The basis for my statement was the statement in the preface of the NASB
where they state, "ITALICS are used in the text to indicate words which
are not found in the original Hebrew or Greek but implied by it."
Certainly, this implies that their translation of "him" in 2 Thess 2:6a
should be in italics, not in Roman or regular type. I stand by my words
that they violated their own principle for interpretation.
Second, my point about the KAI connective in v. 6 was to argue that by it
we should expect a continued perspective begun in v. 4. The translation
"and" (NASB) is fine, of course, but how does "and" suggest a contrasting
perspective? That is, in v. 4 it is the man of lawlessness who opposes
... all that is called God. This must parallel v. 6, "and now what
restrains ..." Thus, we should expect the subject in v. 6 to parallel
the subject in v. 4, unless a contrasting connective (like DE, or ALLA)
were present, which seems required if we are to suddenly change and make
the subject of v. 4 now the object in v. 6.
Third, taking the EIS TO clause in v. 6b as being dependent upon the
nearest antecedent (here OIDATE) certainly has good Greek support and if
it makes good sense, as I have shown, then why not? The other view,
perhaps the more normal (but that says nothing) has many difficulties.
Such as making sense out of the following verse and the TO KATECHON ...
TO MUSTERION relationship.
Thanks, Don, for the feedback. It was good, though I don't agree.
Paul S. Dixon, Pastor Check out my doctoral product:
Ladd Hill Bible Church "The Evangelism of Christ: a Model for
Wilsonville, OR 97070 Evangelism Today"
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996 DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu wrote:
> 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