Re: Porter on the present

From: David Moore (
Date: Sun Oct 22 1995 - 22:36:25 EDT (Rod Decker) wrote:

> Is it not the "new paradigm" that requires objective evidence from
>the context (in the form of deictic indicators, etc.) to justify the
>proposed temporal implicature of any given instance?

        That depends on how wide a meaning you ascribe to "deictic
indicators, etc."

>This system does _not_
>result in a subjective, "make-any-verb-any-time-you-like" exegesis. It does
>suggest that past assumptions have resulted in too hasty conclusions based
>only on form with too little attention to the context. Either system can,
>of course, be abused, but that does not invalidate either one.

>A tense-less approach to Hebrew has not seemed to be an exegetical concern
>(and it was once taught in temporal terms: preterites as past, waw
>conversives, etc.--but I'm out of my territory there!), why is there more
>concern for Greek?

        It is my impression that Hebrew is a great deal freer than Greek
in terms of temporal considerations. I wouldn't question that Hebrew
calls for the kind of approach being put forth in the new paradigm. I do
question whether it is completely appropriate for Greek.

David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God Department of Education

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT