EDOTHE and aorists

I do appreciate the responses to my query re. EDOTHE in Mt 28.19.  I am also
thankful for any and all literature references for keeping me up-to-date.  One
can never know, when responding to a note, whether a person has or has not
read a particular article, so supplying biblio. references is prob. a good idea

That having been said, I would like to ask how Rodney or Maurice, or David
Moore (who responded to me personally),might translate Mt 28.19?  The reason I
still ask this, even after Rodney has suggested that we can only give this an-
swer in light of the "larger context, not from the verb form used here", is
because it is entirely possible that Mt 28.16-20 is not dependent on the rest
of Matthew, and therefore cannot -- without slanting the evidence -- nece-
ssarily be translated in the light of the rest of the Gospel.

If this is the case -- or even, for the sake of argument, if it were --,
then, Rodney, how would we know how to translate EDOTHE, or would we, as
I would suggest, have two possibilities -- a past completed form ("was given")
or a present completed form ("has been given")?  It would seem to me that your
note would lead to this very series of options.  If this is the case, though,
must we simply conclude that these two are the options, or can we go further
to note which of the two is more likely without referring to the rest of the
text?  That was more the point of my original question.

L. Gregory Bloomquist

Faculty of Theology   | Faculte de theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 1C4  CANADA

Fax: (613) 236-4108    Voice: (613) 782-3027 / (613) 236-1393