Jonathan Robie wrote:Is the paper online? Can you give some examples from the paper?
Yes it is.:
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hil ... cs-gtj.doc
On page 102 Wallace wrote:
"The following lines of evidence establish, I believe, that the
object-complement construction is semantically equivalent to ;the
subject-predicate nominative construction. (1) By definition, both the
complement and the predicate nominative make an assertion about
.another noun in the same case. (2) The terms used to describe the
object-complement construction in most grammars strongly suggest
such semantic equivalence. As the reader will recall, it was mentioned
earlier that many of the major grammars call this construction an
object and predicate accusative construction.48 And Winer goes so far
as to call the construction an "accusative of subject and predicate
[italics mine]."49 (3) The infinitive of the copula occasionally occurs
in an object-complement construction, linking this construction to the
subject-predicate nominative construction semantically.50 (4) Many
of the verbs which take an object-complement also take a declara-
tive/recitative o!ti clause (and even, occasionally, some other use of o!ti
which involves its own subject-predicate nominative clause) in which
there is a subject-predicate nominative construction.51 (5) Occasion-
ally, the manuscripts even vacillate between an object-complement
construction and a subject-predicate nominative construction in a o!ti
clause,52 illustrating that the scribes probably considered the two con-
structions to be semantically equivalent. (6) As several grammars
point out, when a verb which takes an object-complement construc-
tion in the active is transformed into a passive, the object becomes
the nominative subject and the complement becomes the predicate
48 See the definition of terms above and n. 8.
49 Winer, Treatise, 285.
50 Cf. Matt 16:13; Mark 8:27, 29; Luke 9:20; 20:41; 23:2; Acts 5:36; 8:9; 16:5; 17:7; 19.35 (in D), 20.6, 28.6, Rom 1.22, 14.14, 15.8, 16.19, I Cor 7.7, 26, 32, 10.20, 2 Cor
11:16; Phil 3:8, etc.
51 Cf. John 4: 19; 10:34-36 (though a slightly different situation here); 20:31; Matt
21:26-Mark 11:32; Acts 16:3; Rom 8:18; Phil 2:11; etc.
52 Cf. Rom 10:9 (o[mologh<s^j . . . ku<rion ]Ihsou?n in most manuscripts; o[molo-
gh<s^j . . . o!ti ku<rioj ]Ihsou?j in B). We might add here that the biblical authors
occasionally vacillate between the two constructions. For example, Mark 11:32 has a
mixed construction (object-o!ti-predlcate nominative: ei#xon to>n ]Iwa<nnhn o@ntwj o!ti
profh<thj h#n) which parallels the object-complement in Matt 21:26 (w[j profh<thn
e@xousin to>n ]Iwa<nnhn). In John 10:34-35 there are parallel thoughts in which one is an
object-complement and the other is direct discourse (though not directly. introduced by
a recitative (o!ti: o!ti e]gw> ei#pa: qeoi< e]ste . . . ei] e]kei<nouj ei#pen qeou>j. Notice also v 36 in
which the thought is carried on: ui[o>j tou? qeou? ei]mi). Cf. also Rom 9:25 and I Pet 2: 10
for a similar parallel."