From: David Moore (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Oct 22 1995 - 22:36:25 EDT
firstname.lastname@example.org (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
>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
email@example.com Department of Education
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT