Aorist part. of subsequent action???

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at
Thu Oct 8 12:48:59 EDT 1998

At 4:02 AM -0500 10/8/98, Jon Robertson wrote:
>Dear list,
>Since I have been inundated with silence about my first inquiry along
>these lines I'll try one more time.  Since even Carlton Winbery cited
>Burton's Moods and Tenses, I will mention that he also sees a place
>for the aorist participle of subsequent action.  See pp.65-67
>(paragraphs 144 - 145), where he lists some possible classical
>occurrences as well. Besides the passages which I earlier  cited in
>Acts, he also lists Romans 4:19, 21; Heb. 9:12; Phil. 2:7; and 1
>Peter 3:18 as possible examples (which I, for one, find less
>convincing than the Acts passages). He states here that these aorists
>seem to be "equivalent to KAI with a coordinate verb." Although, as
>has been stated, citing Burton does not "prove anything", it does
>demonstrate that the aorist of subsequent action is not some "new
>fangled invention" made up to go along with someone's theory of
>verbal aspect.  Okay, guys and gals, who wants to take these on and
>demonstrate that subsequent action is not the best understanding of
>these passages??  Just to stir you to responding, I will take
>silence this time as acquiescence to the reality of the aorist of
>subsequent action. : )

I'm working on this; I've done a fair amount of reading on it and have been
composing a response to your second post with the list of citations from
Acts and Luke. What I have already written is lengthy; if I try to consider
these passages also, it'll be still longer. I might add that I sent you an
off-list message informing you that I've been researching this question and
just this morning I got the third note that my message was undeliverable to

I don't know whether anyone else will respond or not, but I warn you that
you should not take MY silence as "acquiescence to the reality of the
aorist of subsequent action." Cicero may say, CUM TACENT CLAMANT, but of
course one is never quite sure exactly what it is that those who are silent
are shouting. I will only say that I'm not satisfied that the aorist
participles in the passages from Luke and Acts that you listed earlier
require explanation as referring to subsequent action. Did you say that
this was something you'd written a dissertation on? Or is this thesis

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad at OR cconrad at

More information about the B-Greek mailing list