Question: Rev. 14:19; 17:4; 19:1; 21:12. Is not the grammar set aside in following the ancient copies? How are these anomalous constructions to be explained? W. L.
Answer: The anacolutha I cannot but accept on the authority of the best MSS. as the genuine phrases of the writer, which are no doubt in every instance intentional, though we may not in every instance see why. Later scribes changed these and many other such irregularities of form into expressions conformed to common syntax. Nobody would have introduced them unless they had been the readings of the text originally. The tendency of corrections is to smooth down what seems harsh. It is clear, that even apart from inspiration, John did not so write for want of knowing the more usual rules; for he employs them himself regularly, unless where he introduces these singular phrases for special reasons. The same principle is true of Luke 2:13; 19:37; Acts 5:16; 21:36; Phil. 2:1 (in critical texts, ἔιτις σπλάχνα). But it is far more frequently applied and carried out more boldly in the Revelation than in any other part of the New Testament. Hebrew forms predominate.
As to the change from τὴν λ. to τὸν μ. which I accept as the true reading, it must be borne in mind that in the LXX. the substantive occurs sometimes in the masculine. Here the use of the two genders together is no doubt peculiar, and seems owing to the intervening phrases, τοῦ θομοῦ, τοῦ Θεοῦ, after which the Spirit gives more energy by availing Himself of the masculine form.
Again γέμον βδελυγμάτων καὶ τά is a mixture of the ordinary genitival construction with the accusative, as the corresponding Hebrew word does. Emphasis is secured thereby.
Rev. 19:1 ὄχλου......λεγόντων is the construction ad sensum, common enough even in classic Greek and Latin, a singular collective with a plural following. See chapter vii. 9; John 12:12. In Rev. 21:12 ἔχουσα for ἔχουσαν is not the only instance of variatio structurae in verses 10-12. See Rev. 3:12; 4:1; 6:9; 8:9; 9:14; 11:1, 4, 15; 14:7, 12; 16:3; 17:14; 18:12; 19:12. In many of these cases various readings appear from the effort to remove the strange shape of the phrase to common concords. In such cases the well-known canon applies.