Date: Fri May 29 1998 - 16:54:48 EDT
Carlton Winbery wrote:
> George Blaisdell wrote;
> >I like the Robertson version best, although perhaps "You, Peter, are
> >following me!" might do as well, where the addition of Peter's name
> >carries the force of the SU in the Greek. So much hinges on the tone
> >of voice as it is pronounced out loud in English...
> No, If this were in any way a statement of fact rather than an imperative,
> it would be AKOLOUQEIS=. If it is second person, AKOLEUQEI has to be
> imperative. It could be translated, "You, follow me!" or even "You, keep
> on following me!" "You are" in English is just not imperative even though
> it is second person.
Well, it does show up on Perseus as an indic. 2nd pers sing pres. as
well as imperative. Perhaps just not in the GNT, but elsewhere in
ancient Greek it is found... I don't know where, but Perseus would
have the reference. The point here is that it might carry the force
of both indic and imper, just as the English CAN... but does not
always. Is AKOLOUQEIS used elsewhere in John? If yes, that would
just about seem to settle the matter in congruence with your view. If
not, it still doesn't make your view wrong...
It is John's extensive and unusual usage of the present verb form that
keeps my attention... Together with the opening two words...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:44 EDT