[] Jn 20:28 – Grammatical difference betweenthenominativefor vocative or of exclamation? Barry nebarry at verizon.net
Sat Apr 1 08:46:39 εστ 2006
[] Jn 20:28 – Grammatical difference between the nominative for vocative or of exclamation? —– Original Message —– From: <frjsilver at optonline.net>To: “Robb Wallace” <robbw at calvary-tricities.org>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 8:01 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 20:28 – Grammatical difference between the nominativefor vocative or of exclamation?>>Dear Friends —One of the most ancient Christian liturgical prayers still in use, the Trisagion, employs just such a construction: hAGIOS ho θεοσ hAGIOS ισξυροσ hAGIOS αθανατοσ ελεησον hHMASThe ancient Roman liturgy, while retaining this prayer in transliterated form, also preserves the grammar of the Greek in its Latin formula: σανξτυσ δευσ σανξτυσ φορτισ σανξτυσ ιμμορταλισ μισερερε NOBISWhile both θεοσ and δευσ, etc., are clearly in the nominative form, this is regarded as an example of the ’emphatic vocative’; note that ελεησον and μισερερε are 2PS imperative forms.ι regret that ι can’t adduce ντ forms at the moment to corroborate the rammar — ι wanted only to illustrate the point that it exists.<<ι think it’s fair to say that the Trisagion employs Greek somewhat later in development than even the Koine of the ντ. By the time of the composition of the ντ, it appears that the nominative has largely supplanted the few vocative forms in active play during the classical period, except in “frozen” forms, or when an author is deliberately trying to sound a bit more classical… The Latin translation (not transliteration!) is simply a literal rendering of the Greek.ν.ε. Barry HofstetterAdjunct Faculty, The Center for Urban Theological Studies Philadelphia, PAhttp://www.cuts.eduVisiting Faculty, Reformed Theological Seminary Washington, δ.ξ.http://www.rts.edu/campuses/washington_dc/index.cfmAnd me:http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/Opinions expressed by author of this message do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions listed above…
[] Jn 20:28 – Grammatical difference between the nominative for vocative or of exclamation?
[] Jn 20:28 – Grammatical difference between the nominative for vocative or of exclamation? Carlton Winbery winberycl at earthlink.net
Sat Apr 1 15:38:22 εστ 2006
[] Jn 20:28 – Grammatical difference betweenthenominativefor vocative or of exclamation? [] John 20:28-Grammatical difference >Jn 20:28 απεκριθη θωμασ και ειπεν AUTWi, hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου.> > > >Greetings,> > > >The phrase “My Lord and my God” in Jn 20:28 contains articular >nominatives (Lord, God) which are identified by Robertson and >Wallace as the “Nominative for Vocative”. ι would think the way >Jehovah’s Witnesses view this they would want to classify it as the >“Nominative for Exclamation”. Besides context (Jesus not rebuking >Thomas) is there a way to tell the difference between the use of the >nominative for vocative and the nominative of exclamation strictly >by syntax? Wallace lists 3 ways to identify: (1) the lack of a verb >(though one may be implied), (2) the obvious emotion of the author, >and (3) the necessity of an exclamation point in translation. ι >would think reasons 2 and 3 could apply here, but would the verbs >απεκριθη and/or ειπεν disqualify the phrase as a Nominative for >Exclamation? Are there any additional ways to support the Nom. for >Vocative identification?> > > >Thanks,> > > >Robb Wallace> Robb, please leave the ψω beliefs and translation out of questions for the list. If you want to know what they think, find a list that discusses that. Ask about the implications of the Greek of John 20:28 and leave all else aside. No more about the ψω‘s.Carlton WinberyCo-moderator– Carlton λ. WinberyRetired Professor of ReligionLouisiana College318-448-6103winberycl at earthlink.netwinbery at lacollege.edu
[] Jn 20:28 – Grammatical difference betweenthenominativefor vocative or of exclamation?[] John 20:28-Grammatical difference
John 20:28 Randy shroder at pacifier.com
Fri Jan 25 12:13:21 εστ 2002
Archives John 20:28 Greetings, ι was talking to a person on another forum and he maintained thatgrammatically ηο κυριοσ in John 20:28 was referring to God the Father.Setting aside theological considerations, does the grammer allow for thisunderstanding?ThanksRandy Shrodeshroder at pacifier.com
ArchivesJohn 20:28
John 20:28 Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jan 25 14:42:57 εστ 2002
John 20:28 John 20:28 At 9:13 αμ -0800 1/25/02, Randy wrote:>Greetings,> ι was talking to a person on another forum and he maintained that>grammatically ηο κυριοσ in John 20:28 was referring to God the Father.>Setting aside theological considerations, does the grammar allow for this>understanding?The grammar might allow for it, but quite apart from any theologicalconsiderations, it’s hard to see how the context of the preceding andfollowing verses would permit hO κυριοσ to be understood as referring toany other than Jesus.– Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)Most months: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu ορ cwconrad at ioa.comWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
John 20:28John 20:28
John 20:28 Ken Smith kens at 180solutions.com
Fri Jan 25 14:45:32 εστ 2002
John 20:28 John 20:28 ι expect what they probably mean is that it isn’t in the vocative case,i.e., isn’t a case of address. Doing my best to leave theologicalpresuppositions aside, ι would probably understand hO κυριοσ μου και hOQEOS μου as a somewhat elliptical way of saying, [συ ει] hO κυριοσ μουκαι hO θεοσ μου, in which case we would expect the nominative ratherthan the vocative case. (α parallel confession, in the form of acomplete sentence, is found, of course, in Matt. 16:16 — συ ει hOCRISTOS, hO ηυιοσ του θεου του ζωντοσ.) If Thomas’ confession wereaddressed to the Father, it strikes me as awful close to swearing, and Ihave a hard time imagining John closing his Gospel that way — but withthat observation, ι‘m moving away from grammar on a particularlydangerous verse to do so, so ι‘ll close there.Ken Smith> —–Original Message—–> From: Randy [mailto:shroder at pacifier.com] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 9:13 αμ> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: [] John 20:28> > > Greetings,> ι was talking to a person on another forum and he maintained > that grammatically ηο κυριοσ in John 20:28 was referring to > God the Father. Setting aside theological considerations, > does the grammer allow for this understanding?> > Thanks> Randy Shrode> shroder at pacifier.com> > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: > [kens at 180solutions.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message > to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >
John 20:28 c stirling bartholomew cc.constantine at worldnet.att.net
Fri Jan 25 15:07:15 εστ 2002
John 20:28 ι Cor. 7.15b on 1/25/02 9:13 αμ, Randy wrote:> ι was talking to a person on another forum and he maintained that> grammatically ηο κυριοσ in John 20:28 was referring to God the Father.> Setting aside theological considerations, does the grammer allow for this> understanding?Randy,For an extensive and careful discussion of the grammar of this text see:”Jesus as God”, Murray ψ. Harris, Baker 1992 pages 105-129.Not everyone on this list will agree with Harris but there is no point inhashing it all over in this forum αγαιν.greetings,Clay — Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.ο. Box 255 Seahurst ωα 98062
John 20:28I Cor. 7.15b
John 20:28 Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Sat Jan 26 17:22:47 εστ 2002
Mark 8:12 John 20:28 On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 11:13 αμ, Randy wrote:> Greetings,> ι was talking to a person on another forum and he maintained that> grammatically ηο κυριοσ in John 20:28 was referring to God the Father.> Setting aside theological considerations, does the grammer allow for > this> understanding?John 20.28: απεκριθη θωμασ και ειπεν AUTWi: hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου. From a purely grammatical point of view, it seems highly unlikely that Thomas was addressing anyone but Jesus. AUTWi (“to him”) no doubt refers to Jesus, since it is the indirect object of απεκριθη (“answered’) and ειπεν (“said”). The only person in the context whom Thomas could have “answered” is Jesus, who in the previous verse said, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” This being the case, it is also important to understand also that hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου is a direct statement which is the object of the verbs of communication απεκριθη (“answered”) and ειπεν (“said”). AUTWi, as ι said, is grammatically the indirect object. So, to bring this out in more awkward English, we may render, “Thomas answered and said ‘My Lord and my God’ to him [Jesus].”==========Steven Lo VulloMadison, ωι
Mark 8:12John 20:28
Sat Jan 26 18:05:16 εστ 2002
John 20:28 future infinitive On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 01:45 πμ, Ken Smith wrote:> ι expect what they probably mean is that it isn’t in the vocative case,> i.e., isn’t a case of address. Doing my best to leave theological> presuppositions aside, ι would probably understand hO κυριοσ μου και hO> θεοσ μου as a somewhat elliptical way of saying, [συ ει] hO κυριοσ μου> και hO θεοσ μου, in which case we would expect the nominative rather> than the vocative case. (α parallel confession, in the form of a> complete sentence, is found, of course, in Matt. 16:16 — συ ει hO> ξριστοσ, hO ηυιοσ του θεου του ζωντοσ.)ι think you are probably right to understand the equative verb ει here, and ι think your parallel of Matt 16.16 is a good one. ι would just like to make two comments about the vocative:(1) If one argues that the words hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου cannot be addressed to Jesus because the nouns are not in the vocative case, the same argument would apply to the contention that they are addressed to the Father, for in either case (if one concludes direct address is in view and that the vocative is required in direct address) the nominative rather than the vocative would preclude the conclusion. On the other hand, if Ken’s solution is adopted (which ι think is probable), there is no reason to suppose the words are not addressed to Jesus.(2) There are many, many cases of the nominative case being used in direct address in the γντ, and it is clear that it is equivalent (at least syntactically) to the vocative in such cases. This can be seen, e.g., in the parallel passages Matt 27.46/Mark15.34, where Matthew has θεε μου θεε μου (vocative) and Mark has hO θεοσ μου hO θεοσ μου (nominative). Both clearly express direct address.==========Steven Lo VulloMadison, ωι
John 20:28future infinitive
John 20:28 Wes Williams WesWilliams at usa.net
Mon Jan 28 11:37:33 εστ 2002
rough breathing rough breathing > Greetings,> ι was talking to a person on another forum and he maintained that> grammatically ηο κυριοσ in John 20:28 was referring to God the Father.> Setting aside theological considerations, does the grammer allow for this> understanding?> > Thanks> Randy Shrode> shroder at pacifier.comRandy,The grammar allows for a reference to either the Father or to Jesus. Thecontext appears to lean in favor of Jesus because the words were addressedto him, as Carl pointed out. There is the matter of the preceding μου andthe presence of the article. Rolf Furuli, who used to post on this list,said the following in his book “The Role of Theology and Bias in BibleTranslation, p. 220”:”Harris’ third example above in John 20:28, where hO θεοσ is used.42 In thispassage it is not possible to claim that the article has semanticimportance, and that Jesus is therefore identical with hO θεοσ in John 1:1,because the article is grammatically required (ξ.φ.δ. Moule, “An Idiom Bookof New Testament Greek,” 2nd ed., pp 116-117). There is of course thepossibility that the article has semantic importance, but there is no way toknow for sure. Because the phrase has the possessive pronoun (“my”), theword θεοσ must be definite, and in Greek it cannot stand without thearticle. We may illustrate this with the English possessive pronoun. If Isay “my book,” the reference is definite. If ι am referring to thisparticular book and ι phrase my words differently, ι could say, “this bookof mine” or “the book of mine.” However, ι cannot say “book of mine,” and ifI say “a book of mine” the reference is indefinite. Thus, a definitereference in English requires the definite article or a demonstrativepronoun. In Greek all kinds of references including a possessive pronounrequire the article.”In John 20:17, we have similar grammar of “my God” θεον μου and τον πατεραμου (note the use of the article with πατερα μου but without the articlewith θεον μου) where Jesus referenced the *Father* as θεον μου. How does onereconcile that Jesus calls the Father θεον μου in 20:17 and Thomas callsJesus hO θεοσ μου in 20:28?One possibility is that John is using a style of speech that _qualifies_QEOS by the use of the adjectival μου. This is supported by the use of MOUin John 20:17. In line with this, Jesus is θεοσ to Thomas in a relativesense as the Father is θεοσ to Jesus (cf. Ex 4:16, 7:1 where Moses is God toPharaoh and Aaron).On a personal note, ι used to believe that the reference was either to theFather or an exclamation as someone would say today “my God!” when viewingsomething amazing. About twenty years ago ι adjusted my view in favor of areference to Jesus due to the speech reference, but the views ι abandonedare still grammatically possible, although weaker. Would not the exclamationview require an ο‘ as in Mt 15:28 “Oh woman, …”?Sincerely,Wes Williams
rough breathingrough breathing
John 20:28 Tovarish tovarish at ntlworld.com
Mon Jan 28 13:26:07 εστ 2002
rough breathing 1 Tim 2:7 Hi Wes,Just a point about John 20:28. Theologically and culturally, ι‘m notsure how the exclamation could be considered a real option, since thistime of comment using God’s name would have been considered a strongexpletive and blasphemous. If this was the case, ι believe Jesus wouldhave responded to John.Take care,Dr Thaddeus Irvine
rough breathing1 Tim 2:7
[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism Greg Gunter g_gunter at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 20 13:13:26 εδτ 2004
[] 1 Timothy 1:5 [] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism ι‘ve been dealing with a person who does not hold to the deity ofChrist and when ι show him John 20:28-29 to show how Thomas hadreferred to Christ specifically as “My Lord and my God” he wants toside-step that by trying to claim that, based on the Greek text, Thomasis doing nothing more than proclaiming to God as his witness that Jesusdid, in fact, arise from the dead…nothing more. Now, ι know that that is a ridiculous interpretation and ι don’t needto know greek to know that but since ι routinely get on to some ofthese guys (who wouldn’t know greek from sanskrit) for trying to belittle greek scholars by taking Stong’s concordance out for every otherword in the text, ι would be grateful if some of you could provide mewith your educated opinions on the Greek text here and why,grammatically, Thomas is referring to Christ as both Lord and God? Morespecifically, please explain why, based on the greek text, Thomas isreferring to Jesus Christ directly as Lord and God?Thank you.Greg Gunter=====α majority of unproductive argumentation could be elliminatedif the participants could remember one thing: If you are goingto disagree with a person’s opinion you should at least be ableto state that person’s opinion to his satisfaction. — Gregorious Maximus__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[] 1 Timothy 1:5[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism
[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism Tony Costa tmcos at rogers.com
Fri Aug 20 13:48:00 εδτ 2004
[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism [] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism Greg, the Greek text clearly shows that Thomas addressed this confession toJesus by the presence of the dative third person pronoun AUTWi “to him”.John 20:28 is believed by most ντ scholars to be the climax of the FourthGospel, the climax of John 1:1 where the Word is called θεοσ “God”. For agood treatment of John 20:28 and the usage of “God” in refence to Jesus seeMurray ψ. Harris. “Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Referenceto Jesus.” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992) This passage hasbeen dealt with on this list at considerable length.Tony Costa—– Original Message —– From: “Greg Gunter” <g_gunter at yahoo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 1:13 PMSubject: [] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism> ι‘ve been dealing with a person who does not hold to the deity of> Christ and when ι show him John 20:28-29 to show how Thomas had> referred to Christ specifically as “My Lord and my God” he wants to> side-step that by trying to claim that, based on the Greek text, Thomas> is doing nothing more than proclaiming to God as his witness that Jesus> did, in fact, arise from the dead…nothing more.> > Now, ι know that that is a ridiculous interpretation and ι don’t need> to know greek to know that but since ι routinely get on to some of> these guys (who wouldn’t know greek from sanskrit) for trying to be> little greek scholars by taking Stong’s concordance out for every other> word in the text, ι would be grateful if some of you could provide me> with your educated opinions on the Greek text here and why,> grammatically, Thomas is referring to Christ as both Lord and God? More> specifically, please explain why, based on the greek text, Thomas is> referring to Jesus Christ directly as Lord and God?> > Thank you.> > Greg Gunter> > =====> α majority of unproductive argumentation could be elliminated> if the participants could remember one thing: If you are going> to disagree with a person’s opinion you should at least be able> to state that person’s opinion to his satisfaction.> — Gregorious Maximus> > __________________________________________________> Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around> http://mail.yahoo.com> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism
[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism Clwinbery at aol.com Clwinbery at aol.com
Fri Aug 20 15:04:19 εδτ 2004
[] What does this mean [] estin in Col 2:17 This message is way over the line of what is acceptable on . Please stick to reading and understanding Greek and leave off the need for apologetics. Please let’s have no more of this.Carlton WinberyCo-moderator
[] What does this mean[] estin in Col 2:17
[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism Harold ρ. Holmyard ιιι hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 20 16:07:03 εδτ 2004
[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism [] Vocative hO θεοσ Dear Greg,>ι‘ve been dealing with a person who does not hold to the deity of>Christ and when ι show him John 20:28-29 to show how Thomas had>referred to Christ specifically as “My Lord and my God” he wants to>side-step that by trying to claim that, based on the Greek text, Thomas>is doing nothing more than proclaiming to God as his witness that Jesus>did, in fact, arise from the dead…nothing more.> >Now, ι know that that is a ridiculous interpretation and ι don’t need>to know greek to know that but since ι routinely get on to some of>these guys (who wouldn’t know greek from sanskrit) for trying to be>little greek scholars by taking Stong’s concordance out for every other>word in the text, ι would be grateful if some of you could provide me>with your educated opinions on the Greek text here and why,>grammatically, Thomas is referring to Christ as both Lord and God? More>specifically, please explain why, based on the greek text, Thomas is>referring to Jesus Christ directly as Lord and God?ηη: Here are some things from the archives:On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 11:13 αμ, Randy wrote:> Greetings,> ι was talking to a person on another forum and he maintained that> grammatically ηο κυριοσ in John 20:28 was referring to God the Father.> Setting aside theological considerations, does the grammer allow for> this> understanding?John 20.28: απεκριθη θωμασ και ειπεν AUTWi: hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσμου. From a purely grammatical point of view, it seems highly unlikely thatThomas was addressing anyone but Jesus. AUTWi (“to him”) no doubt refersto Jesus, since it is the indirect object of απεκριθη (“answered’) andEIPEN (“said”). The only person in the context whom Thomas could have”answered” is Jesus, who in the previous verse said, “Put your fingerhere and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do notdoubt but believe.” This being the case, it is also important tounderstand also that hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου is a direct statementwhich is the object of the verbs of communication απεκριθη (“answered”)and ειπεν (“said”). AUTWi, as ι said, is grammatically the indirectobject. So, to bring this out in more awkward English, we may render,”Thomas answered and said ‘My Lord and my God’ to him [Jesus].”==========Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIOn Friday, January 25, 2002, at 01:45 πμ, Ken Smith wrote:> ι expect what they probably mean is that it isn’t in the vocative case,> i.e., isn’t a case of address. Doing my best to leave theological> presuppositions aside, ι would probably understand hO κυριοσ μου και hO> θεοσ μου as a somewhat elliptical way of saying, [συ ει] hO κυριοσ μου> και hO θεοσ μου, in which case we would expect the nominative rather> than the vocative case. (α parallel confession, in the form of a> complete sentence, is found, of course, in Matt. 16:16 — συ ει hO> ξριστοσ, hO ηυιοσ του θεου του ζωντοσ.)ι think you are probably right to understand the equative verb ει here,and ι think your parallel of Matt 16.16 is a good one. ι would just liketo make two comments about the vocative:(1) If one argues that the words hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου cannot beaddressed to Jesus because the nouns are not in the vocative case, thesame argument would apply to the contention that they are addressed tothe Father, for in either case (if one concludes direct address is inview and that the vocative is required in direct address) the nominativerather than the vocative would preclude the conclusion. On the otherhand, if Ken’s solution is adopted (which ι think is probable), there isno reason to suppose the words are not addressed to Jesus.(2) There are many, many cases of the nominative case being used indirect address in the γντ, and it is clear that it is equivalent (atleast syntactically) to the vocative in such cases. This can be seen,e.g., in the parallel passages Matt 27.46/Mark15.34, where Matthew hasQEE μου θεε μου (vocative) and Mark has hO θεοσ μου hO θεοσ μου(nominative). Both clearly express direct address.==========Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIYours,Harold Holmyard> >Thank you.> >Greg Gunter> >=====>α majority of unproductive argumentation could be elliminated>if the participants could remember one thing: If you are going>to disagree with a person’s opinion you should at least be able>to state that person’s opinion to his satisfaction.>— Gregorious Maximus> >__________________________________________________>Do You Yahoo!?>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around>http://mail.yahoo.com>—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism[] Vocative hO θεοσ
[] John 20:28-29 – Defending against Arianism Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Fri Aug 20 20:40:23 εδτ 2004
[] Vocative hO θεοσ [] What does this mean On Aug 20, 2004, at 3:07 πμ, Harold ρ. Holmyard ιιι wrote:> On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 01:45 πμ, Ken Smith wrote:> >> ι expect what they probably mean is that it isn’t in the vocative >> case,>> i.e., isn’t a case of address. Doing my best to leave theological>> presuppositions aside, ι would probably understand hO κυριοσ μου και >> hO>> θεοσ μου as a somewhat elliptical way of saying, [συ ει] hO κυριοσ >> μου>> και hO θεοσ μου, in which case we would expect the nominative rather>> than the vocative case. (α parallel confession, in the form of a>> complete sentence, is found, of course, in Matt. 16:16 — συ ει hO>> ξριστοσ, hO ηυιοσ του θεου του ζωντοσ.)> > ι think you are probably right to understand the equative verb ει here,> and ι think your parallel of Matt 16.16 is a good one. ι would just > like> to make two comments about the vocative:> > (1) If one argues that the words hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου cannot > be> addressed to Jesus because the nouns are not in the vocative case, the> same argument would apply to the contention that they are addressed to> the Father, for in either case (if one concludes direct address is in> view and that the vocative is required in direct address) the > nominative> rather than the vocative would preclude the conclusion. On the other> hand, if Ken’s solution is adopted (which ι think is probable), there > is> no reason to suppose the words are not addressed to Jesus.> > (2) There are many, many cases of the nominative case being used in> direct address in the γντ, and it is clear that it is equivalent (at> least syntactically) to the vocative in such cases. This can be seen,> e.g., in the parallel passages Matt 27.46/Mark15.34, where Matthew has> θεε μου θεε μου (vocative) and Mark has hO θεοσ μου hO θεοσ μου> (nominative). Both clearly express direct address.When ι said there were “many, many cases” of the nominative for the vocative in the γντ ι was actually *understating* the situation. According to Wallace in γγββ, “There are almost 600 instances of nom. for voc. in the ντ–about twice as many as there are true vocatives.”============Steven Lo VulloMadison, ωι
[] Vocative hO θεοσ[] What does this mean
[] John 20:28-Grammatical difference mabernathy714 at comcast.net mabernathy714 at comcast.net
Sat Apr 1 18:28:24 εστ 2006
[] Jn 20:28 – Grammatical difference between the nominative for vocative or of exclamation? [] John 20:28-Grammatical difference Maybe ι‘m being dense but in the context of John 20:29 ι don’t really see how it is possible to take this to mean anything short of a declaration that Jesus is Lord and God. But excluging verse 29, Thomas was speaking to Jesus. Can we reasonably expect that John would have stated that Thomas said to Jesus if Thomas was using Lord and God as an exclamation?Sincerely,Michael Abernathy
[] Jn 20:28 – Grammatical difference between the nominative for vocative or of exclamation?[] John 20:28-Grammatical difference
[] John 20:28-Grammatical difference George φ Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sat Apr 1 22:26:09 εστ 2006
[] John 20:28-Grammatical difference [] ἱ?????? in 1 John 2:2 (expiation/propitiation) On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:28:24 +0000 mabernathy714 at comcast.net writes:> Maybe ι‘m being dense but in the context of John 20:29 ι don’t really > see how it is possible to take this to mean anything short of a > declaration that Jesus is Lord and God. But excluging verse 29, > Thomas was speaking to Jesus. Can we reasonably expect that John > would have stated that Thomas said to Jesus if Thomas was using Lord > and God as an exclamation?> Sincerely,> Michael Abernathy___________APEKRIQH θωμασ και ειπεν AUTWi, “hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου.”147. Nominative instead of vocative. Even where the nominative is stillformally distinguished from the vocative, there is still a tendency forthe nominative to usurp the place of the vocative (a tendency observablealready in Homer). In the ντ this is the case (1) generally withadjectives used alone or without a substantive where the vocative isclear; (2) with additions of all kinds to the vocative (Attic συ hOPRESBUTATOS, προξενε και hOI αλλοι), especially with participles(§412(5)) which hardly ever form the vocative. (3) Attic used thenominative (with article) with simple substantives only in addressinginferiors, who were, so to speak, thereby addressed in the 3rd person(Aristoph., Ra. 521 hO παισ, ακολουθει). The ντ (in passages translatedfrom a Semitic language) and the λχχ do not conform to these limitations,but can even say hO θεοσ, hO παθρ etc., in which the arthrous Semiticvocative is being reproduced by the Greek nominative with article. . . . .With attributive: hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου Jn 20:28 (cf. Rev 4:11),hO λαοσ μου Rev 18:4 (voc. sg. from λαοσ λεωσ generally not common); Lk12:32, Mk 9:25. Blass, φ., Debrunner, α., & Funk, ρ. ω. (1961). α Greek grammar of theNew Testament and other early Christian literature (81). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.It would seem to me that Thomas is here unquestionably referring to Jesusas both lord (which might be as simple as saying “sir”) and God.georgegfsomsel___________
[] John 20:28-Grammatical difference[] ἱ?????? in 1 John 2:2 (expiation/propitiation)
Sat Jan 26 19:39:43 εστ 2002
future infinitive John 3:19 – subject verb agreement On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 04:22 πμ, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:> On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 11:13 αμ, Randy wrote:> >> Greetings,>> ι was talking to a person on another forum and he maintained that>> grammatically ηο κυριοσ in John 20:28 was referring to God the Father.>> Setting aside theological considerations, does the grammer allow for >> this>> understanding?> > John 20.28: απεκριθη θωμασ και ειπεν AUTWi: hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ > μου.> > From a purely grammatical point of view, it seems highly unlikely that > Thomas was addressing anyone but Jesus. AUTWi (“to him”) no doubt > refers to Jesus, since it is the indirect object of απεκριθη > (“answered’) and ειπεν (“said”). The only person in the context whom > Thomas could have “answered” and “said” something to is Jesus, who in > the previous verse said, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach > out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” This > being the case, it is also important to understand also that hO κυριοσ > μου και hO θεοσ μου is a direct statement which is the object of the > verbs of communication απεκριθη (“answered”) and ειπεν (“said”). AUTWi, > as ι said, is grammatically the indirect object. So, to bring this out > in more awkward English, we may render, “Thomas answered and said ‘My > Lord and my God’ to him [Jesus].”One correction to the above. αυτωι is the indirect object of ειπεν only (not απεκριθη also), and hO κυριοσ μου και hO θεοσ μου is the direct object of ειπεν only (not απεκριθη also). This, however, does not alter the above points, since απεκριθη and ειπεν are joined by και, and the person Thomas “answered” is the same person to whom he “said” the following words. Sorry for the error.==========Steven Lo VulloMadison, ωι
future infinitiveJohn 3:19 – subject verb agreement