most naturally favors a reading that Christ is over all, God, blessed forever. p 2

Or it could be construed with what follows, which would lend a translation ―the one who is over all, God, blessed forever. p. 74

Harris points out that the phrase could also consist of three predicates, forming a statement something like, the one who is over all things, who is God, who is blessed forever. p. 74-75

Does Carraway understand that he is supporting the three description view? Would have to check, generally these commentators tie themselves up in knots.
They actually aren't tying up in knots, it's only as I said that the Greek is simple but the translation is hard to punctuate. You are seeing a lot of "translator speak" on how to pick the best English solution, but the variation between meanings (excluding the emendations, that is) are extremely minor. The Greek itself involves two of the most basic constructions in the language. It is very simple. Unfortunately, all the nuances of the Greek can't come into the English simultaneously, so the order of words and punctuation--not the meaning itself (excluding the emendations, that is)--is frequently debated.

Here's some of the challenges that a translator faces here:

  1. The attributive (present) participle actually means "being," not truly "is," but that becomes awkward in English.

  2. "All" in Greek is neuter, so "all things"

  3. "God" is a predicate nominative to "Christ" as well as the predicand of "blessed," yet it is formally attached to "over all" by the attributive participle (the article creates a stronger relation than a simple relative). The flexibility of Greek word order allows this. However, English wants the subject to come first ("God over all" vs "over all, God"), so I have to actually make a choice of which connection to emphasize in the English. If I want to choose to connect "God" with "over all" then "God" has to come first in English, but that breaks it away from "blessed." If I want (as I prefer to keep the words together) to emphasize the attachment to "blessed," then it breaks from "over all." It's not that one or the other is right, but that I can only choose one. But I don't spend the time reading the Greek and asking myself, "How do I parse this in English?"

  4. The translation becomes awkward if we add additional words

They can parse the text with commas or semicolons or however they want to, but every attempt tries to best convey the meaning in English. You'll understand the discussion far more clearly when stop confusing yourself by entertaining "blessed by God" as the true solution and analyzing these arguments from the standpoint that "God blessed" is a compound adjective unless split up by a comma. This is constantly tripping you up, and I'm only trying to help you understand that.

I have answered repeatedly: (1) that the second comma after "God" makes "blessed" no longer a predicate of "God," but an apposition of "Christ" and (2) that "blessed" follows the noun as a predicate because in early modern English such a construction required the placement of the noun after its substantive to receive a complementary phrase. The translation used by the AV translators is actually masterful for its time, unfortunately, you don't see it and think I'm corrupting the text. It's a shame, really.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
English wants the subject to come first ("God over all" vs "over all, God"), so I have to actually make a choice of which connection to emphasize in the English. If I want to choose to connect "God" with "over all" then "God" has to come first in English, but that breaks it away from "blessed." If I want (as I prefer to keep the words together) to emphasize the attachment to "blessed," then it breaks from "over all." It's not that one or the other is right, but that I can only choose one. But I don't spend the time reading the Greek and asking myself, "How do I parse this in English?"

Now you are moving away from Christ over all to God over all.
That is the low Christology trick.

You did a great job showing the convoluted mess of your attempt.
I will bookmark this one.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
President Trump, who pushed the killer vaccines, is enabled by the RNC to run in 2024.

President Trump, who pushed the killer vaccines, RNC enabled to run in 2024.

By Brian’s wacky theories Trump is in apposition to the RNC.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
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).

No marginal note.
It is the end of a section on 2 Corinthians 13:8 that begins on the second p. 45.

2 Corinthians 13:8 (AV)
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

Plus he was likely using the Whittingham 1557 pre-Geneva Bible, not making a doctrinal statement.
https://books.google.com/books?id=HTZacHf4K0AC&pg=PA270

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

If he is included because of using the word "which" then the many who use "and of our Sauiour" should be put in the non-identity camp.

John Northbrooke - 1577 - 1843 edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=2KNjAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA93
https://archive.org/details/treatiseagainstd00nortiala

John Knewstub - 1579
https://books.google.com/books?id=T_BiAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA11

John Jewel - 1584
https://books.google.com/books?id=jYZmAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA177

Johann Habermann - 1586
https://books.google.com/books?id=juTPsW3xhjoC&pg=PA96

Anthony Rudd - 1603
https://books.google.com/books?id=wrNoAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA48

Christopher Sutton - 1611
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ph9lAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA28

William Worship - 1617
https://books.google.com/books?id=n_X7HCyO0B8C&pg=PA82

Nicholas Byfield - 1627
https://books.google.com/books?id=kVNnAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA405

John Randall - 1630
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZaBAAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA252

George Fox - 1705
https://books.google.com/books?id=gWo9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA436

And many who simply accepted the superb AV text.

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

Steven Avery

Administrator
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"). d over all blessed for ever.”

He is an RCC papist, also known as John Hunt. The quotes from Augustine do not shed much light on either Augustine's understanding of the verse or that of Doughty.

It is easier to access the pages using the standard url rather than Play.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FDitZDLJvvkC&pg=PA8
http://books.google.com/books?id=FDitZDLJvvkC&pg=PA83
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
"God" is a predicate nominative to "Christ" as well as the predicand of "blessed," yet it is formally attached to "over all" by the attributive participle (the article creates a stronger relation than a simple relative).

It makes no sense to say God is formally attached to "over all". Over all is part of a subordinate phrase, describing Christ, that can be removed without changing the basic grammar.

If you want to loosey-goosey "attach" God to over all through apposition, it is definitely not formal, since the apposition is simply your conjecture, not anything formal in the language.
 
Top