Why are most of you here...

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
And if you read my analysis, the same is true for the predicative view. The subject "you" with the verb "are" must be added to Thomas' exclamation.

The reason no one has a legitimate grammatical response is, in my opinion, because Harris only attempts to refute a straw man in his book, and almost everyone thinks he is the last word and covers everything and they use him as a "manual" of sorts.

So there are no "canned" responses available.
Th point here is that John was leading us up to the point where jesus was shown as both our lord and our God!
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I am not the one who said that the verb "believe" must take an object in the dative. Whoever told you that has egg on their face. ;)

Just sayin..
You said that you add a verb, not a verb and a preposition. How about you try to find your proposed meaning without using a preposition or the dative case? I'll wait for you.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You said that you add a verb, not a verb and a preposition. How about you try to find your proposed meaning without using a preposition or the dative case? I'll wait for you.

I don't see this as a problem since "believe" is understood from the context, but at first glance at Romans 10:14b the verb takes an object that is not dative and rendered "believe in."

Since Thomas is making an exclamation and not a full sentence we should expect a bit more latitude in the interpretation.

I am not claiming the predicative view is not possible, just that it's not the only possibility. And both need added words.

And by the way, I presume by the modified challenge (not dative instead of other than nominative) you have figured out that there is a nominative for accusative.

So you are now at 0 for 3. :)
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
I don't see this as a problem since "believe" is understood from the context, but at first glance at Romans 10:14b the verb takes an object that is not dative and rendered "believe in."
It's a problem because an implied verb won't give the meaning you've suggested. And, for the record, what object do you see in Rom. 10:14b?
Since Thomas is making an exclamation and not a full sentence we should expect a bit more latitude in the interpretation.
So grammar is "axiomatic" to you until you need the text to say something else.
I am not claiming the predicative view is not possible, just that it's not the only possibility. And both need added words.
Neither nominative for vocative or nominative of exclamation require added words.
And by the way, I presume by the modified challenge (not dative instead of other than nominative) you have figured out that there is a nominative for accusative.

So you are now at 0 for 3. :)
I haven't changed anything. You simply don't comprehend what I've said. You suggested an implied verb and the meaning "believe in...." I said that such a meaning would require datives in the text and is therefore impossible. Then you said the dative isn't required because you could use a preposition. The problem with that, as I've already mentioned in my last post, is that you didn't propose an implied verb and an implied
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
It's a problem because an implied verb won't give the meaning you've suggested. And, for the record, what object do you see in Rom. 10:14b?

So grammar is "axiomatic" to you until you need the text to say something else.

Neither nominative for vocative or nominative of exclamation require added words.

I haven't changed anything. You simply don't comprehend what I've said. You suggested an implied verb and the meaning "believe in...." I said that such a meaning would require datives in the text and is therefore impossible. Then you said the dative isn't required because you could use a preposition. The problem with that, as I've already mentioned in my last post, is that you didn't propose an implied verb and an implied

Did not know that got saved. Blame my iPhone;)

The first line is from your challenges. The second is my refutation.

0/1 πιστεύω would take datives...
But see J 14:1 with accusative

0/2 something different than the nominative case
But see J 13:13 - Nominative for accusative

0/3 without a preposition or the dative case
But see Romans 10:14b as documented in BDAG πιστεύω 2.a.α
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Yes, this has become the typical evangelical apologetic to defend the deity of Christ in John 1:1, particularly in response to the less than educated claims of the JW's. However, speaking of Greek grammar, it's quite normal for the predicate nominative to be anarthrous (and often fronted, as here) to distinguish it from the subject. That does not mean it's not definite. That is the best explanation for the anarthrous θεός. I believe that John is directly equating τόν θεόν and θεός. One need invoke neither Trinitarianism nor Sabellianism, but you do have to pay attention to how John develops the theme and work within his framework.

I also think this is likely. Can you kindly explain to me how you came to this conclusion? Thanx.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I also think this is likely. Can you kindly explain to me how you came to this conclusion? Thanx.


I'd like this as well. I have an idea but I'm not positive.

It's common for Trinitarians to see God in the OT as the Trinity unless that is impossible due to context. So θεός at John 1:1b is just "God."

Most scholars today see the anarthrous θεός at 1:1c as 100% qualitative. But θεός has an adjective, θείος. Also this lends itself to using "divine" as the translation which some don't like as it is not necessary that this be the almighty God.

So saying it is definite might be a way around this. It could define the divine substance and refer to the "what" of the three "who's." The problem of the convertible proposition could be avoided by leveraging the anarthrous noun. So switching back and forth between definite and anarthrous as necessary could be a possibility.

If you are Socinian or something similar it won't help you a bit.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Did not know that got saved. Blame my iPhone;)

The first line is from your challenges. The second is my refutation.

0/1 πιστεύω would take datives...
This wasn't a challenge. It was a factual statement that you are foolish for arguing with. Do you deny that πιστεύω takes a dative?! The only way that you can even try to make this into a problem is to misrepresent me as you have here:
I am not the one who said that the verb "believe" must take an object in the dative.
Where did I say this, Roger?
But see J 14:1 with accusative
The object of πιστεύω here is a prepositional phrase, not a naked case.

0/2 something different than the nominative case
But see J 13:13 - Nominative for accusative
This one just keeps getting funnier. Here is your refutation:
John 13:13 said:
ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με· ὁ διδάσκαλος, καί· ὁ κύριος, καὶ καλῶς λέγετε· εἰμὶ γάρ.
There's certainly nothing here. I am genuinely curious what you are talking about.

0/3 without a preposition or the dative case
But see Romans 10:14b as documented in BDAG πιστεύω 2.a.α
In this verse the first time πιστεύω is used its object is a prepositional phrase. Greek doesn't require it to be repeated with the second use of the verb.
Romans 10:14 said:
Πῶς οὖν ἐπικαλέσωνται εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν; πῶς δὲ πιστεύσωσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν; πῶς δὲ ἀκούσωσιν χωρὶς κηρύσσοντος;
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
This wasn't a challenge. It was a factual statement that you are foolish for arguing with. Do you deny that πιστεύω takes a dative?! The only way that you can even try to make this into a problem is to misrepresent me as you have here:Where did I say this, Roger?
The object of πιστεύω here is a prepositional phrase, not a naked case.

This one just keeps getting funnier. Here is your refutation: There's certainly nothing here. I am genuinely curious what you are talking about.

In this verse the first time πιστεύω is used its object is a prepositional phrase. Greek doesn't require it to be repeated with the second use of the verb.

Read the BDAG citation I gave for Romans 10:14b. It's not from 14a.

Also BDF has a section on nominative singular being assimilated for other cases. It's in the index under Nominative.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Read the BDAG citation I gave for Romans 10:14b. It's not from 14a.
I don't need to. The object for the verb in 14b isn't necessary to make the sentence grammatical because it can be assumed from 14a.

Also BDF has a section on nominative singular being assimilated for other cases. It's in the index under Nominative.
Lol. I want to see your example of this with πιστεύω. That's what you said you had, isn't it?

The whole point of my comment about πιστεύω was to demonstrate that your proposal as a means of understanding the text is a grammatical impossibility. I have demonstrated that beyond a shadow of a doubt, while wading through your misdirections and misunderstandings. If you don't have an example of the nominative case being used as the object of πιστεύω, then you don't have a case.

So far, you are 0/3 on your refutations. ;) Just saying...
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I don't need to. The object for the verb in 14b isn't necessary to make the sentence grammatical because it can be assumed from 14a.


Lol. I want to see your example of this with πιστεύω. That's what you said you had, isn't it?

The whole point of my comment about πιστεύω was to demonstrate that your proposal as a means of understanding the text is a grammatical impossibility. I have demonstrated that beyond a shadow of a doubt, while wading through your misdirections and misunderstandings. If you don't have an example of the nominative case being used as the object of πιστεύω, then you don't have a case.

So far, you are 0/3 on your refutations. ;) Just saying...

I will be updating my paper with a footnote including the Romans example.

However, in addition BDF says nominative singulars can assimilate their case. At J 28:28 we have nominative singulars. That will be in the paper as well.

However as you note, πιστεύω frequently takes the dative and a preposition. That's how assimilation works. And with a dative the preposition is not needed.

So both the predicative view and the objective view add the subject and verb to the exclamation.
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
I will be updating my paper with a footnote.

In addition BDF says nominative singulars can assimilate their case. That will be there as well:

However as you note, πιστεύω frequently takes the dative and a preposition. That's how assimilation works. And with a dative the preposition is not needed.
I don't have access to BDF, but I would like to know what it says. Would you provide it here? I don't think there is any way that it could support your proposed reading.
So both the predicative view and the objective view add the subject and verb to the exclamation.
Again, the nominative for vocative and the nominative of exclamation do not require implied verbs. Any view that requires an implied verb is less likely to be grammatically correct. Your proposal about the text is grammatically impossible.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Nominative for vocative at John 20:28 requires an implied verb because one does not exist there. Of course ALL nominatives for vocatives do not. Is that what you meant? Lol!

Murray Harris calls your view predicative. You cannot have a predicate without an implied verb and an implied subject.

As for BDF, do you know what assimilation is? It specifically says it can happen for the case of nominative singulars. That matches J 20:28.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Nominative for vocative at John 20:28 requires an implied verb because one does not exist there. Of course ALL nominatives for vocatives do not. Is that what you meant? Lol!
I meant exactly what I said: no verb, implied or otherwise, is required for Thomas's statement in John 20:28 to be a grammatically complete and understandable utterance.
Murray Harris calls your view predicative. You cannot have a predicate without an implied verb and an implied subject.
If Murray is talking about a predicate, then Murray isn't talking about my view. A predicate isn't required for this construction. It doesn't matter what Murray says.
As for BDF, do you know what assimilation is? It specifically says it can happen for the case of nominative singulars. That matches J 20:28.
I know what assimilation is, and I am 100% confident that BDF doesn't support your view here. And there is at least one really good explanation for why you are so stingy with this citation when you are so free with others...

Besides, you said earlier that you had an example of this usage. You shouldn't even need it.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Nominative for vocative at John 20:28 requires an implied verb because one does not exist there. Of course ALL nominatives for vocatives do not. Is that what you meant? Lol!

Murray Harris calls your view predicative. You cannot have a predicate without an implied verb and an implied subject.

As for BDF, do you know what assimilation is? It specifically says it can happen for the case of nominative singulars. That matches J 20:28.

Don’t know what you mean by above but a nominative of exclamation ( like what we have at John 20:28) comes without an explicit verb. In such constructions, a verb is implied.
 
Top