>I may be in this way over my head, since I haven't learned the grammar of
>infinitives yet...but I don't understand why Doulos would be accusative here.
>Compare this to John 10:34, which says "EGW EIPA QEOI ESTE". QEOI is
I do not see that John 10:34 is related to this since ESTE is a finite verb
of being and takes a predicate nominative.
>Incidentally, a quick search reveals that this is the only use of LEGW UMAS in
>the New Testament. LEGW in the Gospels is generally paired with UMIN, sometimes
>with SOI, sometimes with OTI. Other phrases are much less common.
John 15:15 OUKETI _LEGW hUMAS DOULOUS_, hOTI hO DOULOUS OUK OIDEN TI
POIEI AUTOU hO KURIOS: _hMAS DE EIRHKA FILOUS_, . . .
James Brooks and I treated these as double accusatives. There are two
kinds of double Accusatives, 1) personal and impersonal (Mk 6:34 They
begain to teach him many things) 2) primary and secondary (Acts 13:5 They
had John for an assistent). In the case of 2) it is possible often to
understand the verb to be as understood, thus as Carl suggest, a predicate
accusative. Both instances in John 15 seem to me to be of that type,
primary and secondary objects.
Carlton L. Winbery
LA College, Pineville, La