Date: Thu Apr 25 1996 - 17:50:47 EDT
I'm working on an exegetical paper on Acts 19:11-20, and I've discovered
something which seems strange. Perhaps it's just my lack of experience with
Greek. . . .
Normally, in the sequence of tenses, an aorist participle means that the
action described in the participle occurs before the action of the main verb.
In Acts 19:14, however, the aorist participle ("having answered") seems to
be contemporaneous with the main verb ("he said"). To translated it
according to the usual sequence of tenses would result in something like
this: "But after he had answered, the demon said"--which doesn't make sense.
Is this an exception to the usual rules of tense sequence? I think I've
noticed it earlier in Acts, as well. Any tips? references to standard
grammars I've overlooked?
Thanks in advance for your help.
John Barach JohnBarach@aol.com
Mid-America Reformed Seminary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:41 EDT