Re: EDOTHE and aorists
On Mon, 17 Oct 1994, Gregory Bloomquist wrote:
> 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.
I'm not sure what dependence has to do with it. If you want to read
Matthew as we now have it, you have to pay attention to context. Whoever
put it in its current form probably paid attention to context.
> 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")?
Keeping in mind (as I keep reminding my students) that "what it means"
and "how to translate it" are two different issues, it seems that the
question is more of English style than Greek meaning. The rough and ready
way to translate EDOTHE is obviously "was given." But in English, "All
authority was given to me, therefore do _____..." is a bit odd
stylistically (I think--apparently other translators have agreed). The
English imperative following "therefore" wants a current state of affairs
as its basis: authority was given to me (and I still have it); since I
have authority, I can tell to to do _____. Thus the translation "has
been given" which bridges a gap in a more literal translation that at
least some speakers of English do not tolerate so well.