DIWKETE THN AGAPHN, ZHLOUTE DE TA PNEUMATIKA, MALLON DE hINA PROFHTEUHTE.
there is a natural tendency in most of us to want to interpret something
which occurs in one place the same way as we do when it occurs elsewhere in
a similar setting. Friberg parses DIWKETE as imperartive; also, according
to my ancient but better than nothing Wigrams it is imperative. There is no
2nd plural indicative listed to compare it to. Even if it might be parsed
as indicative (which is looks very much like it might be), the context here
seems to dicate an imperative. Thus the ZHLOUTE in 14:1 should also be seen
as imperative.
(Perhaps this occurance in 14:1 is what has compelled translators to view
12:31 to also be imperative. Of course such speculation is far beyond our
scope.)
So would the simple fact that 12:31 would make more sense as an indicative
than imperative bear sufficient weight to interpret it that way despite the
fact that 14:1 is imperative and that most translations render 12:31 as
imperative?
I certainly would like to an excuse to be bold here. Any further insights,
anyone?
Ellen Adams
etc.