[B-Greek] Solecisms in the book of Revelation

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Aug 19 00:58:49 EDT 2008


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr. Don Wilkins" <drdwilkins at verizon.net>
To: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>; "'Leonard Jayawardena'" <leonardj at live.com>
Sent: 18. august 2008 21:52
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Solecisms in the book of Revelation


...
>
> I would agree with Carl that Semitic idioms probably play a part
> here, though it does not seem necessary to explain the PANTOS
> construction. It is natural enough to assume that PANTOS is meant to
> cover everything; otherwise, you would need a string of PAS forms
> that would give the phrase a different nuance.  Carl's constructio ad
> sensum certainly explains the singular/plural mismatch. It also
> explains the AUTWN with FOINIKES. As for FOINIKES itself, unless I'm
> missing something, one needs only to add an understood HSAN to make
> FOINIKES the subject of its own clause.

Yes, these accusatives can be explained by supplying the implicit verb from context. No one has 
quoted Robertson yet, so let me do it:

"Rev 7:9 - ... Arrayed (peribeblêmenous). Perfect passive participle of periballô, but in the 
accusative plural (not nominative like hestôtes), a common variation in this book when preceded by 
eidon and idou as in 4:4 (thronoi, presbuterous). .... Palms (phoinikes). Nominative again, back to 
construction with idou, not eidon..."

The EIDON (I saw) introduction is common in this book since it describes visions. It is so common, 
that sometimes it seems to be left implicit.
I am moving the text up here:

Rev. 7:9 Μετὰ ταῦτα εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολύς, ὃν ἀριθμῆσαι αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο,
ἐκ παντὸς ἔθνους καὶ φυλῶν καὶ λαῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν ἑστῶτες ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ
ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου
περιβεβλημένους στολὰς λευκὰς καὶ φοίνικες ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν,

META TAUTA EIDON, KAI IDOU OCLOS POLUS, hON ARIQMHSAI AUTON OUDEIS
EDUNATO, EK PANTOS EQNOUS KAI FULWN KAI LAWN KAI GLWSSWN hESTWTES
ENWPION TOU QRONOU KAI ENWPION TOU ARNIOU,
PERIBEBLHMENOUS STOLAS LEUKAS
KAI FOINIKES EN TAIS CERSIN AUTWN.

What Robertson suggests is to carry forward and supply EIDON so that if had been explicit, it could 
have been
(KAI) *EIDON* (AUTOUS) PERIBEBLHMENOUS STOLAS LEUKAS
KAI *IDOU* FOINIKES EN TAIS CERSIN AUTWN (HSAN)

There is a somewhat similar case in Mark 6:9, where Robertson says:

Mar 6:9 - Shod with sandals (hupodedemenous sandalia). Perfect passive participle in the accusative 
case as if with the infinitive poreuesthai or poreuthênai, (to go)."

The accusative is again hanging without an explicit governing verb, so Robertson supplies a form of 
POREUOMAI. I expect one could unearth more hanging accusatives if one looked for them.

>
> If one really attributes all these constructions to the inexperience
> or ignorance of a non-native Greek speaker, then how does one explain
> John's overall fidelity to standard grammar and syntax? It seems to
> me that if these constructions are blunders, then we either have
> someone who is struggling with the basic demands of grammatical
> agreement etc.--in which case we should expect the book to be overrun
> with similar blunders--or we have the work of an old man who is just
> getting careless. The latter may seem reasonable, but in that case I
> would still expect to see a lot more of the same.

As a non-native speaker/writer of English who is beginning to get old, I don't feel I am struggling 
with the basic demands of English grammatical agreement, but I do make mistakes once in a while. 
There is no logical reason to suspect that an occasional mistake should result in many mistakes. 
Most of the time I can handle a particular grammatical agreement in English (like adding -s to a 
verb in third person singular, but not in plural), but sometimes I forget this fact of English 
grammar, because such a rule that does not apply to my own language.

There is no doubt that John was a non-native speaker of Greek, who was primarily thinking in Hebrew 
and probably received the visions in Hebrew, but he does very well in Greek, and I think the 
suggestion of implied verbs is more likely to be correct than simply calling it a mistake or 
"solecism".

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list