Romans 9:5 - understanding the English AV text

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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

a) God (be) blessed for ever. (by creation, his people, Paul)

b) (Christ is) God, (who is) blessed for ever.

c) God blessed (is Christ) for ever.

d) God blessed (are the Israelites, through Christ) for ever

…”as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever.”


The flesh is Christ, who is God, who is blessed forever. It is really pretty simple.

Nothing else is going on in that passage.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

…”as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
The flesh is Christ, who is God, who is blessed forever. It is really pretty simple.
Nothing else is going on in that passage.

That would be (b) above. If there was a comma after God, it would be pretty simple. Except that it would be Christ who is blessed forever, and God by apposition.

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

Oneness and Trinity - A.D. 100-300
The Doctrine of God in Ancient Christian Writings (1991)
David K. Bernard
https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/...%20Bernard.pdf

In Against Noetus, Hippolytus reported that Noetus used the following passages of Scripture to support his doctrine: Exodus 3:6; 20:3; Isaiah 44:6; 45:14; John 10:30; 14:9; Romans 9:5.

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

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

That would be (b) above. If there was a comma after God, it would be pretty simple. Except that it would be Christ who is blessed forever, and God by apposition.

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

Oneness and Trinity - A.D. 100-300
The Doctrine of God in Ancient Christian Writings (1991)
David K. Bernard
https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/...%20Bernard.pdf

In Against Noetus, Hippolytus reported that Noetus used the following passages of Scripture to support his doctrine: Exodus 3:6; 20:3; Isaiah 44:6; 45:14; John 10:30; 14:9; Romans 9:5.

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

Who added the punctuation, is that inspired also?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The AV seems to take a tentative, even conservative approach to a most difficult to translate verse. As it reads, it suggests a leaning toward being a doxology to God. But it is ambiguous, and I think, left so intentionally, so that other interpretations are available, that is, they were not trying to nail down any, one, definitive approach for all time, but allowed the difficulty of the text to show through their translation, without being dogmatic about it.

I would call it a noble act of humility on their part.

And as such, I think they did a good job.

Because honestly, most translators fall into one of two camps:

1.) A doxology to God
2.) Christ is here called "God over all".

Very little middle ground from whatever side.

But I think what the AV translators have done is admirable in the sense that it actually allows for both interpretations at the same time. It is therefore the most versatile translation possible. It holds both positions in tension, but not in conflict.

And this way, I think, is correct, because both views are the truth. They are not pitted against each other. There is no reason to take sides. Romans 9:5 is both a doxology to God and a statement affirming the Divinity of the Christ.

To translate it differently, that is, to make it read one way or the other, as opposed to both (like some of the more modern English versions do, e.g. NIV, ESV, or RSV) causes one aspect or the other to entirely disappear, which is a mistake.

It remains then, that we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that while Christ is "of" the Israelitish nation "as concerning the flesh," He is, in another respect, "God over all, blessed for ever." JFB

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

That would be (b) above. If there was a comma after God, it would be pretty simple. Except that it would be Christ who is blessed forever, and God by apposition.

It doesn’t appear to make any difference where the comma is placed or whether or not “is” is inserted before God. It is very simple because we know that Jesus is God.

I don’t really know what it is you want the passage to mean. If you are trying to make it mean anything else, that is problematic for you.

Other translations agree:

New International Version
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

New Living Translation
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are their ancestors, and Christ himself was an Israelite as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, the one who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

English Standard Version
To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Berean Study Bible
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them proceeds the human descent of Christ, who is God over all, forever worthy of praise! Amen.

Berean Literal Bible
whose are the patriarchs; and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, being God over all, blessed to the ages. Amen.

Christian Standard Bible
The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Messiah, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And the Patriarchs; and from them The Messiah appeared in the flesh, who is The God Who is over all, to Whom are praises and blessings to the eternity of eternities, amen.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
The Messiah is descended from their ancestors according to his human nature. The Messiah is God over everything, forever blessed. Amen.

International Standard Version
To the Israelis belong the patriarchs, and from them, the Messiah descended, who is God over all, the one who is forever blessed. Amen.

Literal Standard Version
whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for all ages. Amen.

NET Bible
To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It doesn’t appear to make any difference where the comma is placed or whether or not “is” is inserted before God. It is very simple because we know that Jesus is God.

I don’t really know what it is you want the passage to mean. If you are trying to make it mean anything else, that is problematic for you.

The comma would make a big difference, creating an apposition of Christ and God, yet also disconnecting God and blessed.

And I gave four possible interpretations of the AV text above.

In fact, Jesus is rarely, if ever, declared as God in the New Testament, the norm is to use dual addressing. There are dozens of examples of dual addressing. Most evangelicals would find Jesus as God the Father objectionable doctrinally, although oneness proponents may like that interpretation.

Yes, there are verses like "God was manifest in the flesh", the Colossians verses, John 1:1, "my Lord and my God", those are of a different nature than leaving the AV and saying the TEXT says "Christ is God', a common mistranslation in about 3 verses.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Who added the punctuation, is that inspired also?

The AV word order is exactly that of the TR text, which does not add any punctuation. Thus the learned men of the AV added any punctuation that they felt would be correct in the English. I consider the AV my authority, higher than the competing Greek analyses.

There are other tries that either add punctuation in the Greek and/or change the word order. I am ignoring those, they tend to want to separate Christ from God completely.

[votivesoul]

Some earlier English translations add an interesting component to the discussion, vis a vis, the AV text:

Bishops (1568),

Of whom are the fathers, of whom as concernyng the fleshe, Christe [came,] which is God, in all thynges to be praysed for euer. Amen.

Geneva (1587),

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

Wycliffe (1382),

whose be the fathers, and of which is Christ after the flesh, that is God above all things, blessed into worlds. Amen.

Tyndale (1534),

whose also are the fathers and they of whome (as concernynge the flesshe) Christ came which is God over all thinges blessed for ever Amen.

And for comparison:

Reina-Valera (1602),

Cuyos son los padres, y de los cuales vino Cristo según la carne, el cual es Dios sobre todas las cosas, bendito por siempre. Amén.

Luther (1534),

welcher auch sind die Väter, und aus welchen Christus herkommt nach dem Fleisch, der da ist Gott über alles, gelobt in Ewigkeit. Amen.

Each of these well-known versions, all of which predate the KJV all leave no room for interpretation, that Christ is God. Even the Spanish and German read the same.

And yet, the KJV translators went a different route. Why? Surely, they were not ignorant of these earlier readings, especially Wycliffe's, Tyndale, the Bishop's, and Geneva?

For whatever reason, they elected to not leave the text unambiguous. They gave just enough room for more than one interpretation.

I submit that they were aware of the notoriously difficult nature of the verse in question and deciding to not presume one way or the other too forcefully, instead found a happy medium between the most common two understandings.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The comma would make a big difference, creating an apposition of Christ and God, yet also disconnecting God and blessed.

And I gave four possible interpretations of the AV text above.

In fact, Jesus is rarely, if ever, declared as God in the New Testament, the norm is to use dual addressing. There are dozens of examples of dual addressing. Most evangelicals would find Jesus as God the Father objectionable doctrinally, although oneness proponents may like that interpretation.

Yes, there are verses like "God was manifest in the flesh", the Colossians verses, John 1:1, "my Lord and my God", those are of a different nature than leaving the AV and saying the TEXT says "Christ is God', a common mistranslation in about 3 verses.

I am very sure Paul, who wrote the Book of Romans, was simply teaching God was in Christ as he did many times, i.e., 2 Corinthians 5:19. After all, he is the one who asked, “Who art thou, Lord?” - “I am Jesus”.

New Living Translation: “Abraham, Issac, and Jacob are their ancestors, and Christ himself was a Israelite as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, the one who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.”

Nothing “dual” going on here. Paul is, again, confirming to the readers who God is. It is very strange to me for you to declare that Paul is not understanding nor teaching a doctrine here or to say, in effect, that Paul never declared God in the New Testament.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Some earlier English translations add an interesting component to the discussion, vis a vis, the AV text:

Bishops (1568),

Of whom are the fathers, of whom as concernyng the fleshe, Christe [came,] which is God, in all thynges to be praysed for euer. Amen.

Geneva (1587),

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

Wycliffe (1382),

whose be the fathers, and of which is Christ after the flesh, that is God above all things, blessed into worlds. Amen.

Tyndale (1534),

whose also are the fathers and they of whome (as concernynge the flesshe) Christ came which is God over all thinges blessed for ever Amen.

And for comparison:

Reina-Valera (1602),

Cuyos son los padres, y de los cuales vino Cristo según la carne, el cual es Dios sobre todas las cosas, bendito por siempre. Amén.

Luther (1534),

welcher auch sind die Väter, und aus welchen Christus herkommt nach dem Fleisch, der da ist Gott über alles, gelobt in Ewigkeit. Amen.

Each of these well-known versions, all of which predate the KJV all leave no room for interpretation, that Christ is God. Even the Spanish and German read the same.

And yet, the KJV translators went a different route. Why? Surely, they were not ignorant of these earlier readings, especially Wycliffe's, Tyndale, the Bishop's, and Geneva?

For whatever reason, they elected to not leave the text unambiguous. They gave just enough room for more than one interpretation.

I submit that they were aware of the notoriously difficult nature of the verse in question and deciding to not presume one way or the other too forcefully, instead found a happy medium between the most common two understandings.

I submit that JFB has it perfectly right - It remains then, that we have here no doxology at all, but a naked statement of fact, that while Christ is "of" the Israelitish nation "as concerning the flesh," He is, in another respect, "God over all, blessed for ever."

And I submit that Paul left nothing ambiguous. I understood him perfectly when I read the passage. I certainly didn’t need commas to fully understand him. When you know who God is, the passage could never be “notoriously difficult in nature”. Good choice of words though. It makes it seems frightfully difficult to comprehend - “notoriously difficult” - scary! Lol!

IMO, it appears a sneaky, slight of hand to convince the readers they aren’t seeing the plain language of the passage- Jesus is God, He rules over everything and is worthy of our praise!