>>Secondly, the statement emphasises on the one hand Peter (SU) and on the
>>other hand, Jesus (IHSOU) which is separated from TOU NAZARHNOU.
>>Presumably, the verb HSTHA operates for both nouns. But isn't it
>>grammatically possibly to read the sentence with the sense: "You were with
>>the Nazarene. You were of Jesus (ie, you belonged to Jesus - cf 1 Cor
>>1:12)"? In other words, the preposition META governs the first noun but not
>The problem with this, in my opinion, is that there's no good reason for
>the META to construe only with TOU NAZARHNOU while HSQA construes with both
>TOU NAZARHNOU and TOU IHSOU. I don't think that the separation of TOU IHSOU
>from TOU NAZARHNOU is significant; I think that TOU IHSOU is a clarifying
>appositive to TOU NAZARHNOU and that the sentence has a very distinct
>rhetorically effective word-order that can be reproduced readily in English
>thus: "You TOO were with the Nazarene--(with) Jesus." You're wanting to
>make the HSQA the verb of two clauses. The suggested parallel with 1 Cor
>1:12 is interesting, but the predicate genitive here seems unlikely to me,
>given the presence of a META with another genitive that can readily be
>connected with TOU IHSOU. The whole passage seems to depend upon the
>servant woman's recognition of Peter's Galilean character and his therefore
>not unlikely association with "the Nazarene" who is called "Jesus."
Couldn't it be that the maid recognized Peter's face? He, after all, had
been with Jesus in Jerusalem quite a bit for the week.
One idea on TOU IHSOU, not original with me, is to understand it as
expressing the maid's contempt for Jesus (and even for Peter), "You, too,
were with the Nazarene--THAT JESUS."