I think you got it backwards. My view (EIS TO clause depends upon the
immediately preceding OIDATE rather than the more distant TO KATECHON) is
the one where the purpose clause is the purpose of the subject of the
main verb. The subject of the main verb (OIDATE) is "you," not TO
KATECHON (what restrains) which is the object of the main verb. So, your
view "seems very strange from the viewpoint of Greek grammar."
Also, how does my linking TO MUSTERION (v. 7) back to TO KATECHON (v. 6)
border "on the fallacy of equating natural order with grammatical"? I
neve said TO MUSTERION is a person. The following genitive TNS ANOMIAS
is almost certainly appositional. Lawlessness is not a person. My point
is simply that the neuter TO KATECHON (v. 6) is apparently explained
(GAR, v. 7) by the neuter TO MUSTERION ... TNS ANOMIAS.
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 Wed, 4 Sep 1996 DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu wrote:
> Paul, what I meant by the comment about translation Greek was a very loose
> reference to the possibility that in narrative accounts some of the oddities
> we see in Greek can be attributed to the writer's translating into literal
> Greek a statement that was originally made in Aramaic or Hebrew, but in retro-
> spect that is probably out of place here (my original thought was that this
> tendency might occur even in non-narrative texts, but that is questionable at
> best). So I am left with the theory that the purpose may not be that of the
> subject of the main verb, as you argue, and that still seems very strange from
> the viewpoint of Greek grammar (but I won't rule it out for now).
> I do see v. 7 as explaining v. 6, the point being that Paul could be saying
> (in anticipation of a reader's response that in fact the the antichrist alread
> is here) that the lawless one is already at work (but not yet revealed), andthat the restrainer will continue his activity for some time. Thus this verse
> would explain to some why Paul's statement in v. 6 is true, when they might
> think otherwise. I gather from your reference to the neuter that you see it
> as an argument for linking TO MUSTERION to TO KATECWN, but this borders on the
> fallacy of equating natural gender with grammatical (i.e.MUSTERION is gram-
> matically neuter, but if it is a person we would expect masc. gender, unless
> unless the word MUSTERION is itself being modified; cf. Jesus' assertion to be
> hH hODOS, which obviously does not make him feminine). On the equation of hO
> KATECWON and hO ANOMOS, mea culpa. I did not say they were the same, but I
> thought you were saying that, and I obviously misread you. The problem that
> remains with KATECWN is that the masc. would seem more natural for Satan and
> I don't think you can account for that with MUSTERION.