An Explanation for the Anacolutha in the Book of Revelation 39 with a participle’30. Although this is a clear trend throughout Revelation, yet no explanation is provided why. Mussies suggests that the choice of a masculine participle symbolizes a male person31, which explains the gen- der, but this does not explain why the participle is nominative. The whole clause is difficult, but it appears that John has further extrapolated his paradigm, removing the article while keeping the nominative participle. The result appears to be that the text emphasizes the presence of the beast among the seven churches, parodying Jesus’ presence. Aune provides two possibilities for why ἔχων (masc.), 21:14 does not conform in case to τὸ τεῖχος (neut.); first, because of the possible interchange between ο = ω, second, ἔχων might have been confused with ἔχον (neut.)32. It is more likely that ἔχων refers to the people that τὸ τεῖχος (neut.) represents. The non-articular use of ἔχων in 17:3 may re-adjust the hermeneutic of the reader so that there may also be an implicit connection here with ὁ ὢν (1:4). The line of argument appears to be that the Beast tries to be like God and have authority among the churches (17:3), but in the New Jerusalem, the church will be like God and be a wall protecting God’s presence from the Beast. 2. Quoting a Previous Section of text The relationship between the anacolutha in 1:4 and 1:5 allows for syn- tax to act as a marker to refer to a previous passage in Revelation. When John quotes a previous part of his work, he will conform the syntax to the quote, not his current sentence. An example can be seen in 1:20, τὰς ἑπτὰ λυχνίας τὰς χρυσᾶς, this phrase is qualifying τὸ μυστήριον and should therefore be genitive. Charles’ explanation is that John did not revise his text33. Mussies argues that the noun is accusative because it is influenced by a preceding εἶδον. His reference to this construct as ‘The most curious instance…’34. might suggest that he is not confident of this position, which is understandable since the previous reference to εἶδον is a significant distance away in verse 17. It is more likely that τὰς ἑπτὰ λυχνίας τὰς χρυσᾶς is accusative because it is quoting 1:12, ἑπτὰ λυχνίας χρυσᾶς. A context is required to explain why this is the case. Lampstands are highlighted in this text due to the build-up of ambigu- ity, and a lack of clarity of the relationship between the seven lampstands Aune, Revelation, 908. 30 Mussies, The Morphology, 138. 31 Aune, Revelation, 1138. 32 Charles, A Critical, vol. I, 4, 33. 33 Mussies, The Morphology, 100. 34