Re: 2 Thess. 6-7
Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:45:25 -0700 (PDT)

Paul Dixon is entitled to his interpretation of the passage, but he adds some
undeservedly harsh words for the translators of the NASB. Their policy is to
avoid italics as much as possible because italics are so easily misinterpreted
by readers as indicating emphasis. The policy has gradually been developed to
the point that we don't use italics if the word in question is necessary for
sensible English and there is little or no doubt as to the referent of the
word. In this passage we believe that the object of KATECWN is the antichrist
previously described in v. 4, and we also feel that an object is needed for
the participle and that "him" (small 'h' to refer to antichrist) is the obvi-
ous object. It is not in boldface, however (I assume Paul meant "roman"). More
importantly, it is stretching KAI far beyond the breaking point to argue that
it must mean TO KATECWN (who may be the Holy Spirit) refers to the man of law-
lessness. That argument can be made, but not from KAI. Paul also seems rather
dogmatic about tying the EIS clause to the verb, based on its proximity. Again,
this argument can be made, but the participle is too close to decide the is-
sue from word order.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside