[B-Greek] aorist participle of subsequent action

kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Mon Nov 7 07:57:11 EST 2005


@Dr.Conrad & Elizabeth Kline:

Thanks for the info and I will look that stuff up.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> 
> On Nov 6, 2005, at 9:04 PM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote: 
> 
> > Acts 16:6 DIHLQON DE THN FRUGIAN KAI GALATIKHN CWRAN KWLUQENTES 
> > hUPO TOU AGIOU PNEUMATOS LALHSAI TON LOGON EN THi ASIAi 
> > 
> > doing a paper on Galatian contraversy, came across the argument by 
> > Wallace that the aorist participle KWLUQENTES could be taken 
> > subsequent to the action of DIHLQON. 
> > 
> > They went through the Phrygian-Galatian region, but were then 
> > forbidden by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia. 
> > 
> > You think this is possible? Not doubting Wallace, I just don't 
> > know if this is something to support a southern view. 
> 
> We had a thread on this matter of aorist participles indicating 
> simultaneous or subsequent action a few years back; I'll see if I can 
> locate it; my recollection is that it does indeed appear to happen 
> and particularly when the aorist participles FOLLOWS rather than 
> precedes the relevant finite verb; but the argument is inconclusive. 
> See Sept 30-Oct 1 1998, Oct 4, 8-9 1998, (all "Adverbial aor ptcs of 
> subsequent time") and finally Oct 14, 1998 my exploration ("Adverbial 
> aor ptcs of subsequent time -- LONG"). KWLUQENTES in Acts 16:6 is 
> discussed there--I stated there that I do NOT think KWLUQENTES in 
> that instance should be taken as an aorist participle of subsequent 
> time, and I think only very rarely can an argument be made for an 
> "aorist participle of subsequent time." 
> 
> Carl W. Conrad 
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus) 
> 1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243 
> cwconrad2 at mac.com 
> WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ 
> 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list