² For the most recent discussion of the larger linguistic question see Porter, S. E., ‘The Language of the Apocalypse in Recent Discussion’, NTS 35 (1989) 582–603.Google Scholar

³ Thompson, S., The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (SNTSMS 52; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985) 1.Google Scholar

⁴ Lindars, B., ‘Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax’, JSemSt 30 (1985) 289–91, esp. 290.Google Scholar

⁵ Wilcox, M., ‘The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax, by Steven Thompson’, JTS 38 (1987) 510–12, esp. 512Google Scholar, emphasis added. See also the review of Schmidt, D. D. (JBL 106 [1987] 732–4) 733.Google Scholar

⁶ Wilcox, M., ‘Semitisms in the New Testament’, ANRW II:25/2, ed. Haase, W. (Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 1984) 978–1029, see 979, 982.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., 984, 986.

⁸ Ibid., 1016. This is Wilcox's reading of Acts 10.19.

⁹ See Wilcox', discussion of septuagintalisms in Acts in The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965) 58–68.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek 2: Accidence and Word-Formation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 14–16.Google Scholar

¹¹ Howard, W. F., ‘Semitisms in the New Testament’, in Moulton, Grammar 2, 480.Google Scholar

¹² Beyer, K., Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 11.Google Scholar

¹³ Farrer, A., The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) 51.Google Scholar See also A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John's Apocalypse (Boston: Beacon, 1949).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Montgomery, J. A., ‘The Education of the Seer of the Apocalypse’, JBL 45 (1926) 70–80, esp. 75, 80Google Scholar. See also Vos, L. A. (The Synoptic Tradition in the Apocalypse [Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1965] 52)Google Scholar, who suggests the author worked from memory, not manuscripts.

¹⁵ Laughlin, T. C., The Solecisms of the Apocalypse (Princeton: Princeton University, 1902) 21.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Trudinger, L. P., ‘O AMHN (Rev. III:14), and the Case for a Semitic Original of the Apocalypse’, NovT 14 (1972) 277–9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Charles, R. H., The Revelation of St. John (ICC; New York: Scribners, 1920) 1.cxliii.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Scott, R. B. Y, The Original Language of the Apocalypse (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1928) 6, 25.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ozanne, C. G., ‘The Language of the Apocalypse’, Tyndale House Bulletin 16 (1965) 3–9, esp. 4.Google Scholar See also Lohmeyer, E., Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HzNT 16; Tübingen: Mohr, 1953) 199Google Scholar: ‘Er ist ein Seher, dem das Hebräische die vertraute Sprache seiner heiligen Vergangenheit ist …’.

²⁰ Torrey, C. C., The Apocalypse of John (New Haven: Yale University, 1958) xi, 16.Google Scholar

²¹ See Porter, , ‘The Language of the Apocalypse’.Google Scholar

²² Howard, , ‘Semitisms’, 484, 485.Google Scholar

²³ Lohse, E., ‘Die Alttestamentliche Sprache des Sehers Johannes’, ZNW 52 (1961) 122–6, esp. 123.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek 3: Syntax, by Nigel Turner (1963) 1–9;Google Scholar 4: Style, by Nigel Turner (1976) 1–4.

²⁵ Burrows, M., ‘Principles for Testing the Translation Hypothesis in the Gospels’, JBL 53 (1934) 13–30, esp. 21.Google Scholar See also Jellicoe, S., The Septuagint and Modern Study (Ann Arbor: Eisenbrauns, 1978, reprint of the 1968 edition) 315.Google Scholar

²⁶ Thackeray, H. St. J., A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1909) 13.Google Scholar

²⁷ E.g., H. Swete, B., The Apocalypse of St. John (London: Macmillan, 1911) cliiiGoogle Scholar: ‘in proportion to its length the Book of Daniel yields by far the greatest number’ of allusions (31), second only in absolute number to Isaiah (46). Vanhoye, A. (‘L'utilisation du livre d'Ezéchiel dans l'Apocalypse’, Biblica 43 [1962] 436–76) 439Google Scholar, reports numbers as high as 518 in Revelation, with 88 from Daniel.

²⁸ Trudinger, L. P. (‘Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation’, JTS 17 [1966] 82–8)Google Scholar finds nine readings against Theodotion, not counting allusions, whereas Charles (ICC 1) lxviii n. 3, lxxx n. 3, does not acknowledge any readings against Theodotion, and Roberts, B. J. (The Old Testament Text and Versions [Cardiff: University of Wales, 1951]) 125Google Scholar, finds six ‘quotations’ from Daniel, all Theodotionic. A. A. DiLella, in his Introduction to Hartman, L. F. and DiLella, A. A., The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1978) 80, 83Google Scholar, collects 15 direct correspondences with Theodotion and 7 with the LXX. See also Vos, , The Synoptic Traditions, 20–53.Google Scholar

²⁹ See one use of this by Martin, R. A., Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents (SBLSCS 3; Missoula, MT: SBL, 1974).Google Scholar See also Jeansonne, S. P., The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12 (CBQMS 19; Washington, BC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988) 131–2Google Scholar, ‘it is fair to say that the OG is a freer translation than that of [Theodotion]’, though nonetheless ‘reasonably accurate and faithful’, i.e. without particular theological Tendenz.

³⁰ Thompson, 109–10. See also Mussies, G., ‘The Greek of the Book of Revelation’, in L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. Lambrecht, J. (BETL 53; Louvain: Louvain University, 1980) 167–77, esp. 172 n. 22.Google Scholar

³¹ Torrey, 43, treats ἕχω as ‘the standing equivalent’ of the Aramaic idiom because that is how the Syriac renders ἕχω in Revelation. However, this fails to note the evidence from Daniel that is rendered by ἕχω only once (3.15) and ἕχω mostly renders constructions in OG where Θ avoids it.

³² E.g., ἕχω appears 24x in Isaiah and 27x in Ezekiel. In contrast it is used only 16x in all of 1–4 Kgdms.

³³ The other occurrences are 9.3; 11.6, 6; 14.18; 18.1; 20.6.

³⁴ The others are Dan 5.16; 6.4, which refer to Daniel.

³⁵ The two instances referring to Daniel have ἄρχω (5.16) and ν ὑπρ αύςо ζ(6.4). Θ also uses ἄρχω similarly at 5.7, where OG has δοθήσεται αὐτ ξουσία.

³⁶ Rev 2.26; 6.8; 9.3; 13.2, 4, 5, 7; 17.13; Dan OG 3.30(97); 5.7, 29; 7.14, 27; Dan Θ 7.6, 27.

³⁷ For Torrey, 44, the frequency of μέλλω in Revelation suggests , ‘ready, about to’, which he finds ‘common in all branches of Aramaic, but not in Hebrew’. It only occurs at Dan 3.15, where both the OG and Θ render it τοίμως.

³⁸ See Swete, cxliii. Other ἃ μέλλει constructions occur at 2.10; 3.2. Beale, G. K., The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984) 167–8Google Scholar, follows Charles (1.lxxx) in suggesting that the primary allusion here is to Dan 2.29, 45 Θ τί/ἃ δε γενέσθαι μετ τατα. Beale acknowledges that ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι from Isa 48.6 is a ‘possible allusion or echo’. Both Swete and Charles cite Rev 1.19 as ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι, which, in fact, makes it identical to Isa 48.6, but the addition of μετ τατα appears to be completely determinative for Charles, even though it is common in Revelation. Mussies, G., The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John: A Study in Bilingualism (Leiden: Brill: 1971) 180, 230, 334Google Scholar, cites the verb here as γεινεσθαι, derived from γίγνεσθαι (30).

³⁹ For the significance of this Daniel text for the structure of Revelation, see Beale, G. K., ‘The Influence of Daniel upon the Structure and Theology of John's Apocalypse’, JETS 27 (1984) 413–23.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Rev 2.21; 11.5, 5, 6; 22.17; Dan (OG) 1.13; 2.3; 4.14; 7.19; 8.4.

⁴¹ Thompson, 52.

⁴² This translates , which occurs only six other times in MT: Eccl 7.16, 17 μ γίνου; Prov 3.7; 23.20; 24.28 μ ἴσθι; and Prov 22.26, an imperative.

⁴³ See Mussies, , Morphology, 331.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Beyer, , 109–11.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Dan OG 2.10, 11; 3.25(92); 4.30; 5.8; 6.5(4); 8.27; Dan Θ 4.32; Rev 3.8; 5.3; 7.9; 14.3; 15.8.

⁴⁶ Dan OG 2.4; 4.29(32); 6.5(6); 7.14, 14; 11.6, 12, 37, 27; 12.10. Dan Θ each time has οὐ + future, except 4.29(32), where it has no parallel (οὐ μ + subj. occur in 1.8, 8; 11.17).

⁴⁷ Following Nestle-Aland²⁶ at Rev 9.6; 18.14.

⁴⁸ Mussies, , Morphology, 321–2; Thompson, 23, 98.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Nestle-Aland²⁶ has it another 8 times: 6.4; 8.3; 9.4, 5, 20; 13.12; 14.13; 22.14. For instances in other manuscripts see Mussies, Morphology, 322.

⁵⁰ Thompson, 28.

⁵¹ Ibid., 23.

⁵² See also 13.12, 13, 15, 16.

⁵³ See Schmidt, D. D., Hellenistic Greek Grammar and Noam Chomsky: Nominalizing Transformations (SBLDS 62; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981) 55–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Dan OG 1.8, 10; 2.16, 49; 3.10, (30), 28(95), 29(96); 4.24(27); 6.5(6), 8(9), 12(13), (13a, 13a); Dan Θ 2.30; 3.15; 4.14(17); 5.15. Swete, 261.

⁵⁵ See above.

⁵⁶ Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1914) 136.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Beale, G. K., ‘Revelation’, in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honor of B. Lindars (ed. Carson, D. A. & Williamson, H. G. M.; Cambridge University, 1988) 318–36, esp. 332.Google Scholar