From: Cal Redmond (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 20 1996 - 16:15:43 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.
> Michael Zarb
> Cobble Hill, BC, Canada
> e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
I have found my missing bibliographical references:
The original article I mentioned is Julius R. Mantey, "The
Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt. 16:19, and Mt.
18:18," Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939), 243-249. Mantey takes
the future perfect seriously and insists on the translation "shall have
been bound," which fits more neatly into my Protestant mindset.
In the same issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature is an opposing
perspective written by Henry Cadbury, "The Meaning of John 20:23, Mt.
16:19, and Mt. 18:18," 251-254.
One might also refers to Mantey's much more recent article, "Evidence
that the Perfect Tense in John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 is
Mistranslated," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 16
(1973), 129-138. This article contains additional bibliographic
ABD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Missionary appointee to Cameroon with World Team
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:43 EDT