From: Carlton Winbery (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 26 1998 - 11:40:14 EDT
Carl answered George;
>>Awhile back, I did a translational try of these passages translating
>>AKOLOUQEI as a present indicative 2nd middle, and was parsimoniously
>>corrected to the imperative! I ate a huge serving of crow, and
>>accepted the correction, after re-looking at my Zodhiates parsing,
>>which I had misread, and went back to an imperative understanding.
>George, the context calls for the imperative. I think the emphatic SU in
>vs. 21 makes it abundantly clear; moreover, Jesus has repeatedly,
>throughout this passage, concluded his words to Peter with an imperative.
>It is true that as an epsilon-contract verb AKOLOUQEW could have a
>middle/passive indicative in -EI, although the more common spelling of that
>contracted ending is -Hi. I must say, however, that although I haven't done
>a check, I have rarely seen this verb accept in an absolute sense with a
There are 16 occurrances of AKOLOUQEI in the UBS4 & N-A27. Four of them
are indicative, Matt. 10:38, Lk. 9:49, Jn. 10:4, & Rev. 14:13. Note that
the editors accent the forms differently, AKOLOU/QEI for the imperative and
AKOLOUQEI= for the indicative. In every edition of the GNT that I have at
home, all editors agree that John 21:19, 22 are imperative. As Carl and
Jim noted that is because of context, obviously the second person
(imperative form) rather than the third person is demanded by the context.
The four occurrances of the indicative are all in context that assume the
third singular, hence the indicative.
Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Pineville, LA 71359
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT