When Kolo is not around, and I am in in doubt, I consult the Slavonic Bible because I understand Slavonic and because the language was actually created on the basis of Greek for ease, word-for-word, and conceptual, grammatical and lexical accuracy of translation.
Thus, verse 1:15 reads "i (and) sami (yourselves) svyati (holy) vo (in) vsyem (all) zhityi (living) budite (be)" and verse 1:16 reads "svyati (holy) budite (be [you plural]), iako (as) svyat (holy) az (I) yesm (am)."
There is no question here that the "mood" of 1 Peter 1:15 and 16 is advisory in Slavonic, as if a father were advising his children: "be wise in all things, as I am wise." There is, of course, nothing imperative in it, a tinge maybe—all vector, no force.
As for the English translations, "shall" is imperative in legal usage but otherwise is no different from the non-imperative "will be." And the western, especially Calvinist phronema being legalistic, it is no wonder most translations read as commandments.
In my opinion, this is an inaccurate rendition of the mood with respect to the non-legalistic Hellenistic phronema of the early and Eastern Church, and is the major cause of the theological chasm between the East and West.
Thanks for your input.
“I have pinged Kolo because he is a Greek speaker and is familiar with koine Greek. Kolo: how do you read the mood of 1 Peter 1:15-16. verses? As advisory (counseling) or as imperative (commanding)?”
In great haste as I am preparing for a hearing; it has never occurred to me that 1 Peter 1:15-16 is an order. It strikes me as something a spiritual father would say to his spiritual child in the nature of good counsel.
Perhaps tonight I can dig a bit deeper.
I would appreciate Kolo's input. As for whether they are advisory (counseling) or imperative (commanding), if you wish to choose the former over the latter, very well. As noted, the jussive future is more familiar than the imperative proper. Even as merely advisory they would still advocate one to be holy (And this is all the pope was doing). Either way, it is not a simple future.
There is no question here that the "mood" of 1 Peter 1:15 and 16 is advisory in Slavonic, as if a father were advising his children: "be wise in all things, as I am wise." There is, of course, nothing imperative in it, a tinge maybe—all vector, no force.
I would take no exception with this. But does this not match what Pope Benedict said? There was nothing imperative or forceful in his words, just the counsel of a loving father.
As for the English translations, "shall" is imperative in legal usage but otherwise is no different from the non-imperative "will be."
It is true that American English generally does not maintain the distinction between "shall" and "will". British usage would have the simple future with "shall" in the 1st person and "will" in the 2nd person. "Will" in the 1st person and "shall" in the 2nd person is more than just a legal imperative:
shall, will Shall and will have attracted a great deal of attention from usage commentators. Let us begin with a clear expression of present-day American use:I have used an expanded quotation for the sake of thoroughness. Since these are formal translation we would expect a greater care for the distinction between "shall" and "will." If we were to posit that the translators have adopted the American tendency to erase the distinction then we should see a tendency for the use of "will" rather than the use of "shall" that we find. Thus I can only conclude that the use of "shall" in the second person is deliberate to indicate some sense of obligation as opposed to a simple future.The old distinction between these words is no longer observed by most people. Shall, which was once considered the only correct form for the expression of the simple future in the first person, has been replaced by will in the speech and writing of most people.… In a few expressions shall is the only form ever used and so presents no usage problem: Shall we go? Shall I help you? To use will in these expressions would change the meaning. With the exception of these special uses, will is as correct as shall — Warriner 1986And let us contrast that with the traditional rule, as expressed in a British usage book:In its simplest form, the rule governing the use of shall and will is as follows: to express a simple future tense, use shall with I or we, will with you, he, they, etc.; to express permission, obligation, determination, compulsion, etc., use will with I and we, shall elsewhere —Chambers 1985… As for shall, it has become a bit fashionable in recent years to disparage its use in American English. Its critics allow that it is entrenched in legal usage and in the questions mentioned at the beginning of this article, but in other uses they tend to regard it as affected or precious. Some allowance is made for the expression of determination or resolve, in which it is used with pronouns or all persons…
Our conclusion is that the traditional rules about shall and will do not appear to have described real usage of these words very precisely at any time, although there is no question that they do describe the usage of some people some of the time and that they are more applicable in England than elsewhere. The historical tendency described by Strang toward the the use of will only has developed further in America than in England …
(Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webser,1994, pp. 842-843.)
In my opinion, this is an inaccurate rendition of the mood with respect to the non-legalistic Hellenistic phronema of the early and Eastern Church, and is the major cause of the theological chasm between the East and West.
There is nothing here about legalism, just the counsel: be holy, be a saint. I think that you are reading more into the pope's words and my explanation of the translation of 1 Peter 1:15,16 than are really there. Not everything that a Latin says is a code for legalism. : )