Clay,
This rings bells for me in two ways. Remember our discussion (was it
off list?) where I mentioned my concern that too often "stylistic
differences" may be simply the easy way out of a tough nut to crack?
An example of what I meant, that IMHO fairly throbs with polysemy
follows.
John 1:39 (ERCESQE KAI OYESQE) and John 1:46 (ERCOU KAI IDE) are used
as examples to show that the future indicative often functions as
imparative. it is said that the difference here is "stylistic" I
maintain that the difference here is far more than stylistic. In Verse
46 Philip instructs the cynical Nathanial, since he won't take Philip's
word for it, to come and satisfy his scepticism himself. The Imparative
IDE conveys the thrust of his intentions clearly. In Verse 39, Jesus
answers the somewhat nebulas, but I think leading, question of the
disciples of John "where are you staying" with an invitation (in the
imparative ERCESQE) and a promise (in the future indicative OYESQE). If
you give alittle thought to what John has to say about how that promise
was to be filled out (begining with that ARCHN TWN SHMEIWN of chapter 2
where He EFANERWSEN THN DOXAN AUTOU) that promise "OYESQE" peals like a
many layered onion. "You will" see by the light of TO FWS TO ALHQINON
hO FWTIZEI PANTWN ANQROPWN (1:9). The promise is "OYESQE" and I think
John's whole Gospel is summarized in 1:14 where the human result of hO
LOGOS SARX EGENETO is EQAESAMEQA.... I could go on to the man born
blind in chapter 9 and the leaders who see but don't SEE and on and on
and on, but I leave the onion for those who see what I see to peal for
themselves.
I don't know if "polysemy is considered to be an aspect of Johannine
style in general" but I sure think it IS.
John M. Moe