From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 28 1997 - 00:03:59 EST
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:06:50 "Mark O'Brien" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>FYI only: I recalled that Wallace had something to say on this
>particular issue, and checked his grammar for comment. You will find
>clear and extended discussion on p. 645, along with some helpful
>regarding regarding the "attendant circumstance" use of the participle
>in the preceding pages (640 ff.).
Yes, the attendant circumstantial participle makes good sense here.
Apparently the King James translators thought so too. I remember being
steeped strongly in the attendant circumstantial participle at Dallas
Seminary ('71-'75) and being impressed by how common it is. Now, I 'll
have to read Wallace's (another DTSer) discussion on it.
Speaking of the KJV, it seems the KJ usually translated the aorist
participle as action prior to the action of the main verb (but not in Mt
29:19), while modern translations seem to be rendering the aorist
participle more frequently as action simultaneous to the action of the
main verb. Acts 19:2 is a case in point (there are many others, as I
recall). It reads: PNEUMA hAGION ELABETE PISTEUSANTES;
KJ has it, "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?"
NASB has it, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:35 EDT