[B-Greek] John 20:28-29 - Defending against Arianism
Harold R. Holmyard III
hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 20 16:07:03 EDT 2004
Dear Greg,
>I've been dealing with a person who does not hold to the deity of
>Christ and when I 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, I know that that is a ridiculous interpretation and I don't need
>to know greek to know that but since I 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, I 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?
HH: Here are some things from the B-Greek archives:
On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 11:13 AM, Randy wrote:
> Greetings,
> I was talking to a person on another forum and he maintained that
> grammatically HO KYRIOS in John 20:28 was referring to God the Father.
> Setting aside theological considerations, does the grammer allow for
> this
> understanding?
John 20.28: APEKRIQH QWMAS KAI EIPEN AUTWi: hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS
MOU.
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 APEKRIQH ("answered') and
EIPEN ("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 KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU is a direct statement
which is the object of the verbs of communication APEKRIQH ("answered")
and EIPEN ("said"). AUTWi, as I 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 Vullo
Madison, WI
On Friday, January 25, 2002, at 01:45 PM, Ken Smith wrote:
> I 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, I would probably understand hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO
> QEOS MOU as a somewhat elliptical way of saying, [SU EI] hO KURIOS MOU
> KAI hO QEOS MOU, in which case we would expect the nominative rather
> than the vocative case. (A parallel confession, in the form of a
> complete sentence, is found, of course, in Matt. 16:16 -- SU EI hO
> CRISTOS, hO HUIOS TOU QEOU TOU ZWNTOS.)
I think you are probably right to understand the equative verb EI here,
and I think your parallel of Matt 16.16 is a good one. I would just like
to make two comments about the vocative:
(1) If one argues that the words hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU 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 I 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 GNT, 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
QEE MOU QEE MOU (vocative) and Mark has hO QEOS MOU hO QEOS MOU
(nominative). Both clearly express direct address.
==========
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>
>Thank you.
>
>Greg Gunter
>
>=====
>A 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
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list