(i.) 1⁴ avpo. o` w;n. Our author knows perfectly the case that should follow avpo,, but he refuses to inflect the divine name. See vol. i. 10.

(ii.) 1⁴ o` w'n kai. o` h=n kai. o` evrco,menoj: cf. 11¹⁷ 16⁵; see vol. i. 10.

(iii.) 1¹³ 14¹⁴ o[moion ui`o.n avnqrw,pou: see vol. i. 27.
 

We have now dealt with our author's grammar, first in so far as it is normal or abnormal from the standpoint of the Greek of his own age, and next in so far as its abnormalities are due to Hebraisms.

We have found that these abnormalities are not instances of mere license nor yet mere blunders, as they have been most wrongly described, but are constructions deliberately chosen by our author. Some of these belong to the vernacular of his own time, some of them do not. Many are obviously to be explained as literal reproductions in Greek of Hebrew idioms, and some as misrenderings of Hebrew words or phrases in the mind of the author or in his Hebrew source, and some half dozen as due to corruptions in the Hebrew documents laid under construction by our author either directly or through the medium of Greek translation.s

Thus from a minute study of the text from this standpoint of grammar I have found it possile to explain -- that is, to bring within the province of the normal and intelligible -- all but about a score of passages. By our comprehensive study of our author's grammar we are the better equipped for recognizing the character of the remaining solecisms that cannot be explained from his own usages or vernacular Greek or the influences of a Semitic background. {cliii} The bulk of these solecisms, though not at all, are simply slips of our author which a subsequent revision would have removed, if the opportunity for such a revision had offered itself. These are:

(i.) 1¹⁰ h;kousa fwnh.n ) ) ) w`j sa,lpiggoj // legou,shj // (for le,gousan): cf. 6⁶ 14³ 16¹ where the construction is normal.

(ii.) 1¹⁵ oi` po,dej auvtou/ o[moioi calkoliba,nw| w`j evn kami,nw| // pepurwme,nj // (for pepurwme,nw|, a correction rightly introduced in a, some cursives, s^1.2 etc.).

(iii.) 1²⁰ to. musth,rion tw/n e`pta. avste,rwn ) ) ) kai. // ta.j e`pta. lucni,aj // (for tw/n e`) lucniw/n).

(iv.) 2²⁷ suntri,betai for suntribh,sontai or suntri,yei (?).

(v.) 4⁴ kai. kuklo,qen tou/ qro,nou // qro,nouj ) ) ) te,ssaraj ) ) ) presbute,rouj kaqhme,nouj peribeblhme,nouj ) ) ) stefa,nouj crusou/j //. In place of the accusatives, nominatives should be read. I have shown (vol. i. 115) that 4⁴ was introduced subsequently by our author to prepare the way for 4^9-11. He seemingly inserted it as the object of ei=don. It is obviously a slip.

(vi.) 6¹ le,gontoj w`j // fwnh, //, where we should have qwnh/|: see § 10. i. (h). (e) above, and vol. i. 161.

(vii.) 6¹⁴ w`j bibli,on // e`lisso,menon //. This is rightly corrected in a and some cursives into e`lisso,menoj.

(viii.) 7⁹ // peribeblhme,nouj // stola.j leuka,j) This is obviously a slip for the nom. In this sentence A Pr vg omitted kai. ivdou, and changed, with the exception of e`stw/tej, the following nominatives into accusatives.

(ix.) 10⁸ h` fwnh. h]n h;kousa ) ) ) // lalou/san ) ) ) kai. le,gousan // (for lalou/sa ) ) ) kai. le,gousa: see vol. i. 267).

(x.) 11¹ evdo,qh moi ka,lamoj ) ) ) le,gwn (source). This may be only an abnormal construction to which partial parallels are found in the LXX: see vol. i. 274.

(xi.) 11³ profhteu,sousin ) ) ) // peribeblhme,nouj //.

(xii.) 11⁴  ai` evnw,pion tou/ kuri,ou ) ) ) // e`stw/tej //. Since our author's sense and usage here require the ai` e`stw/sai, the participle in the masc. and without the art. is a slip, exactly like that in 4⁴ above. It is an addition of our author, and was added seemingly as the object of ei=don in 13¹.

(xiv.) 14^6.7 ei=don a;llon a;ggelon peto,menon ) ) ) e;conta ) ) ) // le,gwn //. But it is perhaps best to take le,gwn as a Hebraism = rmoale: cf. 4¹. For analogous cases see p. cl ad med.

(xv.) 14¹⁴ ei=don kai. ivdou. nefe,lh leukh,( kai. evpi. th.n nefe,lhn // kaqh,menon o[moion // ui`o.n avnqrw,pou( e;cwn) Cf. 4<sup>2</sup> ei=don kai. ivdou. qro,noj ) ) ) kai. evpi. t) qro,non kaqh,menoj( 19<sup>11</sup> ei=don ) ) ) kai. ivdou. i[ppoj leuko,j( kai. o` kaqh,menoj evpV auvtou,( where we have the normal construction.

{cliv} (xvi.) 14¹⁹ th.n lhno.n ) ) ) // to.n me,gan //.

(xvii.) 19²⁰ th.n li,mnhn tou/ puro.j // th/j kaiome,nhj //. The fact that the Hebrew and Aramaic words for "fire" (i.e. vae and aV'a,) are feminine, may have led to our author's forgetting himself for the moment and writing th/j kaiome,nhj. In Rom 11⁴ we have th/ ba,al instead of tw|/ ba,al) This is frequently found in the LXX of the prophetical books and occasionally of the historical, because it goes back in the mind of the translator to tv,B, which mentally he substituted for l[b. The influence of the Hebrew is to be traced in Mark 12¹¹ (= Matt 21⁴²), where in the quotation from the LXX (Ps 118²³) the au[th = taOz, though we should expect tou/to) Cf. Gen 35^19.27 36¹, Ps 102¹⁹ 119^50.56 etc. Possibly in 13¹⁵ of our text the fem. auvth/| in evdo,qh auvth/| may be due to hy"x;; and the fem. art. in h` ouvai, (19¹² 11¹⁴) may be explained by the gender of hwO"h.

(xviii.) 21⁹ tw/n evco,ntwn ta.j e`pta. fia,laj // tw/n gemo,ntwn // tw/n e`pta. plhgw/n) It is hard to explain how such a slip as tw/n gemo,ntwn (Aa 025) could have arisen, but if one investigates one's own slips, it is often impossible to account for them. Our author would no doubt have corrected this phrase into ta.j gemou,saj as certain cursives have done, rather than into gemou,saj as 046 and many cursives. For the participle is used attributively, following ta.j ) ) ) fia,laj) Contrast 15⁷.

(xix.) 21¹⁴ to. tei/coj th/j po,lewj // e;cwn //.

(xx.) 22² xu,lon zwh/j // poiw/n // ) ) ) avpodidou/n) Here our author would no doubt have corrected poiw/n into poiou/n, as is done in a 046 and most cursives; for he knows the gender of xu,lon: cf. 22¹⁴ 18^{12 (bis)}. If the gender of #[e led to his writing poiw/n( he would on revision either have corrected or written avpodidou,j so as to bring it into line with the former participle.
 
 

These are due to an early scribe, or in some cases (7¹⁵ 20^4.11.13 21²⁵ 22¹²) to the editor.

(i.) (a) 1²⁰ ai` lucni,ai ai` e`pta. [e`pta.] evkklhsi,ai eivsi,n) This order of the numerals (see below, § 15, iv., and vol. i. 224, footnote, vol. ii. 389, footnote) is in some respects normal in our author; but as WH observe, "it is morally impossible that tw/n e`pta. evkklhsiw/n should be followed by e`pta. evkklhsi,ai without the article" . . .  "the second e`pta, . . . must be an erroneous repetition of the first, due to the feeling that the number of the lamps was likely to be specified as well as of the stars." Besides, we should expect {clx} the art. before the second e`pta, since the predicate is coextensive with the subject. (See chap. xiii. § 2. iv.)

(ii.) (a) 6⁴ tw/| kaqhme,nw evpV // auvto,n //.

(iii.) (b) 7¹⁵ o` kaqh,menoj evpi. // tou/ qro,nou //.

(iv.) (a) 8¹² // h` h`me,ra kai. h` nu.x o`moi,wj // for h`me,raj kai. o`moi,wj nukto,j (as in Bohairic).

(v.) (b) 9¹⁷ tou.j kaqhme,nouj evpV // auvtw/n //. Contrast 19^19.21.

(vi.) (a) 14⁹ evpi. // tou/ metw,pou //.

(vii.) (a) 19¹⁸ tw/n kaqhme,nwn evpV // auvtou,j // (A).

(viii.) (b) 20⁴ tw/n pepelekisme,nwn ) ) ) kai.[oi[tinej] ouv proseku,nhsan A correction by the editor of John's Greek.

(ix.) (b) b) 20¹¹ to.n kaqh,menon evpV // auvtou/ //. Editor's correction of John's Greek as in 7¹⁵ 9¹⁷.

(x.) (b) 20¹³ e;dwken // h` qa,lassa // t) nekrou.j tou.j evn // auvth/| //. This was a deliberate change on dogmatic grounds. See note in loc.

(xi.) (a) 21⁵ o` kaqh,menoj evpi. // tw/| qro,nw| //.

(xii.) (a) 21⁹ // tw/n gemo,ntwn // Aa 025 for ta.j gemou,saj.

(xiii.) (b) 21²⁵ oi` pulw/nej auvth/j ouv mh. kleisqw/sin h`me,raj // nu.x ga.r ouvk e;stai evkei/ //. This change was probably due to the editor. It originated in a misunderstanding of the text. In place of the last five words we should restore kai. nukto,j. See note in loc.

(xiv.) 21²⁷ // pa/n koino,n //. Read pa/j koino,j.

(xv.) (b) 22¹² w`j to. e;rgon evsti.n auvtou/) This order, which is contrary to our author's own usage, is, like other departures from our author's usage in 20⁴-22, to be traced to the editor. See below, § 15, ii. (b).
 

1⁸ o` qeo,j( o` w'n ) ) ) o` pantokra,twr) See above, § 10. i. (f). 

2²² eva.n mh. metanoh,sousin) Our author does not use the indicative after eva.n mh,) 

8¹¹ kai. t) o;noma t) avste,roj le,getai ~O VAyinqoj) Our author does not use le,gein but kalei/n in this sense: cf. 1⁹ 11⁸ 12⁹ 16¹⁶. This addition is made in an interpolated section; whether before or after it was interpolated cannot be determined.

9¹⁷ t) kaqhme,nouj evpV auvtw/n (-- the construction John's editor prefers, being better Greek: cf. 7¹⁵ 9¹⁷ 20¹¹ in § 13 above, and 14^15.16 in this section).

14¹⁵ tw/| kaqhme,nw| evpi. th/j nefe,lhj.

14¹⁶ o` kaqh,menoj evpi. th/j nefe,lhj.

15¹ is an interpolation, since independently of other grounds it misuses kai. ei=don to introduce the Seven Bowls, where we {clvi} should expect meta. tau/ta ei=don) Since the latter phrase, which is used to introduce new paragraphs or sections, is found in 15⁵, we see that the subject of the Bowls is there mentioned for the first time.

16^2c tou.j proskunou/ntaj th/| eivko,ni auvtou/) Our author would use the acc. here: only the dat. in reference to God.

16¹³ ei=don ) ) ) pneu,mata tri,a ) ) ) w`j ba,tracoi) (Aa<sup>c</sup> 046 min<sup>p</sup>) Here our author would have written batra,couj (so corrected text in a* min<sup>p</sup>). See on w`j, p. cxxxviii.

16¹⁹ eivj tri,a me,rh) Wrong order. Our author would say me,rh tri,a.

17⁹ o[pou h` gunh. ka,qhtai evpV auvtw/n) Our author does not use this construction, but o[pou alone: cf. 2^{13 (bis)} 11⁸ 20¹⁰.

17¹⁵ ou- h` po,rnh ka,qhtai) Our author uses o[pou, not ou-.

18¹³ kai. i[ppwn ) ) ) kai. swma,twn) An addition conflicting alike with the syntax and the sense of the context.

19¹⁰ proskunh/sai  auvtw/|. (i.e. an angel). See note on 16^2c above.
 
 
 

Scanned and edited by Brad Johnson