john 20.28 nom for nom.

[2ducklow]

John 2:28 is one complete sentence. The first clause, "And Thomas answered and said unto him. . .," makes no sense without the second clause! The second clause, "My Lord and my God," makes no sense without the first clause!

the first clause "and Paul said" makes no sense without the second clause! The second clause, "O Depth" makes no sense without the first clause! Both our statements are the same, and My statement is just as false as your statement. Because O depth and O my Lord and O my God both make sense as exclamations.


nominative of exclamations are incomplete sentences, like "o depth" or "o my Lord and O my god".


"Robertson points out that this is “a sort of interjectional nominative,” something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (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. Sometimes ω is used with the nominative.


lack of a verb means incomplete sentence, every sentence must have a subject and a verb. Both what thomas and Paul uttered were exclamations and were both incomplete sentences.


Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dan Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 59-60.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
​

Since you fail to understand this simple fact of grammar, your entire argument is meaningless! Please note highlights?

VI Nominative of Exclamation
​

A. Definition
​

The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence.


Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dan Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 59-60.
​

what you are saying means is that if you quote someone uttering an exclamation it ceases to be an exclamation, as I demonstrated with my analogies. You haven't disproved my analogies. So,it's just your opinon that that def. means that if you quote someone uttering an exclamation, it ceases to be an exclamation. An opinon that no scholar would dare utter.. So there is no way that Wallace could have ever meant by the above definition, that quoting someone uttering an exclamation causes it to not be an exclamation.

You pick out bits and pieces of sources, twisting them to suit your purpose. If a source does not support your argument, in context, DON'T quote it!

I twisted nothing, and only left out what I considered irrelevant to whatever point I was making.

And paul said, o depth.

O depth is an exclamation uttered by Paul

and Thomas said , o my Lord and o my God.

O my lord and o my God is an exclamation uttered by Thomas.

the analogy is exactly the same, you say it isn't but you dont' say why it isn't. It is exactly the same because in both instances someone is quoting someone uttering an exclamation.

So my analogy isn't twisting anything, as I demonstrated and explained here.

 

[Der Alte]

John 2:28 is one complete sentence. The first clause, "And Thomas answered and said unto him. . .," makes no sense without the second clause! The second clause, "My Lord and my God," makes no sense without the first clause!

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.​

Since you fail to understand this simple fact of grammar, your entire argument is meaningless! Please note highlights?

VI Nominative of Exclamation
A. Definition
The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence.

B. Clarification and Significance.
This use of the nominative is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for Vocative [ . . . ] The Nominative of exclamation will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax. The emotional topic is exclaimed without any verb stated.

Robertson points out that this is “a sort of interjectional nominative,” something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (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. Sometimes ω is used with the nominative.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dan Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 59-60.​

You pick out bits and pieces of sources, twisting them to suit your purpose. If a source does not support your argument, in context, DON'T quote it!

the first clause "and Paul said" makes no sense without the second clause! The second clause, "O Depth" makes no sense without the first clause! Both our statements are the same, and My statement is just as false as your statement. Because O depth and O my Lord and O my God both make sense as exclamations.

Twisting scripture Rom 11:33 does NOT say "and Paul said, 'O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!"

nominative of exclamations are incomplete sentences, like "o depth" or "o my Lord and O my god".

"Robertson points out that this is “a sort of interjectional nominative,” something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (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. Sometimes ω is used with the nominative.

lack of a verb means incomplete sentence, every sentence must have a subject and a verb. Both what thomas and Paul uttered were exclamations and were both incomplete sentences.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dan Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 59-60.

what you are saying means is that if you quote someone uttering an exclamation it ceases to be an exclamation, as I demonstrated with my analogies. You haven't disproved my analogies. So,it's just your opinon that that def. means that if you quote someone uttering an exclamation, it ceases to be an exclamation. An opinon that no scholar would dare utter.. So there is no way that Wallace could have ever meant by the above definition, that quoting someone uttering an exclamation causes it to not be an exclamation.

I twisted nothing, and only left out what I considered irrelevant to whatever point I was making.

And paul said, o depth.

O depth is an exclamation uttered by Paul [Spoken to whom?]

and Thomas said , o my Lord and o my God.

O my lord and o my God is an exclamation uttered by Thomas. [Spoken to whom?]

the analogy is exactly the same, you say it isn't but you dont' say why it isn't. It is exactly the same because in both instances someone is quoting someone uttering an exclamation.

So my analogy isn't twisting anything, as I demonstrated and explained here.

Read the complete definition written by Wallace until you fully understand it! If you omit any part of the definition, you are misrepresenting Wallace! Note the highlighted words? Then read all the examples given by all the scholars quoted. There are NO, ZERO, NONE examples given of a Nominative of exclamation, where the speaker is directly addressing another person!

To whom was Paul speaking when he said "O depths, etc?" How do you know? How does "O depth" relate to the rest of the sentence? If you omit the words "O depth" does the sentence still make sense?

Rotherham Rom 11:28 Oh! ω the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments! and untraceable his ways!​

"the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! Certainly does!

Now lets try the same thing with John 20:28,

(Rotherham) John 20:28 Thomas answered, and said unto him--My Lord, and my God!​

"Thomas answered and said unto him." Doesn't make sense without quoting what Thomas said.

"My Lord, and my God," standing alone, doesn't make sense without quoting John's identification!

To whom was Thomas speaking when he said "My lord and my God." How do you know? How does "My lord and my God." relate to the rest of the sentence? "My lord and my God" is NOT a "Nominative of Exclamation." because Thomas was directly addressing Jesus.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to him [Jesus], My LORD and my God.​

"The Nominative of exclamation will not be used in direct address., Wallace, GGBB."

 

[2ducklow]

Read the complete definition written by Wallace until you fully understand it

! If you omit any part of the definition, you are misrepresenting Wallace! Note the highlighted words? Then read all the examples given by all the scholars quoted. There are NO, ZERO, NONE examples given of a Nominative of exclamation, where the speaker is directly addressing another person!

VI Nominative of Exclamation

A. Definition
The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence.

B. Clarification and Significance.
This use of the nominative is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for Vocative [ . . . ] The Nominative of exclamation will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax. The emotional topic is exclaimed without any verb stated.

Robertson points out that this is “a sort of interjectional nominative,” something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (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. Sometimes ω is used with the nominative.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dan Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 59

The part of john 20.28, "and Thomas said unto him," does not mean that what follows has to be Thomas addressing anyone.

Luke 12:14 But, he, said unto him--Man! (Ανθροπε N-VSM) who hath appointed me a judge or divider over you?

Rotherham) Luke 15:31 But, he, said unto him--Child! (teknon <5043> {N-VSN} ) thou, always, art, with me, and, all that is mine, is, thine;


One can say an exclamation to someone and address someone by exclaiming an address to them, in the two cases above, Man! And Child!, BUT, in both cases when you address someone with an exclamation it is always in the vocative case as with these two examples, and of course John 20.28 is not in the vocative case. If Thomas had been addressing Jesus with an exclamation or even addressing him, it would have to have been in the vocative case, as it is every where else in the bible.

Below are examples of an exclamation, not addressing anyone, that follow “said to him” or “said unto him” etc.



Matthew 12:47 [[And one said to him, Lo! thy mother and thy brethren, without, are standing, seeking, to speak, with thee

Rotherham) Matthew 14:31 And, straightway, Jesus, stretching forth his hand, laid hold upon him and saith unto him--O little-of-faith! why didst thou doubt?

Rotherham) John 16:29 His disciples say--See! now, openly, art thou speaking, and, not a single similitude, art thou using:

C. Illustrations


Rom 7:24 &#964;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#953;&#960;&#946;&#961;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#947;&#969; &#945;&#957;&#952;&#961;&#969;&#960;&#959;&#962;
[&#927;] wretched man [that] &#921; am!

Rom 11:33 ‘&#937; &#914;&#945;&#952;&#959;&#962; &#960;&#955;&#959;&#952;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#963;&#959;&#966;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#947;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#949;&#969;
Oh the depth both of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!


Notice that in these examples the nominative of exclamation is not used in a sentence. Even in Rom 7:24 the implied “that” removes this from being a complete thought. It is a good rule of thumb that if the construction in which a supposed nom. Of exclamation appears can be construed as a sentence, then the nom. Should be simply considered as the subject. Thus, 1 Cor 15:57, which implies the optative of the copula, should probably not be considered as containing a nominative of exclamation.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XlqoTVsk2wcC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=O+god+Greek+exclamation&source=bl&ots=DwHir80H5G&sig=rVJRssi7tVDO4emksLuoTRwrm1Q&hl=en&ei=GNY_TJ2kMImCsQOKvoX8DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=O%20god%20Greek%20exclamation&f=false
The illustrations he gives tell you that he is referring to what people say, Thomas didn’t say “and Thomas said unto him”. Only the part which includes what Thomas said and nothing else fits with the illustrations. Paul said "O wretched man I!' and "O the depth both of riches, wisdom and knowledge of god!" In both of these constructions, there is no verb, it is obviously and emotional outburst and obviously requires an exclamation point, same with john 20.28.


Another thing that proves your analysis is wrong, is that if the construction in which a nominative of exclamation appears can be construed as a sentence, then the nom. Should be considered as the subject. My Lord and my God is the Direct object of John 20.28 . My lord and My God cannot be considered the subject of the sentence.
John 20:28 Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Sub. Verb I.O. D.O.


"my Lord and my God" can not be construed as a sentence, so it is a nominative of exclamation.
And " Thomas said unto him, my Lord and my God." can be construed and is a sentence, but "my lord and my God is not the subject of the sentence, Thomas is. So obviously he is refering to what someone says, not someone quoting what someone says.

 

[Der Alte]

Your most recent argument, as all the preceding ones, violates the definition and the Clarification and Significance stated by Wallace! If you don't like the rule as stated by Wallace, DON'T quote it! Find another rule by someone else! Or get a PhD and 30 years teaching experience and research and write your own grammar.

VI Nominative of Exclamation
A. Definition
The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence.

B. Clarification and Significance.
This use of the nominative is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for Vocative [ . . . ] The Nominative of exclamation will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax. The emotional topic is exclaimed without any verb stated.

Robertson points out that this is “a sort of interjectional nominative,” something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (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. Sometimes &#969; is used with the nominative.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dan Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 59-60.​

​

​

 

[2ducklow]

According to Wallace, if "my lord and my God' is not an exclamation, then it is the subject of the sentence. Care to say 'My lord and My god'' is the subject of "and thomas said, my lord and my God."? you just get around it by pretending that section c, and particularly the part i put in red doesn't exist. Hey you could always say that My lord and my god is the subject of the sentence "and Thomas said, my lord and my god" because you studied Greek at the graduate level. Using your extremely faulty understanding of Wallace's grammar, Paul didn't utter an exclamation cause I quoted him. If i hadn't quoted what paul said, he uttered an exclamation but cause I quoted him, he didn't utter an exclamation. Graduate level grammar aka Der Alter.


kai apekriqh o pauloV kai eipen autw,
w baqoV ploutou ai sofiaV kai gnwsewV qeou wV anexereunhta ta krimata autou kai anexicniastoi ai odoi autou.





kai apekriqh o pauloV kai eipen autw , talaipwroV egw anqrwpoV tiV me rusetai ek tou swmatoV tou qanatou tout

 

[2ducklow]

Your most recent argument,

The part of john 20.28, "and Thomas said unto him," does not mean that what follows has to be Thomas addressing anyone.

Luke 12:14 But, he, said unto him--Man! (&#913;&#957;&#952;&#961;&#959;&#960;&#949; N-VSM) who hath appointed me a judge or divider over you?

Rotherham) Luke 15:31 But, he, said unto him--Child! (teknon <5043> {N-VSN} ) thou, always, art, with me, and, all that is mine, is, thine;


One can say an exclamation to someone and address someone by exclaiming an address to them, in the two cases above, Man! And Child!, BUT, in both cases when you address someone with an exclamation it is always in the vocative case as with these two examples, and of course John 20.28 is not in the vocative case. If Thomas had been addressing Jesus with an exclamation or even addressing him, it would have to have been in the vocative case, as it is every where else in the bible.

Below are examples of an exclamation, not addressing anyone, that follow &#8220;said to him&#8221; or &#8220;said unto him&#8221; etc.



Matthew 12:47 [[And one said to him, Lo! thy mother and thy brethren, without, are standing, seeking, to speak, with thee

Rotherham) Matthew 14:31 And, straightway, Jesus, stretching forth his hand, laid hold upon him and saith unto him--O little-of-faith! why didst thou doubt?

Rotherham) John 16:29 His disciples say--See! now, openly, art thou speaking, and, not a single similitude, art thou using:

C. Illustrations


Rom 7:24 &#964;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#953;&#960;&#946;&#961;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#947;&#969; &#945;&#957;&#952;&#961;&#969;&#960;&#959;&#962;
[&#927;] wretched man [that] &#921; am!

Rom 11:33 &#8216;&#937; &#914;&#945;&#952;&#959;&#962; &#960;&#955;&#959;&#952;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#963;&#959;&#966;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#947;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#949;&#969;
Oh the depth both of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!


Notice that in these examples the nominative of exclamation is not used in a sentence. Even in Rom 7:24 the implied &#8220;that&#8221; removes this from being a complete thought. It is a good rule of thumb that if the construction in which a supposed nom. Of exclamation appears can be construed as a sentence, then the nom. Should be simply considered as the subject. Thus, 1 Cor 15:57, which implies the optative of the copula, should probably not be considered as containing a nominative of exclamation.


​

http://books.google.com/books?id=XlqoTVsk2wcC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=O+god+Greek+exclamation&source=bl&ots=DwHir80H5G&sig=rVJRssi7tVDO4emksLuoTRwrm1Q&hl=en&ei=GNY_TJ2kMImCsQOKvoX8DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=O%20god%20Greek%20exclamation&f=false
The illustrations he gives tell you that he is referring to what people say, Thomas didn&#8217;t say &#8220;and Thomas said unto him&#8221;. Only the part which includes what Thomas said and nothing else fits with the illustrations. Paul said "O wretched man I!' and "O the depth both of riches, wisdom and knowledge of god!" In both of these constructions, there is no verb, it is obviously and emotional outburst and obviously requires an exclamation point, same with john 20.28.


Another thing that proves your analysis is wrong, is that if the construction in which a nominative of exclamation appears can be construed as a sentence, then the nom. Should be considered as the subject. My Lord and my God is the Direct object of John 20.28 . My lord and My God cannot be considered the subject of the sentence.
John 20:28 Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Sub. Verb I.O. D.O.

you dismiss all my arugments with an Is not/

 

[2ducklow]

I've learned a lot about john 20.28 debating with you der alter, thanks, You've helped me more than you could possibly know.

 

[Der Alte]

According to Wallace, if "my lord and my God' is not an exclamation, then it is the subject of the sentence. Care to say 'My lord and My god'' is the subject of "and thomas said, my lord and my God."? you just get around it by pretending that section c, and particularly the part i put in red doesn't exist. Hey you could always say that My lord and my god is the subject of the sentence "and Thomas said, my lord and my god" because you studied Greek at the graduate level.

What you have done is scrabble around, desperately trying to find a rule which you think helps your argument. You think this rule helps you, although it has nothing to do with John 20:28, or any other nominative for Vocative which does NOT fit all the criteria.

Section C is irrelevant, if the word/phrase does not even meet the definition! You have wasted all this time when Nominative of exclamation is NOT a proof John 20:28, or any other verse, is or is not an exclamation! The Nominative of exclamation identifies when a word, in the Nominative case, which has nothing to do with the sentence or topic, is not direct address, has no accompanying verb, is obviously emotional, and requires an exclamation point! Did you notice NO, ZERO, NONE of the examples of Nominative of exclamation are direct address, including Mark 3:34, "Behold my mother and my brothers!"?

John 20:28, may or may not be an exclamation, Q,E,D, there are many exclamations which are not Nominative of exclamations! But it is NOT an example of an "Nominative of exclamation!" Because it is related to the rest of the sentence, and it is direct address to a specific person, Jesus!

Here in the south many people use the word "Hey" in place of "Hi" or "Hello!" When used that way it is not an exclamation. But if someone says to another person, "Hey! You can't park there." it becomes an exclamation. It is not related to "cars" or "parking." Just as in the three examples given by Wallace.

 

[2ducklow]

What you have done is scrabble around, desperately trying to find a rule which you think helps your argument. You think this rule helps you, although it has nothing to do with John 20:28, or any other nominative for Vocative which does NOT fit all the criteria.

Section C is irrelevant, if the word/phrase does not even meet the definition! Section C is relevant and the word/phrase "my lord and my God" does meet the definition, all 3 definitions.

It is only your opinon that it doesn't.

You have wasted all this time when Nominative of exclamation is NOT a proof John 20:28, or any other verse, is or is not an exclamation!

Just your opinon, john 20.28 does meet all 3 requirements.

The Nominative of exclamation identifies when a word, in the Nominative case, which has nothing to do with the sentence or topic,

This is the sticking point. what Thomas said is to be used to determine whether what Thomas said is an exclamation or not. and What Thomas said fits all 3 requirments of a nominative of exclamation. You are saying if someone quotes someone uttering an exclamtion then it ceases to be an exclamation because of your faulty understanding of Wallace's rule

is not direct address, has no accompanying verb, is obviously emotional, and requires an exclamation point! Did you notice NO, ZERO, NONE of the examples of Nominative of exclamation are direct address, including Mark 3:34, "Behold my mother and my brothers!"?

And neither is "my Lord and my god' .

Matthew 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?


peter didn't address Jesus as Behold. peter said unto him (Jesus ) Behold. Thomas didn't address Jesus he said unto him (Jesus) O myGod and o my Lord.

John 20:28, may or may not be an exclamation, Q,E,D, there are many exclamations which are not Nominative of exclamations! But it is NOT an example of an "Nominative of exclamation!" Because it is related to the rest of the sentence, and it is direct address to a specific person, Jesus!

It is not a direct address to Jesus, you only assume that it is because it says "and Thomas said unto him". But someone saying "'said unto him" doesn't automatically make it addressing someone as I pointed out with scripture previously.

Here in the south many people use the word "Hey" in place of "Hi" or "Hello!" When used that way it is not an exclamation. But if someone says to another person, "Hey! You can't park there." it becomes an exclamation. It is not related to "cars" or "parking." Just as in the three examples given by Wallace.

 

[Der Alte]

Below are examples of an exclamation, not addressing anyone, that follow &#8220;said to him&#8221; or &#8220;said unto him&#8221; etc.

Rubbish! Nominative of exclamation is a special case, not every occurrence of a particular word such as "behold" is a NofE. That is why no scholar lists any of the following vss. as an example of NofE, because the exclamatory word occurs in a sentence with a verb and/or is in a sentence directly addressed to a specific person(s), as I show below.

Matthew 12:47 And one said to him, Lo! thy [Jesus] mother and thy [Jesus] brethren, without, are standing, [verb] seeking, to speak, with thee [Jesus]

The person is addressing Jesus directly and giving him information about his family, who are standing, a verb, outside, but according to you he is not talking to Jesus?

(Rotherham) Matthew 14:31 And, straightway, Jesus, stretching [verb] forth his hand, laid hold upon him and saith unto him--O little-of-faith! why didst thou doubt? [verb]

According to Ducks's interpretation although Jesus stretched forth his hand, laid it on Peter, and said unto Peter, why did you doubt, he is not directly addressing Peter?

(Rotherham) John 16:29 His disciples say--See! now, openly, art thou speaking, [verb] and, not a single similitude, art thou using: [verb]

And another Duck faulty interpretation. Jesus' disciples speaking directly to him say you, Jesus, are not using parables but speaking, a verb, plainly. But again you say the disciples are not addressing Jesus. Even you pet scholar Rotherham shows that Jesus is directly addressing Peter and that the disciples are addressing Jesus.

We're done here! This argument is meaningless nonsense!

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]Just your opinon, john 20.28 does meet all 3 requirements.
[ . . . ]
This is the sticking point. what Thomas said is to be used to determine whether what Thomas said is an exclamation or not. and What Thomas said fits all 3 requirments of a nominative of exclamation. You are saying if someone quotes someone uttering an exclamtion then it ceases to be an exclamation because of your faulty understanding of Wallace's rule.

It is NOT Wallace's rule! You quoted Wallace citing Robertson on the rule! Robertson died in 1937, Wallace was born in 1952 and earned his PhD in 1995. The rule is recognized by many other scholars! Neither Wallace, nor any other accredited Greek scholar, classify John 20:28 as a Nominative of exclamation! They know the rule, you don't, that is why you continue to ignore the definition, clarification and significance.

VI Nominative of Exclamation
A. Definition

The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence.

B. Clarification and Significance.

This use of the nominative is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for Vocative [ . . . ] The Nominative of exclamation will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax. The emotional topic is exclaimed without any verb stated.

Robertson points out that this is “a sort of interjectional nominative,” something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (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. Sometimes &#969; is used with the nominative.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dan Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 59-60.

Luke 19:2 And look, a man named Zacchaeus. And he was a chief tax collector and he was rich.

Here the audience continues to view the episode through the eyes of the narrator, with “behold” serving as a focusing device. So faced with a diffuse shot of the city of Jericho with the figure of Jesus passing in the distance, the audience is directed by “behold” to the element of this diffuse shot that deserves attention: the immediately following “a man named Zacchaeus.”

the narrator to viewing it through the eyes of one of the characters, for we do not know that deserves attention: the immediately following “a man named Zacchaeus.”

Not surprisingly, the noun “man” is in the nominative, but it is worth noting that it is a nominative without a verb, and thus a nominative of exclamation. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey describe the nominative of exclamation as follows:

“When it is desired to stress a thought with great distinctness, the nominative is used without a verb. The function of designation, serving ordinarily as a helper to the verb, thus stands alone and thereby receives greater emphasis. . . . The nominative is the pointing case, and its pointer capacity is strengthened when unencumbered by a verb.”17 So in this second way, the audience’s attention is directed toward this “man.”

Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 1 (2006) Yamasaki: Point of View in a Gospel Story 99​

http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1251.pdf​

For your edification.

THE CASES (&#928;&#932;&#937;&#931;&#917;&#921;&#931 461

(g) IN EXCLAMATIONS. The nominative is natural in exclamations, a sort of interjectional nominative.1 So Paul in Ro. 7:24, talaipwros ego anthrwpos 11:33, w bathos (a possible vocative) ploutou. So. Ro. 7:24; 1 Cor. 15:57. Cf. xaris tw thew (Ro. 6 : 17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. Cf. xaris tois theois, B.U. 843 (i/A.D.).

(h) USED AS VOCATIVE. It only remains to consider the nominative form which is used as a vocative. Cf. chapter VII, 7, (a), for details as to form. It all depends on what one means by the term "case" when he says that the nominative is used as a vocative. The form is undoubtedly the same as that of the vocative in a multitude of instances (all neuter nouns, for instance, singular and plural, plural of all nouns in truth). It is only in the singular that any distinction was made between the nominative and vocative in form, and by no means always here, as in the case of feminine nouns of the first declension, theos (usually) in the second, liquid oxytones like poimhv in the third, etc. But if by the vocative one means the case of address, then the nominative form in address is really vocative, not nominative. Thus su pathr (Jo. 17:21) is just as truly vocative as su pater (17:5). Indeed in Jo. 17:25 we have pathr dikaie, showing that pathr is here regarded as vocative. The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes2 we have o pais akolouthei. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too when we have Abba o pathr (Mk. 14:36) whether Jesus said one or both. In Mt. 11:26 (nai o pathr) we have the vocative. When the article is used, of course the nominative form must occur. Thus in Rev. 18:20 we have both together, ourane kai oi agioi. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form.3 Thus Kurie, o theos o pantokratwr (Rev. 15:3). Cf. Jo. 20:28. I shall treat therefore this as really the vocative, not the nominative, whatever the form may be, and now pass on to the consideration of the Vocative Case.

Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1919​

 

[2ducklow]

Rubbish!

According to Ducks's interpretation

.

And another Duck faulty interpretation.

We're done here! This argument is meaningless nonsense!

bye bye

 

[2ducklow]

well through all these pages not one person has come up with even one example of a nominative for vocative in the NT. Pretty well closes the case, nom for voc. is a phoney, as far as the NT is concerned.

 

[Der Alte]

well through all these pages not one person has come up with even one example of a nominative for vocative in the NT. Pretty well closes the case, nom for voc. is a phoney, as far as the NT is concerned.

Your argument is phony, contrived, and specious!

. . . Also Wallace, and Robertson whom he quotes, lists John 20:28 as Nominative for Vocative, pg. 58. Wallace lists nineteen examples of Nominative for Vocative, beside John 20:28, John 17:25, Matt 16:17, Rom 1:13, Mark 9:19, Gal 3:1, Matt 17;17, Mark 9:19, Luke 9:41, 24:25, Act 13:10, 18:14, 27:21, Rom 11:33, Mark 5:8, Luke 8:54, John 19:3, Eph 5:22, Rev 15:3, Heb 1:8.. . .

 

[2ducklow]

VI Nominative of Exclamation
​

A. Definition
​

The Nominative substantive is used in an exclamation without any connection with the rest of the sentence.

B. Clarification and Significance.
This use of the nominative is actually a subcategory of the Nominative for Vocative [ . . . ] The Nominative of exclamation will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax. The emotional topic is exclaimed without any verb stated.

Robertson points out that this is &#8220;a sort of interjectional nominative,&#8221; something of an emotional outburst. The keys to identifying a nominative of exclamation are: (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. Sometimes &#969; is used with the nominative.
C. Illustrations


Rom 7:24 &#964;&#945;&#955;&#945;&#953;&#960;&#946;&#961;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#947;&#969; &#945;&#957;&#952;&#961;&#969;&#960;&#959;&#962;
[&#927;] wretched man [that] &#921; am!

Rom 11:33 &#8216;&#937; &#914;&#945;&#952;&#959;&#962; &#960;&#955;&#959;&#952;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#963;&#959;&#966;&#953;&#945;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#947;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#949;&#969;
Oh the depth both of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!


Notice that in these examples the nominative of exclamation is not used in a sentence. Even in Rom 7:24 the implied &#8220;that&#8221; removes this from being a complete thought. It is a good rule of thumb that if the construction in which a supposed nom. Of exclamation appears can be construed as a sentence, then the nom. Should be simply considered as the subject. Thus, 1 Cor 15:57, which implies the optative of the copula, should probably not be considered as containing a nominative of exclamation.

Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Dan Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, ppg. 59[




I cannot reason with someone who says Section C. has nothing to do with section A. and section B. of the main section VI. To say Section C, entitled illustrations is no illustration of A.definition, and B. clairification and significance, is just utterly absurd and irrational in the extreme. when the obvious and undeniable is denied, there's no point in discourse. It's pointless to argue with someone that up is not down.

 

[Der Alte]

I cannot reason with someone who says Section C. has nothing to do with section A. and section B. of the main section VI. To say Section C, entitled illustrations is no illustration of A.definition, and B. clairification and significance, is just utterly absurd and irrational in the extreme. when the obvious and undeniable is denied, there's no point in discourse. It's pointless to argue with someone that up is not down.

When you cannot make your arguments make sense then resort to blatantly false heinous accusations without a shred of truth! You have failed to address sections A and B, the definition and clarification and significance although I have repeated my post more than once.

More examples of Nominative for Vocative in the N.T.

Mat 11:26 &#957;&#945;&#953;G3483 PRT &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961;G3962 N-NSM &#959;&#964;&#953;G3754 CONJ &#959;&#965;&#964;&#969;&#962;G3779 ADV &#949;&#965;&#948;&#959;&#954;&#953;&#945;G2107 N-NSF &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#964;&#959;G1096 V-2ADI-3S &#949;&#956;&#960;&#961;&#959;&#963;&#952;&#949;&#957;G1715 PREP &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS

Joh 17:21 &#953;&#957;&#945;G2443 CONJ &#960;&#945;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962;G3956 A-NPM &#949;&#957;G1520 A-NSN &#969;&#963;&#953;&#957;G1510 V-PAS-3P &#954;&#945;&#952;&#969;&#962;G2531 ADV &#963;&#965;G4771 P-2NS &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961;G3962 N-NSM &#949;&#957;G1722 PREP &#949;&#956;&#959;&#953;G1473 P-1DS &#954;&#945;&#947;&#969;G2504 P-1NS-K &#949;&#957;G1722 PREP &#963;&#959;&#953;G4771 P-2DS &#953;&#957;&#945;G2443 CONJ &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#953;G846 P-NPM &#949;&#957;G1722 PREP &#951;&#956;&#953;&#957;G1473 P-1DP &#969;&#963;&#953;&#957;G1510 V-PAS-3P &#953;&#957;&#945;G2443 CONJ &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#954;&#959;&#963;&#956;&#959;&#962;G2889 N-NSM &#960;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#965;&#951;G4100 V-PAS-3S &#959;&#964;&#953;G3754 CONJ &#963;&#965;G4771 P-2NS &#956;&#949;G1473 P-1AS &#945;&#960;&#949;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#953;&#955;&#945;&#962;G649 V-AAI-2S

Joh 17:24 &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961;G3962 N-NSM &#959;G3739 R-ASN &#948;&#949;&#948;&#969;&#954;&#945;&#962;G1325 V-RAI-2S &#956;&#959;&#953;G1473 P-1DS &#952;&#949;&#955;&#969;G2309 V-PAI-1S &#953;&#957;&#945;G2443 CONJ &#959;&#960;&#959;&#965;G3699 ADV &#949;&#953;&#956;&#953;G1510 V-PAI-1S &#949;&#947;&#969;G1473 P-1NS &#954;&#945;&#954;&#949;&#953;&#957;&#959;&#953;G2548 D-NPM-K &#969;&#963;&#953;&#957;G1510 V-PAS-3P &#956;&#949;&#964;G3326 PREP &#949;&#956;&#959;&#965;G1473 P-1GS &#953;&#957;&#945;G2443 CONJ &#952;&#949;&#969;&#961;&#969;&#963;&#953;&#957;G2334 V-PAS-3P &#964;&#951;&#957;G3588 T-ASF &#948;&#959;&#958;&#945;&#957;G1391 N-ASF &#964;&#951;&#957;G3588 T-ASF &#949;&#956;&#951;&#957;G1699 S-1ASF &#951;&#957;G3739 R-ASF &#948;&#949;&#948;&#969;&#954;&#945;&#962;G1325 V-RAI-2S &#956;&#959;&#953;G1473 P-1DS &#959;&#964;&#953;G3754 CONJ &#951;&#947;&#945;&#960;&#951;&#963;&#945;&#962;G25 V-AAI-2S &#956;&#949;G1473 P-1AS &#960;&#961;&#959;G4253 PREP &#954;&#945;&#964;&#945;&#946;&#959;&#955;&#951;&#962;G2602 N-GSF &#954;&#959;&#963;&#956;&#959;&#965;G2889 N-GSM

Joh 17:25 &#960;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#961;G3962 N-NSM &#948;&#953;&#954;&#945;&#953;&#949;G1342 A-VSM &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#954;&#959;&#963;&#956;&#959;&#962;G2889 N-NSM &#963;&#949;G4771 P-2AS &#959;&#965;&#954;G3756 PRT-N &#949;&#947;&#957;&#969;G1097 V-2AAI-3S &#949;&#947;&#969;G1473 P-1NS &#948;&#949;G1161 CONJ &#963;&#949;G4771 P-2AS &#949;&#947;&#957;&#969;&#957;G1097 V-2AAI-1S &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#959;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#953;G3778 D-NPM &#949;&#947;&#957;&#969;&#963;&#945;&#957;G1097 V-2AAI-3P &#959;&#964;&#953;G3754 CONJ &#963;&#965;G4771 P-2NS &#956;&#949;G1473 P-1AS &#945;&#960;&#949;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#953;&#955;&#945;&#962;G649 V-AAI-2S

Heb 10:7 &#964;&#959;&#964;&#949;G5119 ADV &#949;&#953;&#960;&#959;&#957;G3004 V-2AAI-1S &#953;&#948;&#959;&#965;G3708 V-2AAM-2S &#951;&#954;&#969;G2240 V-PAI-1S &#949;&#957;G1722 PREP &#954;&#949;&#966;&#945;&#955;&#953;&#948;&#953;G2777 N-DSF &#946;&#953;&#946;&#955;&#953;&#959;&#965;G975 N-GSN &#947;&#949;&#947;&#961;&#945;&#960;&#964;&#945;&#953;G1125 V-RPI-3S &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953;G4012 PREP &#949;&#956;&#959;&#965;G1473 P-1GS &#964;&#959;&#965;G3588 T-GSN &#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#963;&#945;&#953;G4160 V-AAN &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;G2316 N-NSM &#964;&#959;G3588 T-ASN &#952;&#949;&#955;&#951;&#956;&#945;G2307 N-ASN &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS

Rev 11:17 &#955;&#949;&#947;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962;G3004 V-PAP-NPM &#949;&#965;&#967;&#945;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#965;&#956;&#949;&#957;G2168 V-PAI-1P &#963;&#959;&#953;G4771 P-2DS &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#949;G2962 N-VSM &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;G2316 N-NSM &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#960;&#945;&#957;&#964;&#959;&#954;&#961;&#945;&#964;&#969;&#961;G3841 N-NSM &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#969;&#957;G1510 V-PAP-NSM &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#951;&#957;G1510 V-IAI-3S &#959;&#964;&#953;G3754 CONJ &#949;&#953;&#955;&#951;&#966;&#945;&#962;G2983 V-RAI-2S &#964;&#951;&#957;G3588 T-ASF &#948;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#956;&#953;&#957;G1411 N-ASF &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS &#964;&#951;&#957;G3588 T-ASF &#956;&#949;&#947;&#945;&#955;&#951;&#957;G3173 A-ASF &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#949;&#946;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#962;G936 V-AAI-2S

Rev 15:3 &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#945;&#948;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#953;&#957;G103 V-PAI-3P &#964;&#951;&#957;G3588 T-ASF &#969;&#948;&#951;&#957;G5603 N-ASF &#956;&#969;&#965;&#963;&#949;&#969;&#962;G3475 N-GSM &#964;&#959;&#965;G3588 T-GSM &#948;&#959;&#965;&#955;&#959;&#965;G1401 N-GSM &#964;&#959;&#965;G3588 T-GSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#965;G2316 N-GSM &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#964;&#951;&#957;G3588 T-ASF &#969;&#948;&#951;&#957;G5603 N-ASF &#964;&#959;&#965;G3588 T-GSN &#945;&#961;&#957;&#953;&#959;&#965;G721 N-GSN &#955;&#949;&#947;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#949;&#962;G3004 V-PAP-NPM &#956;&#949;&#947;&#945;&#955;&#945;G3173 A-NPN &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#952;&#945;&#965;&#956;&#945;&#963;&#964;&#945;G2298 A-NPN &#964;&#945;G3588 T-NPN &#949;&#961;&#947;&#945;G2041 N-NPN &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#949;G2962 N-VSM &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;G2316 N-NSM &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#960;&#945;&#957;&#964;&#959;&#954;&#961;&#945;&#964;&#969;&#961;G3841 N-NSM &#948;&#953;&#954;&#945;&#953;&#945;&#953;G1342 A-NPF &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#945;&#955;&#951;&#952;&#953;&#957;&#945;&#953;G228 A-NPF &#945;&#953;G3588 T-NPF &#959;&#948;&#959;&#953;G3598 N-NPF &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#946;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#965;&#962;G935 N-NSM | &#964;&#969;&#957;G3588 T-GPM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#969;&#957;G165 N-GPM | &#964;&#969;&#957;G3588 T-GPN &#949;&#952;&#957;&#969;&#957;G1484 N-GPN |

Rev 16:7 &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#951;&#954;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;G191 V-AAI-1S &#964;&#959;&#965;G3588 T-GSN &#952;&#965;&#963;&#953;&#945;&#963;&#964;&#951;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#965;G2379 N-GSN &#955;&#949;&#947;&#959;&#957;&#964;&#959;&#962;G3004 V-PAP-GSM &#957;&#945;&#953;G3483 PRT &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#949;G2962 N-VSM &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962;G2316 N-NSM &#959;G3588 T-NSM &#960;&#945;&#957;&#964;&#959;&#954;&#961;&#945;&#964;&#969;&#961;G3841 N-NSM &#945;&#955;&#951;&#952;&#953;&#957;&#945;&#953;G228 A-NPF &#954;&#945;&#953;G2532 CONJ &#948;&#953;&#954;&#945;&#953;&#945;&#953;G1342 A-NPF &#945;&#953;G3588 T-NPF &#954;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#949;&#953;&#962;G2920 N-NPF &#963;&#959;&#965;G4771 P-2GS​

​

​

 

[Der Alte]

 

[Der Alte]

 

[2ducklow]

Ah finally someone who agrees with me. At least the whole world isn't duped, there is one other at least.

john 20.28 nom for nom. Some scholars believe it was an incomplete sentence, I lean more towards an exclamation but don't rule out an incomplete sentence. Also, it is asserted by scholars that the nominative is used for the vocative, but I have as yet to see

Vocative Sentence - The Vocative

I mean it's so obvious and yet so far only 2 people see it me and this person.

more deception exposed.

"The article with the vocative in address was the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes we have HO PAIS AKOLOUTHEI. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too when we have ABBA HO PATER (Mark 14:36) whether Jesus said one or both.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ative+of+exclamation&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

here is what mark 14.36 says


Rotherham) Mark 14:36 and was saying--Abba! O Father! All things, are possible to thee: Bear aside this cup from me; but not what, I, will, but what, thou, [wilt].


It's Abba O Father, an exclamation. so mark 14.36 is not an example of an articular theos being used as a vocative. Ready for another nom. for vocative deception to be exposed? read on.

Thus in Rev. 18:20 we have both together, OURANE KAI HOI HAGIOI. Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nominative form. Thus KYRIE, HO QEOS, HO PANTOKRATOR (Rev. 15:3). Compare John 20:28."

Kurie, ho theos isn't kurios mou KAI theos mou. the deception is so obvious yet only I see it apparently, and that other fella above. Does anybody out there know that kurie isn't kurios? Man how do they get away with such grand deception?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ative+of+exclamation&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

ok here we go.

he forgot to tell you that in his examples there is no and as there is in john 20.28. what he is saying, deceptively, is tht when 2 nouns are togther the first one is vocative and the second is nomionative, it's called nominative of opposistion.. in effect it means the second noun is describing the first vocative noun. like Lord god woud be "kurie theos" kurie is vocative and theos is nominative. he says this is what his examples prove that john 20.28 is the same the second noun is nominative always in the vocative. but even his first noun is nominative, and they are seperated by and so theos isn't describing a vocative kurie, because in john 20.28 Lord is kurios, nominative not vocative. No need to read anymore of this guys stuff it's just one deception after another, amazing and everybody except me and thefella above falls for it.

but I gotta admit it's kinda fun exposing their blatant deceptive practices. All of um do it, they all get ultra deceptive on john 20.28 with regards to nom. for vocative. It's easy to expose but hard as anything to convey to anyone cept me and the fella above. Maybe there's likes some kind of spell on john 20.28? that would explain it.

 

[Der Alte]

Ah finally someone who agrees with me. At least the whole world isn't duped, there is one other at least.

Vocative Sentence - The Vocative

I mean it's so obvious and yet so far only 2 people see it me and this person.

Remember posting this? You have just given a good example of it. Ever wonder, out of all the scholars on all sides of this argument, why only 2?

just some guys opinon[sic] Holds no more weight than anyone elses opinon.[sic]

More of same.