> I found this discussion very interesting. While I agree that that the
> evidence seems to demand an imperative rendering of )AKOLOUQEI, I also
> seem to want more than a simple "Follow me" as most translations read.
>
> To fit the context of Peter's "distractibility" or "waffling" I like
> William's translation "Keep on following me." Robertson's in his Word
> Pictures states without comment "Do thou me keep on following."
>
> In looking at several lexicons it appears to me that )AKOLOUQEI
> inherently retains a meaning of continuous commitment or attachment. And
> so where the context seems to indicate a slackness in following I like
> the added force of "keep on...", "continue..."
>
> What do you think?
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...
And Carl may have put his finger on the nub of this issue when he
wrote:
"The question you raise .... concerns the aspect
of AKOLOUQEI, which is "progressive." Now that I think of it, I don't
believe I've ever seen an aorist equivalent (AKOLOUQHSON/AKOLOUQHSATE:
"Be
(a) follower(s)").
If this is true, then perhaps when there is no aorist imperative used
for a particular verb like this, the present form IS the imperative
form for a reason... And works just as the present tense in English
CAN work as an imperative, but doesn't always [obviously!!]. And much
as I really dislike the little creep sneaking in the back door like
this, perhaps Mr. Aktionsart has a place here after all!! :-)
Maybe you just cannot tell someone in the aorist to follow you... Can
you ONLY tell them to 'be following' you? Is 'following' simply the
kind of action that requires the present indicative 2nd as its
imperative? And would an aorist imperative then have to translate "Be
[a] follower[s]"? Or would it simply then be the command "Follow
me!"? [a la John Wayne leading the charge]
Perhaps when the imperative and indicative are the same, and the
indicative in English can work as the imperative, it should be
translated in the indicative [present, of course]. Then, at least,
the double force of the Greek morphology is retained and there is no
ambiguity concerning aspect at all...
George Blaisdell