The linguistic subject of John 20:28

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Your footnote reads, "Some might expect a preposition or the dative, but see BDAG πιστεύω 2.a.α." According to what Gryllus has kindly provided, the heading 2.a.α. illustrates the use of the dative as the object of πιστεύω (which is exactly what I have said). BDAG goes on to say (according to your footnote) that "οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν = τούτῳ." This suggests that the phrase "οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν" can stand in for the dative, but this phrase does not occur in John 20:28. The BDAG entry does not support your assertion about the translation of John 20:28.

That part is superseded by Moulton in the current online version:

Some might expect a preposition or the dative, but see BDAG πιστεύω 2.a.α - Ro 10:14b (οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν = τούτῳ [about equivalent toεἰς τοῦτον; cp. vs. 14a] οὗ οὐκ ἤκ .); - Blass Debrunner Funk Greek Grammar (BDF, 1961), section 46 (4) Assimilation of the nom. sing. to other cases - Gives 1 Th 5:3 as an example where the nominative is assimilated to another case. But above all, see Moulton: “We have still to gather some noteworthy points in the use of the cases, particularly the Nominative, on which nothing has been said hitherto. The case has a certain tendency to be residuary legatee of case-relations not obviously appropriated by other cases. We have its use as the name case, unaltered by the construction of the sentence in Rev 9:11: the fact that this has classical parallels (See Blass 85) is perhaps only accidental, for we have already seen that ungrammatical nominatives are prevalent in Rev (see p 9), and the general NT usage is certainly assimilation (Mt 1:21, Mk 3:16, Ac 27:1)." (Moulton J. , 1908)
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
That part is superseded by Moulton in the current online version:

Some might expect a preposition or the dative, but see BDAG πιστεύω 2.a.α - Ro 10:14b (οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν = τούτῳ [about equivalent toεἰς τοῦτον; cp. vs. 14a] οὗ οὐκ ἤκ .);
I have noted your attempt to change the subject without addressing your mistake.
- Blass Debrunner Funk Greek Grammar (BDF, 1961), section 46 (4) Assimilation of the nom. sing. to other cases - Gives 1 Th 5:3 as an example where the nominative is assimilated to another case.
I have already told you that BDF doesn't support you; assimilation doesn't apply to John 20:28. What do you think "assimilation" is?
But above all, see Moulton: “We have still to gather some noteworthy points in the use of the cases, particularly the Nominative, on which nothing has been said hitherto. The case has a certain tendency to be residuary legatee of case-relations not obviously appropriated by other cases.
There are cases that are designated as the object of the verb πιστεύω. I don't know why you think this is relevant. Please, explain it to me.

We have its use as the name case, unaltered by the construction of the sentence in Rev 9:11: the fact that this has classical parallels (See Blass 85) is perhaps only accidental, for we have already seen that ungrammatical nominatives are prevalent in Rev (see p 9), and the general NT usage is certainly assimilation (Mt 1:21, Mk 3:16, Ac 27:1)." (Moulton J. , 1908)
The only way that this would apply to John 20:28 is if you are saying that Thomas is naming Jesus as his Lord and his God. That's not your position is it?

You seem to have read page 69 of Moulton's grammar. How did you manage to miss pages 67-68 where he gives an extended treatment of πιστεύω? Is it because your position isn't even mentioned as a possibility? I have already allowed your assumption that πιστεύω is implied in this John 20:28 for the sake of discussion; that alone was a position you can't defend. Now you can't give a single example of a nominative being used as the object of πιστεύω. Your position is twice flawed. It could've all been avoided if you insisted on discussing things you don't know and understand.
 
Top