John 20:28 ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου - Why two articles?

When two "words" (i.e. constituents), which occurring alone would access different scenarios, are joined by καὶ with a single article, the two "words" may function as a "doublet" and access a single scenario.

Eph. 1:3 Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ

Here we see ὁ θεὸς and πατὴρ ... Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ joined with καὶ and having only one article. The whole construction   ὁ θεὸς ... Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ not only points to a single referent but it opens a single scenario: God as the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I would also venture the suggestion that πατὴρ is more salient than ὁ θεὸς in this construction, not by virtue of being anarthrous, rather because it is given more elaborate encoding: πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

John 20:27 εἶτα λέγει τῷ Θωμᾷ· φέρε τὸν δάκτυλόν σου ὧδε καὶ ἴδε τὰς χεῖράς μου καὶ φέρε τὴν χεῖρά σου καὶ βάλε εἰς τὴν πλευράν μου, καὶ μὴ γίνου ἄπιστος ἀλλὰ πιστός.  28 ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.  29 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὅτι ἑώρακάς με πεπίστευκας; μακάριοι οἱ μὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες.

In John 20:28 ὁ κύριός μου and ὁ θεός μου, while pointing to a single referent has the article with both ὁ κύριός μου and ὁ θεός μου. Richard Hoyle[1] argues that this is not a doublet, which would require a single article. However the repetition of the article does not indicate that Thomas is addressing two different persons. ὁ κύριός μου refers to one scenario Jesus as my Lord (master) and ὁ θεός μου to a different scenario Jesus as my God. Hoyle[1] offers this and another alternative, "restatement":

There are several examples cited where two conjoined arthrous nouns appear to be doublets. Carson (1984:84)920 notes Revelation 2:26, καὶ ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν as an example of a doublet, or in his words “a slightly cumbersome idiom to invest this obedient conqueror with a weighty label”:

καὶ ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν ἄχρι τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου,
and the[one] overcoming and the[one] keeping until end the works of-me
δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουςίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν
I-will-give to-him authority over the nations

However, I do not analyse these as conjoined nouns, but as restatement, with the second καί in the sense of “that is to say” (cf., Matthew 21:5 “on a donkey, even on a colt”). The two noun phrases cannot refer to two individuals or classes, as shown by the singular pronoun αὐτῷ. If they referred to a single generic category of everyone who both overcomes and does Jesus’s works to the end, on the basis of the above observations one would expect a single article. Moreover, the two events listed are coreferential “He who overcomes, i.e. he who keeps doing my will to the end”.

Another similar example is quoted by Moule (1953:116)[3]:

In John XX.28 Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, it is to be noted that a substantive in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense and followed by a possessive could not be anarthrous … the article before θεός may, therefore, not be significant..

Here, whether or not Moule’s rationale is sound, both terms clearly refer to the same individual, Jesus. The article before θεός argues against Thomas’s words being a simple doublet, as does the repetition of μου. Either, then, Thomas identifies Jesus with two separate concepts, my Lord (whom I obey) and my God (whom I worship), or this is, like Revelation 2:26, a restatement “My Lord, that is to say my God”. I argue that the repetition of the article shows that it cannot be a doublet, two words referring to the same scenario, “my (Lord and God)”.

It seems hardly feasible that ὁ θεός μου would be a restatement of ὁ κύριός μου. The expression ὁ κύριός [μου] standing alone does not involve the notion of deity. Jesus is referenced as ὁ κύριός [μου] in John by persons who have not yet come to a relization that Jesus is ὁ θεός.

John 13:13 ὑμεῖς φωνεῖτέ με· ὁ διδάσκαλος, καί· ὁ κύριος, καὶ καλῶς λέγετε· εἰμὶ γάρ. 

John 20:13 καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῇ ἐκεῖνοι· γύναι, τί κλαίεις; λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι ἦραν τὸν κύριόν μου, καὶ οὐκ οἶδα ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.

Therefore, I would suggest that we see here one referent but two different scenarios; obedience-ownership, i.e. "master" ὁ κύριός μου and the recognition of divine identity by means of worship ὁ θεός μου.   


[1] Hoyle, Richard A. Scenarios, Discourse, and Translation  ©2008 SIL International, p.235-236.

[2] Carson, Donald A. 1984. Exegetical fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

[3] Moule, Charles Francis Digby. 1953. An idiom book of New Testament Greek.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.