Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.

[The Real John Milton]

According to the rules of Biblical grammar, the above denotes two different individuals because the article is repeated. Had the apostle intended one individual, the exclamation would have been penned as follows: Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ Θεός μου.

Thus any competent first century biblical Greek reader would immediately have recognized Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου as a reference to two different individuals based only upon the grammatical construction of this exclamation. Also, contextually no first century reader (unfamiliar with 4th Century Trinitarian dogma ) could possibly have even entertained the thought that the apostle was calling Jesus, a human being God Almighty Himself out of the blue. It would be as absurd a notion to them as the apostle calling Jesus a dog, perhaps even more so.

 

[The Real John Milton]

What about Psa. 34:23 in the LXX.

You mean Psalm 35:23–

ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου

This is a Hebraism. You cannot make an argument from a non-standard Greek construction from the Psalms , arguably the most Semitic of the LXX Koine. You have to find an example from the writings of apostle John to support your position.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Rev. 4:11 Sinaticus just came to my remembrance:

αξιοϲ ει κε ο κϲ και θϲ ημω

Because one individual is in view, namely the Father, the article is not repeated. For those who cannot read the nomina sacra, the biblical Koine is as follows — ὁ κύριός καὶ θεός ἡμῶν. Notice the article is missing before θεός, unlike at John 20:28. This is irrefutable proof from the blessed apostle John himself that at John 20:28 two different individuals are in view, namely Jesus and the Father.

 

[The Real John Milton]

I also notice that the possessive pronoun is not repeated in Rev. 4:11. So had John 20:28 denoted one individual, apostle John would have written the expression as follows —

ὁ κύριός καὶ θεός μου

That was his writing style, his grammar. It was also good Koine.

 

[John Milton]

I also notice that the possessive pronoun is not repeated in Rev. 4:11. So had John 20:28 denoted one individual, apostle John would have written the expression as follows —

ὁ κύριός καὶ θεός μου

That was his writing style, his grammar. It was also good Koine.

The terms in John 20:28 refer to one person: Jesus. There is no grammatical reason why they can't as Psalm 34:23 shows. (And Dizerner was correct. It is Psalm 34:23 in the LXX.) The presence of an additional pronoun makes no difference to the understanding of the construction either, so Rev. 4:11 is a valid parallel. This is really all that needs to be said in this thread.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The terms in John 20:28 refer to one person: Jesus. There is no grammatical reason why they can't as Psalm 34:23 shows. (And Dizerner was correct. It is Psalm 34:23 in the LXX.) The presence of an additional pronoun makes no difference to the understanding of the construction either, so Rev. 4:11 is a valid parallel. This is really all that needs to be said in this thread.

I’m afraid not. If one person was in view at John 20:28 the apostle would have removed the second article, at a minimum, just as he did with the parallel expression at Rev. 4:11.

Psalm 35:23 / LXX Psalm 34:23 is not from the hand of apostle John , and contradicts his grammar ( probably because it is a Semitism). We do not accept a construction which contradicts the apostle’s grammar in his own writings over one which supports it.

According to Rev. 4:11 it is impossible that John 20:28 is referring to one person.

Cheers,..

 

[The Real John Milton]

Notice that the later manuscripts at Revelation 4:11 ( like the Codex Alexandrinus ) have the Trinitarian friendly reading :

Ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν, ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα, καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν.

I suspect that unscrupulous Trinitarian scribes added the article before Θεὸς in above in order to make possible the Trinitarian reading at John 20:28.

 

[The Real John Milton]

But John is translating something someone else said, these are not his words.

And Thomas most likely in such a sudden moment would speak in his mother tongue.

Seems like John was probably translating a Hebraism after all!

How does one “translate a Hebraism”??

 

[Roger Thornhill]

But John is translating something someone else said, these are not his words.

And Thomas most likely in such a sudden moment would speak in his mother tongue.

Seems like John was probably translating a Hebraism after all!

The problem with that theory is that this means that the translator heedlessly followed the Hebrew to render the exclamation as a grammatical Hebraism.

But John correctly renders the Noun possessive KAI noun possessive correctly in John. The only time we see the grammatical Hebraism is with translation Greek from LXX quotations, even though we know that the speakers in John were speaking a Semitic language.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

How does one “translate a Hebraism”??

By not understanding Greek and transfering a Hebrew phrase to Greek in a way that is never done by someone who knows Greek.

 

[John Milton]

Notice that the later manuscripts at Revelation 4:11 ( like the Codex Alexandrinus ) have the Trinitarian friendly reading:

There is no end to the things you are willing to make up to support your lies. The earliest nearly complete version of Revelation (that I know of) is Sinaiticus. In other places, it has the article repeated after καἰ even though the phrases refer to the same individual. This is just more of your grasping at straws.

Revelation 21:6
και λεγει μοι γεγονα εγω το αλφα και το ω η αρχη και το τελοϲ εγω τω διψωντι δωϲω εκ τηϲ πηγηϲ του ϋδατοϲ τηϲ ζω ηϲ δωρεαϲ

 

[John Milton]

The problem with that theory is that this means that the translator heedlessly followed the Hebrew to render the exclamation as a grammatical Hebraism.

But John correctly renders the Noun possessive KAI noun possessive correctly in John

Not always. John 4:12 "μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔπιεν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θρέμματα αὐτοῦ;"

The only time we see the grammatical Hebraism is with translation Greek from LXX quotations, even though we know that the speakers in John were speaking a Semitic language.

Actually, the times that we see these often (exclusively?) occur when John is quoting Semitic speakers like the woman at the well above or Thomas. This gives credence to Dizerner's remarks. You and RJM don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Not always. John 4:12 "μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔπιεν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θρέμματα αὐτοῦ;"

Actually, the times that we see these often (exclusively?) occur when John is quoting Semitic speakers like the woman at the well above or Thomas. This gives credence to Dizerner's remarks. You and RJM don't know what you're talking about.

This example is not parallel as the two phrases "and his sons" and "and his cattle" are treated as a list of two consecutive items and not Noun pronoun Kai noun pronoun.

It would show up in a bibleworks search but see the intervening comma from the ASV.

J 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle? (ASV)

 

[John Milton]

This example is not parallel as the two phrases "and his sons" and "and his cattle" are treated as a list of two consecutive items and not Noun pronoun Kai noun pronoun.

It would show up in a bibleworks search but see the intervening comma from the ASV.

J 4:12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle? (ASV)

What the English translation does is irrelevant.

As for the Greek text, it's the repeated pronoun that makes it a Hebraism, both here and in John 20:28.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

What the English translation does is irrelevant.

As for the Greek text, it's the repeated pronoun that makes it a Hebraism, both here and in John 20:28.

It does matter. This is not an instance where two nouns are connected with the copulative και. It's two other groups that also drank from the well.

The English translations, most of them actually, don't see this as a NP K NP unit.


New International Version
Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

New Living Translation
And besides, do you think you’re greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us this well? How can you offer better water than he and his sons and his animals enjoyed?”

English Standard Version
Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.”

 

[John Milton]

This is not an instance where two nouns are connected with the copulative και.

LOL!

It's two other groups that also drank from the well.

The English translations, most of them actually, don't see this as a NP K NP unit.

LOL!

New International Version
Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

New Living Translation
And besides, do you think you’re greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us this well? How can you offer better water than he and his sons and his animals enjoyed?”

English Standard Version
Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.”

It's the repeated pronoun that makes it a Hebraism. Unless you acknowledge this, there is nothing left to say. You are wrong.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

LOL!

LOL!

It's the repeated pronoun that makes it a Hebraism. Unless you acknowledge this, there is nothing left to say. You are wrong.

No. It's a Hebraism with the copulative και that connects two nouns with the same possessive pronouns. In Hebrew each noun needs its own pronominal suffix but in Greek one possessive pronoun modifies both nouns.

J 4:12 has two pairs of KNP that are different phrases.

In addition to be an exception the two groups would need to be identical and that is how you can tell that και is not copulative.

But what you have is "his sons and also his animals."

 

[The Real John Milton]

No. It's a Hebraism with the copulative και that connects two nouns with the same possessive pronouns. In Hebrew each noun needs its own pronominal suffix but in Greek one possessive pronoun modifies both nouns.

J 4:12 has two pairs of KNP that are different phrases.

In addition to be an exception the two groups would need to be identical and that is how you can tell that και is not copulative.

But what you have is "his sons and also his animals."

Is he ( fake JM) now saying that Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου at John 20:28 a Hebraism ? If so he must be getting desperate .

 

[The Real John Milton]

There is no end to the things you are willing to make up to support your lies. The earliest nearly complete version of Revelation (that I know of) is Sinaiticus. In other places, it has the article repeated after καἰ even though the phrases refer to the same individual. This is just more of your grasping at straws.

Revelation 21:6
και λεγει μοι γεγονα εγω το αλφα και το ω η αρχη και το τελοϲ εγω τω διψωντι δωϲω εκ τηϲ πηγηϲ του ϋδατοϲ τηϲ ζω ηϲ δωρεαϲ

Proper names and plurals connected with και behave differently than TSKTS or TSKS constructions with common epithets. That you don’t know this is troubling, to say the least.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Not always. John 4:12 "μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ, ὃς ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τὸ φρέαρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔπιεν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ θρέμματα αὐτοῦ;"

Actually, the times that we see these often (exclusively?) occur when John is quoting Semitic speakers like the woman at the well above or Thomas. This gives credence to Dizerner's remarks. You and RJM don't know what you're talking about.

Plurals.