From: Carlton L. Winbery (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 17 1996 - 05:20:42 EDT
Michael Zarb wrote;
>I am new to this list. Have the tenses in Mt 16:19 and 18:18 been discussed
>on this forum?
>Are the periphrastic future perfects to be taken seriously?
>What are the grammatical arguments supporting the usual translation, "will
>be bound" and "will be loosed", instead of the more natural, i.e.equivalent
>to classical rendering, "will have been bound" and "will have been loosed"?
>I wonder whether the grammarians revising Blass-Debrunner-Funk are going to
>include this matter.
>Any help will be appreciated.
I assume that you have read the basic commentaries all of which call
attention to the meaning of binding and loosing among the Rabbis in late
The future perfect periphrastic can be translated "will have been loosed"
(as in ASV margin). It may also be translated "will be loosed" as in a
situation of having been loosed. Perfective action has to be translated in
context and can emphasize either the completed action (close to the aorist,
x happened) or the existing result. GEGRAPTAI = it is written or it has
been written. The big question that bugs those of us who are protestant is
what does this say about Peter? That one could take us far afield.
Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:43 EDT