Romans 9:5 - understanding the English AV text

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Can the English determine grammatically if the term God is a predicate object of "who is"? Or if it definitively is NOT and that "blessed" is definitely a predicate of the subject "God"?

The AV follows the Greek word order.

And if you think that Paul as seen in the AV would write with a double/triple ellipsis:

(he is) God (who is) blessed for ever (by creation, his people, Paul or whomever)

You could have God as a predicate object of the earlier "who is" in apposition to Christ.

To me, that is a very unnatural understanding.
If the goal was to say Christ is God, there are far simpler ways than in questionable grammatical extrapolation subtleties!

We do better at times just to get the "feel" of the English.

Grammarians not fluent in a language can often get themselves twisted in knots by their categories.

===

Vasileios Tsialas from Athens, in a note:
.
"Grammar books do not make language; it is language that makes grammar books. In other words, language existed long before grammar books came into existence. So language is a natural phenomenon that cannot be enclosed in a technical enchiridion."

===

It is very difficult to try to have your cake and eat it too, saying God is doing grammatical double-duty. Looking backward to Christ in a direct apposition and simultaneously connected harmoniously with blessed in a natural association phrase. If that were actually the goal, then the elliptical words should be included. If the learned men of the AV thought that the words were implied, they would have put them in italics (or whatever was used in 1611).

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The AV follows the Greek word order.

And if you think that Paul as seen in the AV would write with a double/triple ellipsis:

(he is) God (who is) blessed for ever (by creation, his people, Paul or whomever)

You could have God as a predicate object of "who is" in apposition to Christ.

To me, that is a very unnatural understanding.
If the goal was to say Christ is God, there are far simpler ways than in grammatical extrapolation subtleties!

We do better at times just to get the "feel" of the English.

Grammarians not fluent in a language can often get themselves twisted in knots by their categories.

It is very difficult to try to have your cake and eat it too, saying God is doing grammatical double-duty. Looking backward to Christ and simultaneously connected harmoniously with blessed in a natural association phrase. If that were actually the goal, then the elliptical words should be included. If the learned men of the AV thought that the words were implied, they would have put them in italics (or roman font in 1611).

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.

Actually he said it very clearly: Christ is over all, God blessed forever". A clear statement that Christ is also God.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Actually he said it very clearly: Christ is over all, God blessed forever". A clear statement that Christ is also God.

If I read those two phrases without presuppositions, I would see Christ as God blessed for ever as a far more natural reading.

The presups are the gotchas.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That was a nice little sneaky thing you did, Votive. How intelligent your post reads! Bravo!

After this snarky response, I put your posts on the lower than low priority list.

[Steven Avery]

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.

In English, we could easily have another word or words than God.

The LORD, Angel, Gabriel, Trinity, Creation, The Word, The Father, Lord God of Israel, Lprd of hosts, most High, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, the God of all comfort.

It is unlikely that there would be talk of an apposition with any other word or words.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

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.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

After this snarky response, I put your posts on the lower than low priority list.

Votive and I got off on the wrong foot, a long time ago, concerning the Oneness and I can’t get past it. I won’t go into it again.

His quote above is in conflict, for me, as there is only one view. Paul is laying out, very concisely, that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. His view, above, feels as though it treats them as separate entities and I have a huge problem with that. At least the wording doesn’t feel right.

I had a Paul moment with God many years ago and I get very defensive on the subject. Certainly I should at least try to do better on that score.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

If I read those two phrases without presuppositions, I would see Christ as God blessed for ever as a far more natural reading.

The presups are the gotchas.

Edit: unless I am misunderstanding what you mean when you say "Christ as God blessed for ever". Do you mean "Christ as God (who is) blessed for ever"? Or do you mean "Christ is blessed by God for ever"? My original response below presupposes you mean the latter.

The problem is "God blessed" as used there in your statement is unnatural. Here's what I mean:

It transforms "God" into an adverb. It is essentially saying Christ is "Godblessed". I have not found any older commentaries or exegetes who even recognise such a phraseology as possible. I think the idea that the term can mean "Godblessed" is a modern invention due largely to ignorance about English history.

In the mid-late 1800s a term came into English usage, the infamous "G.d." came into usage. It was originally simply a declaration that something was condemned by God, but quickly became a profane exclamation and indeed a singular (compound) word in itself. I think people see "God blessed" in our passage as a variation on the theme (meaning the exact opposite of the profanation, of course). But it seems such a term or phrase (used in that way) was unknown prior to modern times.

Which means the Translators did not have such a concept in mind when they translated the passage the way they did. The lack of commentaries exploring, promoting, or bothering to refute such a concept indicates the concept simply did not exist at the time. Again, everyone seems divided as the phrase meaning either Christ is God, and He is blessed forever, or that it is a doxology to God separated from Christ. Nobody that I have found asserts or recognises anyone else asserting the phrase means that Christ is "Godblessed". Except for contemporary persons here on AFF. I still haven't found any modern exegetes or commenters proposing that understanding.

Practically ALL translations prior to the 1611 (the vast majority of which are faithful TR based translations) render the passage unequivocal, as these examples show:

Of whome are the fathers, and of whome concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God ouer all, blessed for euer, Amen. (Rom 9:5 Geneva)

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. (Rom 9:5 Bishops)

whose are also the fathers, off whom (after the flesh) commeth Christ, which is God ouer all, blessed for euer, Ame.
(Rom 9:5 Coverdale)

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.
(Rom 9:5 Tyndale)

whos ben the fadris, and of which is Crist after the fleisch, that is God aboue alle thingis, blessid in to worldis.
(Rom 9:5 Wycliffe)

[Esaias]

Where is the antithesis for "as concerning the flesh"? Inserting "as concerning the flesh" introduces an antithetical pair. As concerning the flesh Christ is of Israel. But the antithesis is... what? That Christ is blessed by God? That God deserves to be praised unto the ages?

The only antithesis provided in the text is that He is over all, God. As concerning the flesh, Christ comes from Israel. But on the other hand, He is over all, God. And as God He is "blessed forever."

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Edit: unless I am misunderstanding what you mean when you say "Christ as God blessed for ever". Do you mean "Christ as God (who is) blessed for ever"? Or do you mean "Christ is blessed by God for ever"? My original response below presupposes you mean the latter.

Yss, the latter.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The problem is "God blessed" as used there in your statement is unnatural. Here's what I mean:

It transforms "God" into an adverb.

God blessed would be one compound adjective, describing Christ. In such a construction, trying to separate the two components is micro-managing unto confusion.

Originally Posted by Esaias

It is essentially saying Christ is "Godblessed". I have not found any older commentaries or exegetes who even recognise such a phraseology as possible.

I have found the idea recognised, but not offhand from older commentaries. See my bandwagon comment below.

It obviously is possible in the English.

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think the idea that the term can mean "Godblessed" is a modern invention due largely to ignorance about English history.

Nope. The AV was simply following the word order of the Greek. It is an unusual word order in the Greek, but flows fine in the English text. Today some writers might put a hyphen between God and blessed, but that is optional even today.

Originally Posted by Esaias

In the mid-late 1800s a term came into English usage, the infamous "G.d." came into usage. It was originally simply a declaration that something was condemned by God, but quickly became a profane exclamation and indeed a singular (compound) word in itself. I think people see "God blessed" in our passage as a variation on the theme (meaning the exact opposite of the profanation, of course). But it seems such a term or phrase (used in that way) was unknown prior to modern times.

This is barely relevant. There is nothing complicated about a compound adjective in either word order..

Originally Posted by Esaias

Which means the Translators did not have such a concept in mind when they translated the passage the way they did.

This is called overthinking.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The lack of commentaries exploring, promoting, or bothering to refute such a concept indicates the concept simply did not exist at the time. Again, everyone seems divided as the phrase meaning either Christ is God, and He is blessed forever, or that it is a doxology to God separated from Christ.

Not exactly. Many commentaries call the AV text ambiguous and do not call it an apposition of Christ and God, without flipping to the doxology to God separated from Christ position. It is true that they struggle in the sense that they do not carve out the third position.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Nobody that I have found asserts or recognises anyone else asserting the phrase means that Christ is "Godblessed"..

Anyone who is skilled in English can see that this is a fine understanding of the AV text.

And if people are denying that in the English, I tend to not trust their Greek . This is not a reference to you, but two or three people I have discussed this with.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Except for contemporary persons here on AFF. I still haven't found any modern exegetes or commenters proposing that understanding.

There was a bandwagon effect.

The Christ is God crew (mostly Trinitarians) were on one side. The God over all crew (largely Unitarians and Socinians) were on the other side. Bandwagons can often lead to fallacious positions.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Practically ALL translations prior to the 1611 (the vast majority of which are faithful TR based translations) render the passage unequivocal, as these examples show:

Note that some have Christ is God over all, which is a very dubious reading. Also Wycliffe followed the Latin.

The key point is that the AV, whose scholarship was way above the others, declined the Christ which is God attempts.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where is the antithesis for "as concerning the flesh"? Inserting "as concerning the flesh" introduces an antithetical pair. As concerning the flesh Christ is of Israel. But the antithesis is... what? That Christ is blessed by God? That God deserves to be praised unto the ages?"

More directly, Christ is over all.

However, the commentators tend to not over-stress the antithesis question. Maybe I will pull them out. The question itself is legit.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The only antithesis provided in the text is that He is over all, God. As concerning the flesh, Christ comes from Israel. But on the other hand, He is over all,

Es suficiente.

Originally Posted by Esaias

God. And as God He is "blessed forever."

This is the awkward multiple ellipses, God doing double-duty, reading.