[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