From: Paul F. Evans (evans@esn.net)
Date: Sat Apr 11 1998 - 21:37:12 EDT
<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><html><head></head><BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p><font size=2 color="#000000" face="Arial">John,<br><br>Saturday, April 11, 1998 7:48 PM John M. Moe Wrote:<br><br>> If I understand correctly, TDNT seems to be considered, (at least to<br>> some extent) "unworthy of one's interest or concern," because of what is<br>> perceived to be too great a reliance on etymology an not enough regard<br>> for context. I may be way off base here, but I have noticed that it is<br>> not regarded highly by scholars and if it's not too far off topic for<br>> B-Greek I, for one, would appreciate some discussion of its weaknesses<br>> and strengths.<br><br>Surely the whole point of the TDNT is the etymological rather than contextual approach? It is about understanding a specific word in its raw form and its "history" and not its use in a particular context, that is the task of the interpreter. However, the interpreter's w
ork cannot be done in a vacuum, just as word meanings, even when contextually shaped, don't exist in a vacuum.<br><br>Rev. Paul F. Evans<br>Pastor<br>Wilmington First Pentecostal Holiness Church<br>MT. Olive, NC<br><br>E-mail: evans@esn.net<br><br><br></p>
</font></body></html>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:23 EDT