[B-Greek] Is ECWN a solecism in Revelation 21:14?

Leonard Jayawardena leonardj at live.com
Fri Aug 22 02:29:40 EDT 2008


In chapter X, under "The Sentence," page 412, Robertson discusses several examples of construction KATA SUNESIN involving participles and remarks, "But in Rev. 21:14 [TO TEICOS ECWN] seems a mere slip." Apparently, he would have considered ECON to be the correct participle here to agree with the neuter noun TEICOS. 
 
TO TEICOS forms part of the holy city, new Jerusalem, in which, it is said, God will tabernacle with his people (21:2ff).  The city is said to be the lamb's wife (v. 9) with the twelve apostles being the twelve foundation stones of the wall (TEICOS) of the city (v. 14). From this and other details in the book and comparing with the rest of the NT, we can conclude that the city represents the (NT) church. Like the church the city is built by and made up of the believers, with various parts of it representing the believers (cf. Rev. 3:12, where Christ promises the church of Philadelphia that those who overcome will be made a "pillar" in the temple of God).  If you accept this much, then cannot ECWN, too, be explained in terms of construction KATA SUNESIN (or constructio ad sensum)? 
 
Compare 21:14 with the following:
 
1. Rev. 4:7--TO TRITON ZWON ECWN.... Rev. 4:8--TO TESSARA ZWA, hEN KAQ hEN AUTWN ECWN ... KAI ANAPAUSIN OUK ECOUSIN ... LEGONTES.... Rev. 6--LEGONTOS occurs in relation to the four living creatures in vv. 1, 3, 5 and 7.  In all these cases masculine participles follow neuter nouns. Here the four beasts represent the new creation (cf. Galatians 6:15: KAINH KTISIS), which again is composed of the believers.  
 
2. Rev. 5:6--ARNION ... ECWN. ARNION represents Christ.
 
3. The first QHRION of Rev. 13 represents a man (cf. v. 18). AUTON is used in v. 8 in reference to the beast. ECWN is used in relation to the second beast in v. 14, which also represents a man.  
 
I am aware that some may have different interpretations for at least some of the passages cited above but what I wish to know is that, granting that the above interpretations are correct, would that not provide a sufficient basis to clear up the alleged solecism in Rev. 21:14? 
  
I'd like to know others' thoughts on this.
 
Leonard Jayawardena
Sri Lanka 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Discover the new Windows Vista
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE


More information about the B-Greek mailing list