The thing which immediately stands out for me here is that underlined is a TSKTS construction. In the bible, TSKTS (article substantive kai article substantive) constructions almost invariably connote two different individuals. Now, in order to conduct proper exegesis, we must always stay within the bounds of what the grammar allows us to do, and in this case the grammar is telling us “two individuals are in view” in the expression ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.
But the words are said to one individual (εἶπεν αὐτῷ) . So grammar leads us to think one way but the superficial context seems to push us the other way. What do we do in a situation like this ? Simple, trust the grammar, and find an interpretation which does not violate it. In John 20:28 this is quite easily done if we realize that although Thomas said these words to Jesus, he was addressing both Jesus and the Father who is in Jesus. The actual (not superficial) context supports this understanding.
For the proper context we have to visit Jesus’ last known conversation with doubting Thomas and Phillip in John 14 . Here, in Thomas’ presence Phillip tells Jesus that seeing the Father is enough for him :
In response, Jesus tells Thomas and Phillip that to see him (Jesus) is to see the Father because the Father is in him (Jesus). Yet Thomas still doesn’t understand. Fast forward to John 20:28 , to the next known conversation Thomas has with Jesus and our unfinished story of doubting Thomas finds a happy ending. Here Thomas understands that the Father works through Jesus, even raising Jesus from the dead, and thus to “see” Jesus is to see the Father , hence Thomas’ "my lord (i.e. Jesus) and my God (i.e. the Father) " eureka cry. This interpretation explains the TSKST . It also explains the nominative ὁ κύριός rather than the vocative κύριε, which is another powerful indicator that Thomas was not addressing Jesus as his lord and God.
I was filtering through Wallace’s Sharp Redivivus? A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule , and this is what he writes about TSKTS constructions in the papyri:
T> he papyri were seen, then, to be very much in step with the classical authors and the NT. Further, when a writer wanted to distinguish individuals—and there were scores of instances in which > distinct individuals were in view> —he or she > invariably used a second article > (TSKTS)—except, of course, when a proper name was involved. > In fact, one might be a bit surprised to find in this vulgar Greek even convoluted constructions where the writer still remembered the second article. For example, in P. Oxy. 494.22-23 we read of “my wife . . . and my son” (hJ gunhv mou kaiV . . . oJ uiJov" mou), where three words intervene; similarly, P. Giess. 80.3-4: “her papa and . . . the mother” (oJ pavpa" aujth’" kaiV . . . hJ mhvthr); BGU 1680.4-8 reads “my sister and . . . his wife . . . and her husband and . . .the son” (thVn ajdelfhvn mou kaiV . . . thVn gunai’ka aujtou’ . . . kaiV toVn a[ndra aujth’" kaiV . . . toVn uiJovn), all clear references to different people. P. Columb. Inventory 480.2-3 mentions “the farmer of the tax on slaves and the controller” (oJ pragmateuovmeno" thVn wjdhVn ajndrapovdwn kaiV oJ ajntigrafeuv").120
So it seems incredible to me that Granville Sharp disregarded the TSKTS construction (which he referred to as his “6th rule”) at John 20:28 .
Correct. They almost invariably do. They invariably do except when they do not. They often connote two or more different titles for the same individual, i.e.
I don’t know if the statement “context trumps grammar 100% of the time” makes a whole lot of sense to me because when we’re dealing with a sentence which is grammatically sound, context never has to “trump grammar”, it is in harmony with it.
But when we have to choose between biblical eisegesis (what I earlier referred to as “superficial context”) and grammar, the latter must win 100% of the time.
Correct. They almost invariably do. They invariably do except when they do not. > They often connote two or more different titles for the same individual, > i.e.
Yes, with titles / proper names we cannot predict anything from a TSKTS construction. But if “God” is a title here, why isn’t it one in 2 Peter 1:1?
The argument that the words uttered by Thomas in John 20:28 were addressed either wholly or in part to the Father is not a new one. Theodore of Mopsuestia ( also known as Theodore of Antioch), at about 350AD argued that the words were directed not to Jesus but to the Father.
Here’s Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 266:
“Another passage that can be taken to suggest that Christ is “God” himself (i.e. o theos with the article) occurs near the end of the fourth Gospel, and here again one should not be surprised to find scribes modifying the text. Upon seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas exclaims, “My Lord and my God” (o theos mou). The passage has caused interpreters problems over the years; > Theodore of Mopsuestia argued that the words were not addressed directly to Jesus but were uttered in praise of God the Father> …”
This, though is a very difficult assertion because the immediate context seems to indicate the phrase was specifically directed toward Jesus: “ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.” The pronoun is singular, which of course indicates that its directed to 1 person. To say that the whole phrase is directed toward God the Father, places a strain on the personal pronoun that can’t be resolved (or requires some crazy grammatical gymnastics), and to say that only part of the phrase Is to Jesus and the other to the Father is to split Thomas’ utterance in two but the text simply only indicates 1. It seems really unnatural that he would look to Jesus and address the father, especially considering “Doubting” Thomas’ history with the works and ministry of our Lord. Its almost as though Thomas is saying “I’m sorry Lord for doubting you! I see now!”
Is there any example in the NT where someone prayed to God (That is the Father), without it being introduced as a prayer?
An ounce of evidence is worth a pound of presumption! If his statement were true, than surely there would be a manuscript somewhere with a reading that shows its at least possible. I can’t think of one that shows any real variant in this passage, if any, a cursory examination of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus has the reading as we know it today! These kinds of statements are intended to add controversy and assist in book sales!
Word order is irrelevant to Clayton’s point here. He is showing that there is another example (which just happens to use the same words) of a TSKTS where the context makes it 100% clear that two different persons are not being connoted. I’ve given another one from Revelation. How many exceptions do you need to see before realizing that “rules” do not determine the meaning?
In both passages. the question of whether these are nominatives or nominatives standing in for vocatives is largely academic. It all depends on how you wish to see/categorize them.
But what difference does it if John 20:28 is nominative or vocative? Are you saying that Granville Sharpe does not apply to vocatives?"
Yes, with titles / proper names we cannot predict anything from a TSKTS construction. But if “God” is a title here, why isn’t it one in 2 Peter 1:1?
I believe it is a title there. It’s just that Sharpe’s rule works there whereas it does not work here or in Psalm 34:23 or in Rev 1:8 or in a million other places where the context determines the meanings. That’s how rules work. (or how they don’t work.)
Nonnus’ paraphrase has κοίρανος ἡμέτερος καὶ ἐμὸς Θεός. “This lord that WE have been following is now MY personal God.” That, I think captures the sense of it.
Thanks for your thoughts. Hope all is well with you.
One must understand however that Thomas’ utterance is not a prayer but an exclamation (specifically a nominative of exclamation.) Theodore of Mopsuestia insisted that Thomas was identifying the Father in Jesus as “Lord” and “God.” Others have suggested that he was identifying Jesus as his “Lord” but the Father in him as his “God.” Margaret Davies, in Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, p. 125-126 is instructive in this regard:
"Naturally,the interpretation of Thomas’s words was hotly debated by early church theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those who understood ‘My lord’ to refer to Jesus, and ‘my God’ to refer to god [the Father] were suspected of christological heresy in the fifth century CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation and instead they understand the confession as assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret “God’ as a reference to logos. But it is perfectly appropriate for Thomas to respond to Jesus’ resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as his Lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way actually makes much better sense in the context of the Fourth Gospel . In 14.1 belief both in God and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out. If we understand Thomas’s confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20.31 becomes an anti-climax.”
But the reading “as we know it today” (Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου) is perfectly compatible with the notion that two individuals are being identified. It makes little sense therefore to ask for a manuscript reading which “corrects” that which is not broken.
But beyond this, your assertion that there are no manuscript variants in this passage is false unfortunately. Ehrman points out several manuscripts which were handled in what can only be construed as an anti-patripassiant corruption (he mentions the predecessor of codex Bezae and other gospel manuscripts which simply omitted the article before Θεός). This strongly suggests that such scribes considered the expression Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου as lending support to Sabellianism rather than to Trinitarianism. To be sure, they do seemto have a point, for the article before θεός at John 20:28 does seem to contradict 4th century Chalcedonian orthodoxy , which identifies ὁ θεός as the Father (as in John 1:1b).
Things are good, been busy with another project, and a baby on the way So thing are very well! Hope all is well with you.
Your right, except its not just an exclamation, it is an exclamation that is directed toward Jesus (can someone else be the antecedent of αὐτῷ?) . Perhaps if it was not directed, that is, if the text said “ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου.” (with the pronoun removed) then the statement would be ambiguous enough for Davies’ interpretation. However, the inclusion of αὐτῷ makes it explicit, Thomas’ exclamation was directed toward Jesus.
I disagree with the assertion that my interpretation is anti-climactic. Its not only that his confession is that Jesus is God (which in itself would be), but that Jesus is his God! If we see the Gospel of John emphasizing the divine nature of Christ (I understand that you would disagree), this makes perfect sense. I can’t see how this could be any less anti-climactic.
ευχαριστω σοι αγαθοις λογοις εις μοι! Σε πιστευεις εν Υιω, Πατρι και Αγιω πνευματι;
I disagree with you that word order is “irrelevant” here. Let me explain. The reason word order is extremely important with the expression ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου relative to the expression at John 20:28 is because if ὁ θεός here is nominative for vocative (just like it apparently is at John 20:28 ) , then ὁ κύριός is used (rather than κύριε) here for conformity .
In this regard, you have to bear in mind that in the GNT the nominative ὁ κύριός is never used vocativally (unlike ὁ θεός). Had κύριός preceded θεός in this LXX verse, no doubt we would have seen κύριε μου καὶ ὁ θεός. So this example from Psalms is rather deceptive IMHO and also quite the false analogy. ..
Now, we have an identical expression to ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός (Psalm 34:23) at Rev. 20:6, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ . Would you say one individual is in view at Rev. 20:6 ?
But beyond this, your assertion that there are no manuscript variants in this passage is false unfortunately.
Looks like your right, I will have to retract my statement about no variants in the manuscript tradition for John 20:28. Alas my knowledge has failed me! One thing for sure though, its not a variant you hear much about.
This strongly suggests that such scribes considered the expression Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου as lending support to Sabellianism
On the surface, this claim seems to be concluding more than the manuscript tradition reveals, especially seeing it can so easily be interpreted the way I have. This is something I’ll have to dig a little further into myself.
But we’re not denying that the exclamation is directed to Jesus, so your objection is a strawman. The argument is (and the TSKTS construction seems to confirm it) that the statement is directed to Jesus and to someone else in him. Had the Father not been in Jesus, then you would certainly have a point, and Thomas could not have said to “Jesus” what he did. Also notice that Thomas did not say to Jesus, Σὺ εἶ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, just ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου which allows for the reading that two separate individuals are being identified here , because this one being Jesus has another, the Father, dwelling inside of him. This is precisely what Phillip and Thomas couldn’t understand at John 14, and ironically enough, the Trinitarian interpretation of john 20:28 seems to perpetuate that ignorance..
In any case, the onus probandi is on those who assert. In this regard John 20:28 is of no use as a “proof text” for Christ’s Deity because it can be understood in a number different ways, no all of them supportive of Christ’s so-called “Deity.”
In any case, the onus probandi is on those who assert. In this regard John 20:28 is of no use as a “proof text” for Christ’s Deity because it can be understood in a number different ways,
I didn’t say it was a proof text, I was simply defending the proposition that there is only one referent to Thomas’ statement. (if that makes it a proof-text, its a side effect of my defense) Evidently the narrator understood Thomas’ statement was spoken to one individual. It stands to reason that Jesus, and the one who is in Him are two referents, and they don’t fit in the pronoun. The only way this fits is if Kurios and Theos are the same referent, otherwise we have a grammatical error in the text! There’s just no room for your “one who is in him” interpretation. Again, if the personal pronoun wasn’t there or if it was plural, then it could be asserted, but its very presence the way it is, make this sentence quite clear.
I guess I just don’t understand how to Him, in this passage means “to Jesus and the one who is in him”
(> if that makes it a proof-text, > its a side effect of my defense) Evidently the narrator understood Thomas’ statement was spoken to one individual.
No it doesn’t.
It stands to reason that Jesus, and the one who is in Him are two referents, and they don’t fit in the pronoun. > The only way this fits is if Kurios and Theos are the same referent, otherwise we have a grammatical error in the text! > There’s just no room for your “one who is in him” interpretation. Again, if the personal pronoun wasn’t there or if it was plural, then it could be asserted, but its very presence the way it is, make this sentence quite clear.
I guess I just don’t understand how to Him, in this passage means “to Jesus and the one who is in him”
I don’t see why you would think that way. Jesus continuously affirmed that he and his Father were one. In fact had apostle John written ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου it would send the wrong message to the readers,-- that Thomas still didn’t understand that the Father is in Jesus, nor that the Father and Jesus are one, nor that to see Jesus is to see the Father.
If you force me to choice between A. (essentially the position of oneness Pentecostals) and B. I would choose B. But the real context of Johannine theology is that Ἰησοῦς θεός ἐστιν.
So thing are very well! Hope all is well with you.