Re: 2 Thess. 6-7
DWILKINS@ucrac1.ucr.edu
Sun, 1 Sep 1996 21:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
At least it's nice to agree to disagree, Paul, so I appreciate that. Your
point about the preface in the NASB is well taken. We probably should change
it to reflect such "exceptions" as the one seen here; it's just that it would
be difficult to clarify it without going into a lot of detail, but even so
a fuller explanation may be called for. As to the KAI, we're not looking for
any contrast. Even if you take the KAI as resumptive with v. 4 (I have no pro-
blem with that), there is no grammatical reason for the parallelism you ar-
gue; the only situation I can think of off-hand that is somewhat analogous to
your argument is the "Granville Sharp Rule", but of course that's not what we
have here. Finally, the idea that taking the EIS clause with OIDATE as the
nearest antecedent "certainly has good Greek support" is like saying that
it was a good idea to polish the brass on the Titanic. The word order just does
not make that much difference here because the two possible governing words
are too close together. You are left with the argument from sense, and I can't
see how "you know so that he will (may) be revealed in his own time" is better
(or even as good as) "you know the one who is restraining (him) so that he
will be...." But that's not to say you are necessarily wrong about the last
argument; maybe it does make better sense, and I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps
you can enlighten me further, but let's not retread any old ground.
Don Wilkins
UC Riverside