john 20.28 nom for nom.

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,580
6,065
EST
✟994,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It proves that you don't know how to say "O my God O my God" and "O my Lord O my Lord" in Greek.

which is what I said in Greek.

It says ο T-NSM and o is translated as the exclamation O in heb. 1.8. That's a fact. your denial of the undeniable fact is ludicrous. O in greek is translated as O in English in heb. 1.8 . it's a fact. live with it instead of saying up is not up.
ο θεος μου

You have proved nothing about what I know about anything! If the definite article "ο" is translated as an exclamatory "O" then why did even your hero Rotherham not translate it that way in this verse?
Rotherham John 20:28 Thomas answered, and said unto him--My Lord, and my God!

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ο κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
You have proved nothing about what I know about anything! If the definite article "ο" is translated as an exclamatory "O" then why did even your hero Rotherham not translate it that way in this verse?
Rotherham John 20:28 Thomas answered, and said unto him--My Lord, and my God!
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ,ο κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
Is 0 θεος translated O God in heb. 1.8? yep, that means o theos mou should be translated 'o my god.'
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,580
6,065
EST
✟994,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You have proved nothing about what I know about anything! If the definite article "ο" is translated as an exclamatory "O" then why did even your hero Rotherham not translate it that way in this verse?
Rotherham John 20:28 Thomas answered, and said unto him--My Lord, and my God!

ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ο κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου

YOu don't know how to say "o God" in Greek or "O my god" in Greek either. I"ve asked you numerous times and you absolutely refuse to say O God or O my god in Greek. obviously you don't want to face the truth. Evade and ridicule is the only defence you have.

Totally irrelevant, to anything! This thread is NOT about what you think I do or do not know. Since you started the thread you should know it is about "John 20:28, Nom for Nom." Looks like this discussion is over, since your arguments have deteriorated into logical fallacies, poisoning the well, "All Trinitarian scholars are wrong." and ad homs about what I do or do not know.

I have just proved from your pet version that ο κυριος and ο θεος are NOT exclamations as you claim. The three classical Greek grammars posted in this thread document that nominative for vocative was a common occurrence in classical Greek long before the NT was written. To refresh your memory.
Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges

VOCATIVE

§1283. The vocative is used in exclamations and in direct address: ô Zeu kai theoi oh Zeus and ye gods P. Pr. 310d , anthrôpe my good fellow X. C. 2.2.7 . The vocative forms an incomplete sentence (904 d).
a. The vocative is never followed immediately by de or gar.

§1284. In ordinary conversation and public speeches, the polite ô is usually added. Without ô the vocative may express astonishment, joy, contempt, a threat, or a warning, etc. Thus akoueis Aischinê; d'ye hear, Aeschines? D. 18.121. But this distinction is not always observed, though in general ô has a familiar tone which was unsuited to elevated poetry.

§1285. The vocative is usually found in the interior of a sentence. At the beginning it is emphatic. In prose ephê, in poetry ô, may stand between the vocative and an attributive or between an attributive and the vocative; in poetry ô may be repeated for emphasis. [p. 313]

§1286. In late poetry a predicate adjective may be attracted into the vocative: olbie kôre genoio blessed, oh boy, mayest thou be Theocr. 17. 66. Cp. Matutine pater seu Iane libentius audis Hor. S. 2. 6. 20.

§1287. By the omission of su or hu_meis the nominative with the article may stand in apposition to a vocative: ô andoes hoi parontes you, gentlemen, who are present P. Pr. 337c, ô Kure kai hoi alloi Persai Cyrus and the rest of you Persians X. C. 3.3.20 ; and in apposition to the pronoun in the verb: ho pais, akolouthei boy, attend me Ar. Ran. 521.

§1288. The nominative may be used in exclamations as a predicate with the subject unexpressed: ô pikros theois oh loathed of heaven S. Ph. 254 , philos ô Menela_e ah dear Menelaus D 189 ; and connected with the vocative by and: ô polis kai dême oh city and people Ar. Eq. 273 . In exclamations about a person: ô gennaios oh the noble man P. Phae. 227c .

a. houtos is regular in address: houtos, ti pascheis, ô Xanthia_; ho there, I say, Xanthias, what is the matter with you? Ar. Vesp. 1; ô houtos, Aia_s ho there, I say, Ajax S. Aj. 89.

Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges

A Greek grammar By William Watson Goodwin

The cases
Nominative and Vocative

1042.
Thew nominative is used chiefly as the subject of a finite verb (894), or in the predicate after verbs signifying to be, etc. (907).

1044. The vocative, with or without ω is used in addressing a person or thig; as “w andres Athhnaioi Men of Athens! akoueis Aisxinh Dost thou hear, Aeschines!

1045 N. The nominative is sometimes used in exclamations and even in other expressions where the vocative is more common; as wmoi egw deilos!, O wretched me! So h proknh ekbaine!” Procne, come out! Ar. Au. 665.

A Greek grammar - Google Books
In Goodwin see pg. xv in the index. "1045 Nominative used for Vocative. . . . . .223"
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Totally irrelevant, to anything! This thread is NOT about what you think I do or do not know. Since you started the thread you should know it is about "John 20:28, Nom for Nom." Looks like this discussion is over, since your arguments have deteriorated into logical fallacies, poisoning the well, "All Trinitarian scholars are wrong." and ad homs about what I do or do not know.
bye bye.

Der Alter said:
In Goodwin see pg. xv in the index. "1045 Nominative used for Vocative. . . . . .223"
Ok I'll concede that. not quite sure what to make of 1045 though. Not sure if he means that the nominative is used for the vocative or if he means that the nominative is used instead of the vocative to get a different meaning. His examples of 'P
orkne come out" and "o wretched man" don't make it clear to me. Let's see, he is saying that the nom. is used where the voc. is more common in certain expressions. I suppose η Προκνη is vocative,
so a nominative use of prokne would result in what? e proknos or e prokne, what's the dif? dunno.
and δειλος for wretched is nominative, Ok what i"m getting here is that in classical greek they are freer with changing vocative for nominative for the purpose of poetry or whatever, but that isn't the case in koine Greek because there are no examples of nominative for vocative. zero, nada none.HUmmmmm may have to do some rethinking here. At any rate, nominative for vocative is a rarety in classical and non existant in koine Greek of the NT. That is if that is what Goodwin is saying in 1045, I'm not sure cause im not following him on his examples. have to do some more research.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Hummmm, I wonder, is there anyone out there in CF land capable of translating "ο θεος" in heb. 1.8 besides me? Doesn't seem that there is.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Hebrews 1:8 proV <4314> de <1161> {BUT AS TO} ton <3588> {THE} uion <5207> {SON} o <3588> qronoV <2362> sou <4675> {THY THRONE}o <3588> {O}qeoV <2316> {GOD} eiV <1519> {[IS] TO} ton <3588> {THE} aiwna <165> {AGE} tou <3588> {OF THE} aiwnoV <165> {AGE.} rabdoV <4464> {A SCEPTRE} euquthtoV <2118> {OF UPRIGHTNESS} h <3588> {[IS] THE} rabdoV <4464> {SCEPTRE} thV <3588> basileiaV <932> sou <4675> {OF THY KINGDOM}


So can anyone in CF translate the red above? besides me that is. Or is this too difficult a topic for CF?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,580
6,065
EST
✟994,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
WH Heb 1:8 &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962; G4314 PREP &#948;&#949; G1161 CONJ &#964;&#959;&#957; G3588 T-ASM &#965;&#953;&#959;&#957; G5207 N-ASM &#959; G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; G2362 N-NSM &#963;&#959;&#965; G4771 P-2GS &#959; G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; G2316 N-NSM &#949;&#953;&#962; G1519 PREP &#964;&#959;&#957; G3588 T-ASM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#945; G165 N-ASM | [&#964;&#959;&#965; G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962; ]G165 N-GSM | &#964;&#959;&#965; G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962; G165 N-GSM | &#954;&#945;&#953; G2532 CONJ &#951; G3588 T-NSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962; N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962; G3588 T-GSF &#949;&#965;&#952;&#965;&#964;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962; G2118 N-GSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962; G4464 N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962; G3588 T-GSF &#946;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#945;&#962; G932 N-GSF | &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965; G846 P-GSM | &#963;&#959;&#965; G4771 P-2GS |
The correct translation of &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; is "the God" since &#959; is a T-NSM, that is a definite arTicle, Nominative, Singular, Masculine, unless somebody wants to translate &#959; &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; as "O throne?"
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
WH Heb 1:8 &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962; G4314 PREP &#948;&#949; G1161 CONJ &#964;&#959;&#957; G3588 T-ASM &#965;&#953;&#959;&#957; G5207 N-ASM &#959; G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; G2362 N-NSM &#963;&#959;&#965; G4771 P-2GS &#959; G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; G2316 N-NSM &#949;&#953;&#962; G1519 PREP &#964;&#959;&#957; G3588 T-ASM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#945; G165 N-ASM | [&#964;&#959;&#965; G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962; ]G165 N-GSM | &#964;&#959;&#965; G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962; G165 N-GSM | &#954;&#945;&#953; G2532 CONJ &#951; G3588 T-NSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962; N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962; G3588 T-GSF &#949;&#965;&#952;&#965;&#964;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962; G2118 N-GSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962; G4464 N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962; G3588 T-GSF &#946;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#945;&#962; G932 N-GSF | &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965; G846 P-GSM | &#963;&#959;&#965; G4771 P-2GS |
The correct translation of &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; is "the God" since &#959; is a T-NSM, that is a definite arTicle, Nominative, Singular, Masculine, unless somebody wants to translate &#959; &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; as "O throne?"


Everybody (hyperbole) translates o theos in heb. 1.8 as O God and not the god.

Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Hebrews 1:8 proV <4314> de <1161> {BUT AS TO} ton <3588> {THE} uion <5207> {SON} o <3588> qronoV <2362> sou <4675> {THY THRONE}o <3588> {O}qeoV <2316> {GOD} eiV <1519> {[IS] TO} ton <3588> {THE} aiwna <165> {AGE} tou <3588> {OF THE} aiwnoV <165> {AGE.} rabdoV <4464> {A SCEPTRE} euquthtoV <2118> {OF UPRIGHTNESS} h <3588> {[IS] THE} rabdoV <4464> {SCEPTRE} thV <3588> basileiaV <932> sou <4675> {OF THY KINGDOM}


they don't translate 'the' in 'the' throne, they leave it out and change 'throne of you' to 'thy throne' obviously because 'the throne of you' would be awkward in English, but they do translate the greek word for the as 'O' in 'o theos'.
Conclusion? Since the the masculine the sound is the same as the exclamation sound o, and since every translation except the JW translation translates o theos as O God in heb. 1.8 and other verses, then the koine speaking Greeks must have used a masculine the for the exclamation 0.

I typed in 'o god' in a modern greek on line translator and it said modern greeks say "o o theos" for "O god". conclusion? at some point in the evolution of the Greek language they recognised the confusion using a masucline the for the exclamation O sound caused, and thus remedied it that way. "O o theos". Also, I found it curious that modern Greeks translated Lord as "lordos' and not 'kurios'. At least according to the online modern Greek translator I used they do.lordos sounds like pig latin.


Happy Bastille day everybody. le quatorze juillet.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,580
6,065
EST
✟994,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
WH Heb 1:8 &#960;&#961;&#959;&#962; G4314 PREP &#948;&#949; G1161 CONJ &#964;&#959;&#957; G3588 T-ASM &#965;&#953;&#959;&#957; G5207 N-ASM &#959; G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; G2362 N-NSM &#963;&#959;&#965; G4771 P-2GS &#959; G3588 T-NSM &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; G2316 N-NSM &#949;&#953;&#962; G1519 PREP &#964;&#959;&#957; G3588 T-ASM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#945; G165 N-ASM | [&#964;&#959;&#965; G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962; ]G165 N-GSM | &#964;&#959;&#965; G3588 T-GSM &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#959;&#962; G165 N-GSM | &#954;&#945;&#953; G2532 CONJ &#951; G3588 T-NSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962; N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962; G3588 T-GSF &#949;&#965;&#952;&#965;&#964;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#962; G2118 N-GSF &#961;&#945;&#946;&#948;&#959;&#962; G4464 N-NSF &#964;&#951;&#962; G3588 T-GSF &#946;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#945;&#962; G932 N-GSF | &#945;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#965; G846 P-GSM | &#963;&#959;&#965; G4771 P-2GS |
The correct translation of &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; is "the God" since &#959; is a T-NSM, that is a definite arTicle, Nominative, Singular, Masculine, unless somebody wants to translate &#959; &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962; as "O throne?"

"O Theos," in some versions, is NOT translation, it is interpretation! Since the exact same construction in &#959; &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962;/"o thronos," in the same verse, is never translated as an exclamatory "O Throne!"
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
John 20.28 is no proof that Jesus is god because god and lord are in the nominative case and not the vocative case. Every time Jesus is addressed as Lord in the bible he is addressed in the vocative case of lord (kurie) and never in the nominative case of Lord (kurios)

I think you may be getting rather confused.

Vocative case is used when addressing someone directly. Nominative case when their name or title is the subject of a particular sentence or phrase.

Lord, bless me. Vocative case.
The Lord be praised. Nominative case.

Therefore it is right that the vocative is used when addressing the Lord by name, the nominative when making a statement of some kind, without addressing him.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but this does not prove anything other than that the Scriptures follow appropriate grammatical rules.

Therefore, Thomas was talking about god and lord to Jesus not addressing Jesus as god and lord. So how was Thomas talking about god and lord to Jesus? He was uttering an exclamation, just as anyone would in that situation. Or it was an incomplete sentence, after all we all utter incomplete sentences. Some scholars believe it was an incomplete sentence, I lean more towards an exclamation but don't rule out an incomplete sentence.

An exclamation in the vocative case is still addressed TO someone. :)

O God, save and preserve me! is vocative.
God Almighty! Vocative.
Good God! Vocative.
Jesus Christ! Vocative.
Gordon Bennet! Vocative.

Also, it is asserted by scholars that the nominative is used for the vocative, but I have as yet to see even one clear cut example of the nominative being used for the vocative, so I'm not sure that is correct. Even in mark where Mark uses the nomative when quoting Jesus "my god,my god why has thou forsaken me",

'My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me' is vocative. I think you are getting a bit confused here. This is a direct quotation from the psalms, where 'My God' will be Hebrew, but still vocative (if they have such a case, that is.)

it is possible that Jesus uttered one in hebrew, then one in aramaic, and that the utterances where different.

Not if he was quoting Psalm 22, as indeed he was. He would have quoted it in Hebrew. As with Judaism today, the Scriptures are read or quoted in Hebrew, interpreted in the vernacular. We have evidence of this from the gospels, because only the scholars standing around knew what he was saying. The majority of aramaic speakers would not have understood Hebrew, even if they could read it.

So, here, in full, is what the Lord was referencing, when he was on the cross. It is addressed to God, and uses the vocative case extensively (underlined).

Psalm 22

1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Mt. 27.46 · Mk. 15.34
Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not;
and in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But thou art holy,
O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.4 Our fathers trusted in thee:
they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered:
they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
6 But I am a worm, and no man;
a reproach of men, and despised of the people.7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn:
they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, Mt. 27.39 · Mk. 15.29 · Lk. 23.35 saying,8 He trusted on the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] that he would deliver him:
let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. Mt. 27.43
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb:
thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.10 I was cast upon thee from the womb:
thou art my God from my mother's belly.11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near;
for there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have compassed me:
strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.13 They gaped upon me with their mouths,
as a ravening and a roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint:my heart is like wax;it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd;
and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws;and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16 For dogs have compassed me:
the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:they pierced my hands and my feet.17 I may tell all my bones:
they look and stare upon me.18 They part my garments among them,
and cast lots upon my vesture. Mt. 27.35 · Mk. 15.24 · Lk. 23.34 · Joh. 19.24
19 But be not thou far from me, O L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE]:
O my strength, haste thee to help me.20 Deliver my soul from the sword;
my darling from the power of the dog.21 Save me from the lion's mouth:
for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren:
in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. Heb. 2.12 23 Ye that fear the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE], praise him;
all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him;and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
neither hath he hid his face from him;but when he cried unto him, he heard.
25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation:
I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE] that seek him:your heart shall live for ever.
27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE]:
and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.
28 For the kingdom is the L[SIZE=-1]ORD[/SIZE]'s: and he is the governor among the nations.
29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him:and none can keep alive his own soul.
30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.

Psalms 22. The Holy Bible: King James Version.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
the vocative case is the case used to address someone .
Kurie is vocative.
kurios is nominative.

john 20.28 uses the word kurios not kurie.

I see what you are saying now. It was not clear before.

The meaning of the phrase is made clear by the case used. It is an affirmation.

'My Lord and My God!' (nominative) is a statement; an affirmation. It is not taking the Lord's name in vain, or any kind of exclamation. It is very clearly affirmative; a statement of Thomas' faith if you like. The appropriate response, which the Lord then gives, is to say, 'Thomas (vocative), because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed ...' etc.

Had the case been vocative, the sense would have been different.

'Oh my Lord and my God' is vocative. Had Thomas said this, the appropriate response from the Lord would have been, 'Yes?'
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
This is odd, why would anyone find my lord and my god as an exclamation curious? after all it has the nominative exclamation form . why no one translates it correctly is beyond me. It should read "Oh my god and Oh my Lord." Even those who say it is an exclamation never translate it as they do elsewhere when it is considered an exclamation vs. heb. 1.8. Heb. 1.8 is the same "O god" yet no one translates john 20.28 "O God" why? massive cover up of unbelieveable portions obviously.

English grammar for beginners, lesson one.

If a phrase in English begins 'O ... ' or 'Oh ...' followed by a name or title, it is vocative case. It is highly unlikely, and perhaps impossible, for it to be any other case. (Too idle to think of possible exceptions.)

If it does not begin with 'O [name]', it may be another case, or it may be vocative. The way you tell, is to put the 'O ... ' back, and see if it fits.

Mum, are you there? Oh Mum, are you there? = vocative Mum.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
English grammar for beginners, lesson one.
i haven't had an english class since 1971 in ramstein air base in Germany. And English was like my most hated subject to take. So you gotta cut me some slack here. this whole investigation of john 20.28 nominative for nominative has been a very learning experience for me.

Catherineanne said:
If a phrase in English begins 'O ... ' or 'Oh ...' followed by a name or title, it is vocative case. It is highly unlikely, and perhaps impossible, for it to be any other case. (Too idle to think of possible exceptions.)

If it does not begin with 'O [name]', it may be another case, or it may be vocative. The way you tell, is to put the 'O ... ' back, and see if it fits.
Not sure what you are refering to, possibly that every one of the few examples given as nominative FOR vocative, are all by some translation or another all translated as "O whatever". So It's not me it's them.

Catherineanne said:
Mum, are you there? Oh Mum, are you there? = vocative Mum.
ONe could say "Oh my God Catherineanne are you serious?" in this case I am not calling you god.
one could say

"Oh my God, why have you forsaken me". IN this case one is exclaming to god the same phrase and I suppose one is calling God "my god' in that phrase. In mark 15.34 Jesus exclaimed "O my God o my God" as evidenced by the fact that Jesus said " o theos mou o theos mou"




In matthew 27.46 Jesus said something different, in this verse Jesus is addressing God with the vocative for God (thee , or &#952;&#949;&#949;) this is what Jesus said in,
[SIZE=+0](Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Matthew 27:46 qee <2316> mou <3450> {MY GOD,} qee <2316> mou <3450> {MY GOD,} [/SIZE]

So one time Jesus is recorded as exclaiming O my God, and another time Jesus is recorded as addressing, non exclamation, God with the vocative for God (&#952;&#949;&#949;).
Mark translates &#949;&#955;&#959;&#953; (ELOI) as theos, whereas Matthew translates the word &#951;&#955;&#953; (Eli) , a different word than Eloi, as &#952;&#949;&#949; which is the vocative form of God in Greek. They are two different things Jesus said on the cross, not the same thing as most presume,and the meaning of the two is different. one is an exclamation and the other is an address.


So it depends on the intended meaning, it could be either way, same with translating john 20.28 as "o my Lord and o my god" It could be intended as addressing Jesus as LOrd and god or not.


While it appears to me to be true that the nominative with the definite article used as an exclamation is vocative, it is not a case of the nominative being used for the vocative . If the nominative in john 20.28 was being used FOR the vocative, then the meaning of John 20.28 would be the same as if Thomas had said ' kurie mou kai thee mou'. John 20.28 can be nothing other than an exclamation because nominative FOR vocative does not exist in the NT, and is extremely rare in classical Greek. Jesus is always address as Lord in the vocative some 107 times, but never even once is Jesus addressed as God in the nominative. If John 20.28 is an example of Jesus being addressed as God in the nominative it is the only single example in the entire NT. So that cannot be.

Kurie mou is addressing someone as MY Lord, "o kurios mou" is exclaming 'o my Lord" "Kurie (vocative) mou" is not an exclamation.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
I see what you are saying now. It was not clear before.

The meaning of the phrase is made clear by the case used. It is an affirmation.

'My Lord and My God!' (nominative) is a statement; an affirmation. It is not taking the Lord's name in vain, or any kind of exclamation. It is very clearly affirmative; a statement of Thomas' faith if you like. The appropriate response, which the Lord then gives, is to say, 'Thomas (vocative), because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed ...' etc.

Had the case been vocative, the sense would have been different.

'Oh my Lord and my God' is vocative. Had Thomas said this, the appropriate response from the Lord would have been, 'Yes?'
To say oh my Lord in Greek one has to use the nominative case of Lord (kurios), not the vocative. You don't say "O my Lord' in Greek in the vocative case (kurie). you are saying that exclamations are vocative, I suppose that is true, but one exclaims vocatively with the nominative case in Greek and in the case of john 20.28 'oh my Lord" could or could not be directed at Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

2ducklow

angel duck
Jul 29, 2005
8,631
125
✟9,570.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
"O Theos," in some versions, is NOT translation, it is interpretation! Since the exact same construction in &#959; &#952;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#962;/"o thronos," in the same verse, is never translated as an exclamatory "O Throne!"


Well, you can’t say theos is an interpretation of theos. You would have to say the T-NSM is interpreted to mean O. Seems plausible , at least on the surface.


Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Romans 11:33 | w <5599> {O} baqoV <899> {DEPTH} ploutou <4149> {OF RICHES} kai <2532> {BOTH} sofiaV <4678> {OF WISDOM} kai <2532> {AND} gnwsewV <1108> {KNOWLEDGE} qeou <2316> {OF GOD!} wV <5613> {HOW} anexereunhta <419> ta <3588> {UNSEARCHABLE} krimata <2917> {JUDGMENTS,} autou <846> {HIS} kai <2532> {AND} anexicniastoi <421> ai <3588> {UNTRACEABLE} odoi <3598> {WAYS!} autou <846> {HIS}

The NT Greek speakers had the O sound of exclamation with omega. According to strongs the def. Of the letter omega Reads;

“a prim. Interj. ; as a sign of the voc. O; as a note of exclamation, oh;- O.”


What you’re saying would mean is that even though the sound of a T-NSM has the O exclamation sound, Greeks did not use it that way, but rather they would say’’the God” in an exclamatory way. Never connecting the T-NSM O sound as exclaiming O as they did do with Omega. The problem with that that I see is that since omega and omricon are so similar in sound, how would a Greek speaker know if he was saying omega theos, or omricon theos?

It doesn’t seem plausible to me that a T-NSM which sounds the same or almost the same as omega, would not be used as an exclamation. Even if they are exclaiming “The theos” the sound is going to be an “O theos”.



But I see how one might see it your way. At any rate, even if you say “O theos” is interpreted to mean “O god” in heb. 1.8 because it is an exclamation, there is no reason that John 20.28 could not likewise be interpreted as “O my God and O my Lord” because almost everyone admits that it could be an exclamation.



. I know you say that Thomas was speaking to Jesus and that Thomas would not utter an exclamation with god in it, except in prayer, because you say that that would be taking the Lord’s name in vain because god is being used like a proper name. We’ve been down that road before and of course I disagree.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
i haven't had an english class since 1971 in ramstein air base in Germany. And English was like my most hated subject to take. So you gotta cut me some slack here. this whole investigation of john 20.28 nominative for nominative has been a very learning experience for me.

No problem. :wave:

Not sure what you are refering to, possibly that every one of the few examples given as nominative FOR vocative, are all by some translation or another all translated as "O whatever". So It's not me it's them.

Fair enough. Whoever 'they' are, they are talking gibberish. ^_^

ONe could say "Oh my God Catherineanne are you serious?" in this case I am not calling you god.
one could say

Well, you need more punctuation, for a start. You can choose either:

Oh, my God, C are you serious? where C is vocative. or
Oh my God, C, are you serious? where Oh my God is vocative.

Either way, there is a vocative there. It depends what bit the 'Oh' attaches to.

"Oh my God, why have you forsaken me". IN this case one is exclaming to god the same phrase and I suppose one is calling God "my god' in that phrase. In mark 15.34 Jesus exclaimed "O my God o my God" as evidenced by the fact that Jesus said " o theos mou o theos mou"

As I said before, this is a reference to Psalm 22.

In matthew 27.46 Jesus said something different, in this verse Jesus is addressing God with the vocative for God

This is also a reference to Psalm 22.

So one time Jesus is recorded as exclaiming O my God, and another time Jesus is recorded as addressing, non exclamation, God with the vocative for God (&#952;&#949;&#949;).

'Oh my God' is vocative. In my Bible the two are identical, and both reference Psalm 22. If there is a difference in the original texts, that may well only illustrate that Mark was not a Jew, but a Roman, and that his Hebrew was a bit defective. Matthew on the other hand was a Jew, and he got it right. :)

You really need to go back to the Hebrew Scriptures, and find out what their words are in Psalm 22. That is what Christ quotes from the cross, and that is the form that both Mark and Matthew reference.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,580
6,065
EST
✟994,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
English grammar for beginners, lesson one.

If a phrase in English begins 'O ... ' or 'Oh ...' followed by a name or title, it is vocative case. It is highly unlikely, and perhaps impossible, for it to be any other case. (Too idle to think of possible exceptions.)

If it does not begin with 'O [name]', it may be another case, or it may be vocative. The way you tell, is to put the 'O ... ' back, and see if it fits.

Mum, are you there? Oh Mum, are you there? = vocative Mum.

That is true of English but in Greek the case is shown by the noun ending. The two major nouns under discussion here are &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; and &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; particularly as they appear in John 20:28. In Jn 20:28 they are in the Nominative case but are used in the Vocative, since Thomas is directly addressing Jesus. The vocative form of these two words are &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#949; and &#952;&#949;&#949;. One of the arguments being made is that &#959; &#954;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#953; &#959; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; &#956;&#959;&#965; is an exclamation although Thomas is answering Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
one exclaims vocatively with the nominative case in Greek.

I do not much speak Greek, ancient or modern, but I know that this is not the case.

Even in English, where case inflection is pretty well non existent, the nominative and vocative cases can still be distinguished by meaning.

Addressing someone directly is vocative. Using a name as the subject of a sentence is nominative. Using a name as the object of a sentence is accusative. Denoting possession is genitive. Etc etc.

If a person is addressed, translated in English as 'Oh Whoever', then that is vocative, regardless of whether the vocative case form is identical to the nominative case form or not. It is not a nominative vocative; it is still a vocative.

If a language is inflected to have a separate nominative and vocative form, the vocative form will be used to address people. If the nominative form is used in any particular place, then that cannot by definition denote a vocative, but must denote an affirmative.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,645
Europe
✟76,860.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
In Jn 20:28 they are in the Nominative case but are used in the Vocative, since Thomas is directly addressing Jesus.

I think you are misunderstanding what vocative is. Vocative does not indicate addressing someone directly. It indicates addressing them by name. Thomas is not addressing Christ by name, he is stating or affirming his title. The evidence for this is in Christ's reply.

There is no need to try to distort the grammar; it is clear enough as it stands, in either English or Greek.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,580
6,065
EST
✟994,124.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think you are misunderstanding what vocative is. Vocative does not indicate addressing someone directly. It indicates addressing them by name. Thomas is not addressing Christ by name, he is stating or affirming his title. The evidence for this is in Christ's reply.

There is no need to try to distort the grammar; it is clear enough as it stands, in either English or Greek.

I am NOT misunderstanding anything, and I am not distorting anything, you are! Read this post made by you, which contradicts the post above!

[ . . . ]Addressing someone directly is vocative. Using a name as the subject of a sentence is nominative. Using a name as the object of a sentence is accusative. Denoting possession is genitive. Etc etc.[ . . . ]

Der Alter said:
In Jn 20:28 they are in the Nominative case but are used in the Vocative, since Thomas is directly addressing Jesus.

My post says virtually the same thing yours does, but you accuse me of misunderstanding what a Vocative is, and distorting grammar. FYI I studied both Biblical languages at the graduate level almost 3 decades ago.
Vocative Case
The vocative is the case of direct address. It is used when one person is speaking to another, calling out or saying their name, or generally addressing them.

Greek Nouns (Shorter Definitions)
And OBTW I suggest you review the six (6) Greek gramamrs cited on the first page of this thread showing how the Nominative case is used for the Vocative.
 
Upvote 0