Revelation 4:1

Grammatical Peculiarities in Revelation: An Exegetical Examination of Perceived Solecisms

This exegetical study of ‘Grammatical errors in Revelation?’ is based on a b-greek discussion from May 16, 1999. The initial inquiry posed the question of whether alleged grammatical errors in the Greek of the Book of Revelation served to distinguish its authorship from other Johannine literature, specifically the Gospel and Epistles attributed to John the Apostle. Participants in the discussion were invited to provide insights into these “errors” or offer input on the broader question of Revelation’s authorship.

The central exegetical issue explored in this study is the presence and interpretation of perceived grammatical anomalies, often termed “solecisms,” within the Greek text of the Book of Revelation. Scholars have long noted a distinctive, often unidiomatic, Greek style in Revelation, which stands in contrast to the more polished Greek of other New Testament books. The debate centers on whether these deviations from classical Koine Greek norms represent actual grammatical errors by an author with limited linguistic proficiency, intentional stylistic choices (such as Hebraisms or “anti-language”), or subconscious intrusions of demotic (colloquial) Greek into written discourse. This issue carries significant implications for understanding the author’s background, the literary nature of the text, and even theological considerations of divine inspiration.

ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• SBLGNT capitalizes the definite article and nominal forms when referring to the divine titles: τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ and ὁ Παντοκράτωρ. Nestle 1904 uses lowercase for these (τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, ὁ παντοκράτωρ). This is a stylistic difference in presentation, not a textual variant affecting the Greek words themselves.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The passage under primary examination is Revelation 1:8, specifically the phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. Textual criticism, as reflected in NA28, confirms this reading without significant variants concerning the grammatical structure in question. The presence of the article ὁ before the finite past tense verb ἦν is the primary source of perceived grammatical incongruity, as Greek typically employs the article with participles (like ὁ ὢν and ὁ ἐρχόμενος) but not finite verbs in this construction.

Lexical and grammatical notes from BDAG are particularly pertinent. For ὢν (present participle of εἰμί, “to be”), BDAG notes its substantive use as “the one who is,” often as a divine epithet, reflecting the Septuagintal rendering of the divine name (Exod 3:14). The phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is recognized as a profound theological statement on God’s timelessness, drawing on Jewish traditions. The challenge lies in the article ὁ preceding ἦν. While BDAG does not specifically list ὁ ἦν as an independent entry, the wider discussion in grammatical works (like BDF, which is referenced in the original discussion) suggests it as a noteworthy solecism or anacoluthon, or perhaps an instance where the entire phrase functions as an indeclinable divine name, akin to a Hebrew proper noun.

Another instance frequently cited is the adjective πλήρης (“full”) in John 1:14 (πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας) and Acts 6:5 (ἄνδρα πλήρης πίστεως καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου). In John 1:14, πλήρης appears in the nominative case despite seemingly modifying δόξαν (accusative) or referring to ὁ λόγος (nominative subject earlier in the sentence, but distant from πλήρης). In Acts 6:5, it modifies ἄνδρα (accusative), yet remains in the nominative. BDAG §2 for πλήρης explicitly addresses this, stating that in some passages, πλήρης is used as an indeclinable adjective, particularly when accompanied by a genitive. This observation aligns with the “demotic intrusion” theory, suggesting a shift in Koine usage where certain adjectives began to lose their declension, especially in colloquial speech, eventually influencing written forms.

While KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) would likely explore the theological depth of ὁ ὢν as a divine descriptor and its connection to YHWH, it would probably treat the grammatical anomaly of ὁ ἦν more as a syntactical issue than a lexical one, deferring to grammars for detailed analysis. The discussions in the source material lean heavily on grammatical observations rather than profound lexical nuance, beyond the basic meaning of the terms.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical peculiarity of ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Revelation 1:8 is multi-faceted. Standard Koine Greek grammar would typically require the finite verb ἦν (“was”) to be embedded in a relative clause (e.g., ὃς ἦν, “who was”) or, if used with an article, to be a participle (e.g., ὁ γενόμενος, “the one who was”). The direct coupling of the article ὁ with the finite verb ἦν is an anacoluthon, a break in syntactical consistency. Similarly, the use of nominative πλήρης with an accusative antecedent in John 1:14 and Acts 6:5 highlights a grammatical deviation.

Scholarly interpretations for these phenomena, as debated in the b-greek discussion, include:

• Hebraism/Septuagintal Influence: Many scholars suggest that the author of Revelation, likely a native Aramaic/Hebrew speaker, was deeply influenced by Semitic linguistic patterns. In Hebrew, divine names or epithets often remain indeclinable, regardless of their syntactic role. The phrase ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος may function as a fixed, indeclinable divine epithet, reflecting the Hebrew tendency to view God’s name as immutable, thereby transcending Greek grammatical rules. This also connects to the Septuagint’s rendering of God’s self-identification in Exodus 3:14.
• Demotic Intrusion: Carl Conrad’s argument posits that these “solecisms” are not intentional violations of grammatical rules by a knowledgeable writer, but rather unconscious “slip-ups” where colloquial, “demotic” Greek usage intrudes into formal written composition. This perspective suggests that certain grammatical developments, like the indeclinable use of πλήρης or the article with finite verbs, were already present in common spoken Koine and gradually made their way into written texts. This views the Greek of Revelation as a reflection of the “language in flux” during the first century.
• Intentional Solecism for Rhetorical Effect: Some scholars, like Don Wilkins in the discussion, propose that the “solecisms” are deliberate, serving a specific rhetorical or theological purpose. The jarring grammar could be intended to convey the awe, mystery, and transcendent nature of the apocalyptic vision, creating a sense of urgency, otherworldliness, or even an “anti-language” to defy conventional human expression. This view implies the author was aware of the rules but chose to break them for impact.
• Unskilled Writer: Jim West, a prominent voice in the discussion, strongly advocates that the Greek of Revelation is simply “terrible” or “awful” grammar, suggesting the author possessed limited formal Greek education. While acknowledging the profound message, this perspective separates the content’s spiritual value from its linguistic quality.
• Context of Composition: Randy Leedy suggests that the visionary context and perceived haste of composition for Revelation might have led to less polished Greek. The author, overwhelmed by divine revelation, might have recorded it in the “best Greek he was capable of writing under those circumstances,” without opportunity or inclination to polish it, especially given the stern warning against altering the book’s words (Rev 22:18-19).

Rhetorically, regardless of the underlying cause, the unique grammar of Revelation creates a distinctive tone. It often feels abrupt, direct, and powerful, contributing to the book’s authoritative and visionary atmosphere. The repetition of the articular phrases for God’s timelessness (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος) emphasizes His eternal, unchangeable nature, even if the grammatical construction is irregular. The lack of standard declension for πλήρης might serve to fix the attribute of “fullness” as an intrinsic, unalterable characteristic.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The grammatical peculiarities in Revelation, exemplified by phrases like ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Rev 1:8) and the indeclinable πλήρης (John 1:14; Acts 6:5), present a complex challenge for translation and interpretation. Rather than being simple “errors,” these features likely reflect a confluence of linguistic influences, including Semitic background, evolving Koine Greek usage (demotic intrusions), and potentially deliberate stylistic choices for rhetorical impact. While some scholars assert an author with “bad Greek,” others see evidence of profound literary and theological intentionality. The most balanced approach acknowledges the non-standard grammar while seeking to understand its possible origins and intended effects within the specific context of apocalyptic literature.

Here are three translation suggestions for Revelation 1:8, reflecting different interpretive nuances:

1. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the One who is, and the One who was, and the One who is coming, the Almighty.”
   This translation maintains a literal rendering of the Greek structure, preserving the directness of the articular phrases, even with the grammatical anomaly of “the One who was,” to reflect the unique, emphatic style of the original.
2. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
   This option smooths the Greek grammar into more idiomatic English, translating the articular phrases as relative clauses. It prioritizes clarity in English while still conveying the theological concept of God’s eternal nature, potentially interpreting the original as a Hebraism or demotic expression that is best conveyed without a literal, jarring English equivalent.
3. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the Ever-Present, the Eternal, the Coming One, the Almighty.”
   This interpretive translation seeks to convey the profound theological and rhetorical force of the Greek phrase, focusing on the meaning of timelessness rather than strictly replicating the grammatical structure. It acknowledges the unusual grammar as a means to express God’s majestic and unchanging being.