The language of the book is very different from that of the fourth gospel. It departs materially from the usual Greek of the N. T., presenting anomalies, incorrectnesses, peculiar constructions, awkward disposition of words, which cannot be paralleled. These originate in Hebraism. The Greek is so moulded by Hebrew as to follow its constructions. With respect to cases, the unusual license is taken of discontinuing the genitive case for a nominative, as in iii. 12 ; xiv. 12 ' • or the accusative for a nominative, as in xx. 2. In vii. 9 the nominative is discontinued for the accusative.
Greek usage is often violated in gender and number, as in vi. 9, 10 ; ix. 13, 14. Neuters plural take plural verbs (xi. IS ; xv. 4, etc.) ; )1/4.7p6s is both masculine and feminine in xiv. 19, so is Tpis. In xii. 5 yids dperev is merely an imitation of iP• In regard to verbs, the Apocalyptist uses the future like the Hebrew imperfect in a frequentative sense, as at iv. 9-11. The participle stands for a finite tense in i. 16 ; while the present passes into the future in i. 7 ; or into the past. xii. 2-4. The future and past tenses are strangely mixed in xx. 7-1o.
In the syntax of nouns, the plural regularly stands for the dual, as in xii. 14.
The genitive case is almost always put after a noun to explain it, in the manner of an adjective ; and a number of genitives are linked together, as at xvi. 19.
Two nouns coupled together by a conjunction have each its own suffix, as in Hebrew (vi. II ; ix. 21).
The repetition of a preposition with each con nected genitive often occurs (xvi. 13).
The genitive absolute seems wanting, unless there be an example of it in ix. 9, which is doubtful.
'Ev is almost always prefixed to the dative of the instrument, as in vi. S.
The usage of the writer in prepositions and con junctions is quite Hebraised. Thus we have the nominative after 4,s where another case should have stood (iv. 7). This is from 3 prefixed.
The verb Stactcrxetv is followed by a dative case (ii. 14) following the Hebrew ; exouteiv has with a genitive (vi. to), equivalent to ?p) followed by the prefix ; and dixoXou8a hasaera with the genitive (vi. 8), like Greek and Hebrew constructions are remarkably intermingled in xvii. 4.
These remarks will make it appear that the language differs from that of the evangelist. Gram matically irregular and syntactically harsh, it is so thoroughly Hebraistic as to neglect the usual Greek rules. The solecisms that appear in the Apoca
lypse,' says Winer, 'give the diction the impress of great harshness, hut they are capable of expla nation, partly from anacoluthon and the mingling of two constructions, partly in another manner. Such explanation should always have been adopted instead of ascribing the irregularities to the ignor ance of the author, who, in other constructions of a more difficult nature in this very book, shows that he was exceedingly well acquainted with the rules of grammar. For most of these anomalies, also, examples may he found in the Greek writers, with this difference that they do not follow one another so frequently as in the Apocalypse' (Grammatik, fiiiVte ...inflate, pp. 273, 274). This language is too apologetic, and can hardly be justified. Still more apologetic and one-sided are the details which the same scholar gives elsewhere (Exe,gegrche Stua'ien, i. p. 154, et seq.), in attempt ing to justify and parallel what cannot be done to the extent he supposes.
It is unquestionable that the Greek of the Apo calyptist is worse than that of any N. T. writer—the kind of diction which might be expected from an unlearned and ignorant man,' as John is called in the Acts (iv. 2). But in the use of Hebraisms he is at home. His Rabbinic mode of expression, though artificial, is good. His Palestinian educa tion qualified him for Rabbinical forms ; as well as his study of the O. T. prophecies. This applies to the synoptists and Paul ; but not to the same extent. The apostle was undoubtedly a learned man' in relation to the sacred literature of his own nation, his knowledge of the O. T., and probably of the Septuagint : the epithets dypcii.q.zaros and tatoirns, so far as they are correct, we restrict to his Greek culture and facility of writing in the new language, which Hebrew and Aramman had almost supplanted.
After all the endeavours to find analogies to the linguistic peculiarities and departures from good Greek usage in the book before us, either in the Greek Testament itself or in classical Greek writers, it presents anomalies of such a nature and in such number as to separate the author widely from the evangelist, and from any N. T. author. Such He brew-Greek stands apart and unique.