And I think his analysis is more on Hippolytus and ECW than the decrepit emendation, attempt.
Unitarians don't play fair with either the Greek or EnglishI've seen the whole spectrum of how Unitarians/Socinians both use, pervert and dismiss the ancient writers, play loose with the Greek texts, and manipulate translations when the Deity of Christ is involved. It's all tiresome nonsense, and unfortunately they, as Paul writes, "are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:18).
Again, you insist that this is a dichotomy, when I showed you with Murray that the interpretations run in 3 groups.
Murray's list is grouped by punctuation following the UBS punctuation apparatus (none, major, minor)Let's not misrepresent what Murray is showing. First, his conclusion is that Christ is spoken of as "God," and that the other translations are unjustifiable. Secondly, Murray states, "The analysis in table 4," p. 149, "shows the principal ways in which Romans 9:5b has been punctuated by modern editors and translators of the Greek text or by representative commentators." (emphasis mine). The words "none, minor, major" refers to the punctuation apparatus of the UBS text. It is not a table designed to show all the ways the passage can be interpreted or translated. It is just a list, grouped by punctuation.
So far as semantics, there is a dichotomy: either a doxology to the Father (Socinain) or a doxology to Christ as God (Orthodox). The only "Beautiful high Christology" translations present demonstrate Christ as God.
The punctuation in both the Textus Receptus and the Critical texts (NA, UBS) all demonstrate ὁ ὢν as pointing back to ὁ Χριστὸς. Any translation that does not follow this has emended the punctuation of the respective Greek text before translating, to which I respond below that:
Every failure to faithfully translate Romans 9:5 into English is based not on grammar, but on the Presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God" (and the same goes for all the other passages where Paul calls Christ "God" in the Greek)Following Murray's survey on pp. 152, 153, it is very easy to spot that every reason why translators want to make God the Father as the referent of θεὸς is based upon a presupposition that Paul would not call Christ "God". There is not a single, sound grammatical argument to be found. In response: (1a) Christ is not a mere human. (1b) This is not a grammatical consideration (1c) This is an excuse by Abbot, a Unitarian, not a grammatical construction (1d) Circular reasoning: i.e., "there are no doxologies to Christ, so there can't be one here." (2) A theological argument, not grammatical, (3) The recurring circular argument Paul does speak of Christ as God: i.e., in the many instances where he plainly does in the Greek, this argument is applied to question the proper translation. (4) The grammar does not support this type of construction. (5) Paul could not call Christ God because that might incense the Jews is also not a grammatical point.
Excuses and EmendationsThese explanations are, like the Socinian glosses, merely excuses to not translate the passage exactly as it is in the Greek, specifically to avoid admitting that Paul is referring here to Christ as God. That's why there are attempts to remove ὢν, attempts to remove θεὸς, and attempts to transpose ὁ ὢν. If the passage was merely a "High Christological Doxology," there would be no reason for any of these emendations.
A. Jesus is God (6,8,9) - textually worthless, although you would allow 6 and 9
Rightly Following the Greek (Rightly interpreting the usage of the article)I'm not entirely sure where you are coming at from a Greek level. In the Greek, in Romans 9:5 Jesus literally is identified as "God over all." It's just what it says. No amount of grammatical eisegesis will actually change that. The English says the same thing.
ὁ Χριστὸς [τὸ κατὰ σάρκα·] ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν
It is a very simple Greek construction. The second instance of the article points back to ὁ Χριστὸς and ὢν means is the present participle of εἰμί ("to be"). Thus far, "Christ . . . who is." After that follows ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς "God over all."
Rightly Following the English (The comma is placed before "God" in English because there is an apposition involved)Since Paul gives precedence of word order to ἐπὶ πάντων, the proper way to express it in English would be to place the emphasis first on "over all" before "God." I.e. "Christ . . . who is over all, God." In English grammar, because "God" is appositional to "Christ," a comma should be placed before it. The problem to anticipate is that commas are frequently misused in English and their proper usage is not always rightly interpreted. To avoid such a misunderstanding "God over all" may be deemed more preferable. At that point, we are not speaking of conflicting translations. It's like arguing over semantics: e.g., "Hi, Steven" vs. "Hi Steve" vs. "Hello Steven" vs. "Greetings, Steven." One doesn't make the other wrong.
If the doxology is to Christ, it is to Christ as God. If the passage merely speaks of Christ who was born an Israelite according to the flesh, but the doxology is to the Father, there is no high Christology, as every man is born in the flesh.B. Beautiful high Christology (AV and similar, where generally the doxology is seen to the Lord Jesus Christ.)
There's not another way to read the text, "Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever." The doxology is to Christ as God. Otherwise, you are effectively reading it as the Socinian gloss "God be blessed forever" that drew the ire of Greek grammarians, Orthodox ministers and commentators when it was first proposed.
The Socinians deliberately introduced not only that gloss, but several other glosses because the Greek text, as well as the English, speaks of Christ as God!C. Socinian glosses (worthless(
Again, Whitby converted to Unitarianism at the end of his life. His Last Thoughts are retractions of Orthodox views. You are literally adopting a Socinian interpretation, while at the same time promoting it as Orthodox. As teachers, it is not about defending a point of view, but of getting things right.Whitby has a lot more in: