Re: Grammatical errors in Revelation?

From: Jim West (
Date: Mon May 17 1999 - 21:31:03 EDT

At 05:49 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 04:52 PM 5/16/99 -0400, Jim West wrote:
>>On the "errors" of Rev - yes, it is terrible greek.
>I am uncomfortable with the assumption that we can make this kind of
>judgement. Revelation is certainly effective and breathtaking language
>which has captured the imagination of many people.

Perhaps so. But facts are facts and the fact is, Rev. is the worst greek
grammatically speaking, in the NT.

>It is also unusual Greek, different in style from the rest of the New
>Testament. But most of it is understandable, and gripping, if breathless
>and idiosyncratic. It reminds me of a Van Gogh who piles on paint instead
>of brushing it on.

well and good- but still- it is awful grammar. you would never consider
using rev. as an example of how to write greek sentences.

>Remember when people used to say that Hemingway was badly written? Many
>English writers are idiosyncratic - E.E. Cummings, Faulkner, Langston
>Hughes...I suppose we could say each of these wrote 'terrible English', but
>that would be missing the point.

but the point here is not the aesthetic beauty of the symbols of rev. the
original question had to do with the acuracy of the grammar of rev. it is



Jim West, ThD
web page-

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:27 EDT