Acts 19:2 aorist participle
dixonps at juno.com
dixonps at juno.com
Mon Mar 12 10:27:06 EST 2001
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:09:41 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
> At 9:05 PM -0800 3/11/01, dixonps at juno.com wrote:
> >On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 05:51:28 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
> ><cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
> >> At 4:49 PM -0800 3/9/01, dixonps at juno.com wrote:
> >> Paul, I may be wrong, but I frankly believe that KJV's
> >> "since" here has the sense of "because" rather than
> >> "more recently than."
> >If PISTEUSANTES is causal, then Paul is assuming
> >they had received the Holy Spirit and is merely asking
>> how that happened. Their response seems to militate
>> against that interpretation, "No, we have not even heard
> >whether there is a Holy Spirit."
> >Doesn't this suggest they understood Paul to be asking
> >if they had received the Holy Spirit either when they believed,
>> or since they believed?
> Okay, upon further reflection, I think the intent of the participle
> is to indicate simultaneous occurrence, but with a causal
> implication: EI PNEUMA hAGION ELABETE PISTEUSANTES?
> "You did (of course) receive Holy Spirit when you came to believe,
> didn't you (because these two matters--belief and the coming of
> the Spirit) are interrelated)? I think this is still quite different
> the antecedent aorist participle indicating action prior to the action
> of the main verb. It seems to me that PISTEUSANTES here
> functions as would an adverbial clause phrased something like
> EPEI (or better EPEIDH or still better EPEIDHPER) EPISTEUSATE,
> which conjunctions could be translated either "when" or "since."
> No, I don't think Paul's asking HOW it happened but rather inquiring
> whether their coming to faith happened, as we Presbyterians are
> wont to say, "decently and in order."
Yes, I like this. But, let's come back to the KJ translation and the
aorist participle following the main verb. Did you find in the archives
discussion regarding the placement of the participle? Were you
suggesting the aorist participle normally denotes antecedent action when
it precedes the main verb, but explanatory or simultaneous action when it
Are we still trying to affirm or disavow this?
More information about the B-Greek