From: David Moore (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 25 1996 - 22:15:31 EDT
> I'm working on an exegetical paper on Acts 19:11-20, and I've
> something which seems strange. Perhaps it's just my lack of
> Greek. . . .
> Normally, in the sequence of tenses, an aorist participle means that
> action described in the participle occurs before the action of the
> In Acts 19:14, however, the aorist participle ("having answered")
> be contemporaneous with the main verb ("he said"). To translated it
> according to the usual sequence of tenses would result in something
> this: "But after he had answered, the demon said"--which doesn't make
> Is this an exception to the usual rules of tense sequence? I think
> noticed it earlier in Acts, as well. Any tips? references to
> grammars I've overlooked?
> Thanks in advance for your help.
The cases of APOKRINOMAI as an aorist participle with verbs that
express speech should be treated as a case apart since this
construction probably takes its form from the Semitic background of the
Gospels (Moulton [i.e.
-- David L. Moore Director Miami, Florida, USA Department of Education firstname.lastname@example.org Southeastern Spanish District http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore of the Assemblies of God
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:41 EDT