[B-Greek] 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Tue Aug 9 07:13:40 EDT 2005


First of all, welcome to the list! As a new list-members you should  
read carefully through the BG FAQ at  http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/ 
faq.txt
or at the mirror site: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/faq.txt You will  
note there (a) our standard transliteration scheme, (b) our rules  
governing appropriate topics for list-discussion and lines that  
should not be crossed. One of our regulations I trust that you will  
observe in posting hereafter: we require a full-name signature, EVEN  
if your first and last name are (as in your case) clearly indicated  
in the "From" header.

On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:03 AM, Mark Spitsbergen wrote:

> I am new to this forum and probably should spend more time  
> observing the way
> the dialogue works but if you will allow me I would like to jump in  
> with
> both feet and present an alternative translation to 2 Thessalonians  
> 2:3.
> Hopefully, I have used your nomenclature correctly.
>
> "Mh tis umas exapathsh kata mhdena tropon oti ean me elqh h  
> apostasia prwton
> kai apokalufqh ho anqropos ths anomias ho uios ths tou apwleias"

Reformulated in the standard BG Transliteration (for which see the FAQ):

MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON hOTI EAN MH ELQHi hH  
APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi hO ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS hO hUIOS THS  
TOU APWLEIAS.


> "Let no one deceive you in any manner for before the apostasy may  
> come,
> first even the man of lawlessness shall be revealed the son of  
> destruction"
> 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
>
> Please let me humbly present this translation of 2 Thessalonians  
> for review.
> I would like to argue for a significantly different view of this  
> verse based
> upon how one translates 'ean me'. The phrase 'ean me' occurs about  
> 60 times
> in the New Testament. It is usually translated 'except' but of  
> course it
> literally means 'if not'. However, there is precedence set for   
> translating
> the phrase 'ean me' as 'before' (AV-John 7:51). If this is a valid
> translation then we may derive a clearer picture of the sequence of  
> events
> that will occur. Additionally, I am arguing for the adverb 'prwton'  
> as the
> separator of the two events: the apostasy and the revealing of the  
> man of
> lawlessness.

One problem with this verse is that the syntactical construction is  
incomplete: EAN MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA and (EAN MH) APOKALUFQHi hO  
ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS ... provides only the protasis or "if" clause of  
a conditional construction. Either we must understand an ellipsis-- 
omission of an implicit item--to supply the apodosis of the condition  
-- something like OUK ESTAI TOUTO -- or else we must mark the  
sentence as an anacoluthon -- a syntactical non-sequitur. Most  
translations supply the implicit apodosis, something like "That  
cannot happen" or "that will not be" (NET has "That day will not  
arrive") to complete the sense of the construction.

EAN MH is simply the form of EI MH required by the presence of a  
subjunctive verb in the clause introduced by it: EI MH is "unless" or  
"if (X) does not ..." The sense "except" is somewhat archaic English  
when EI MH or EAN MH is used with a finite verb as here.

PRWTON must construe adverbially with those two subjunctive verbs  
ELQHi and APOKALUFQHi, so that the sense must be "Unless the  
rebellion and the Man of Lawlessness comes first (or better:  
"unless ... has/have come first") or "(That cannot take place IF the  
rebellion and the Man of Lawlessness have NOT come first").

I think you fail to note the function of KAI as linking two  
subjunctive clauses that are both dependent upon the EAN MH  
introductory item. You are reading the second subjunctive clause ...  
APOKALUQHi hO ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS as if it were the apodosis of the  
first. But if it were, it would have to be formuated as an indicative  
future APOKALUFQHSETAI hO ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS. Moreover the PRWTON,  
positioned as it is before the KAI, cannot really qualify ONLY the  
second subjunctive.

In sum, then, for properly understanding the text, I think it is  
important (a) to recognize the ellipsis of an apodosis to the  
conditional construction, and (b) to discern that EAN MH introduces  
both subjunctive clauses (AN MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA and APOKALUFQHi hO  
ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS ...). You really can't transform one of those  
clauses into an apodosis.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list