43 An Explanation for the Anacolutha in the Book of Revelation detecting/focusing on the referent and it happens mainly in the second half of Revelation. The establishment of this idea may be found in 4:7, καὶ τὸ τρίτον ζῷον ἔχων τὸ πρόσωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου. The masculine ἔχων should be neuter to conform with τὸ τρίτον. Mussies suggests that ἔχων was written because of its phonetic similarity with the neuter ἔχον51. Schmid considers ἔχον to be the original reading52. It is more likely that the reader knew that John has, up to this point, been very pragmatic with language and so wondered why he has adopted this syntax. The following clause, ὡς ἀνθρώπου suggests to the reader that the referent of τὸ τρίτον ζῷον may be a man, leading them to conclude that the choice of the gender was based upon the referent, not the metaphor. This hermeneutical idea stays with the reader through the text. Aune notices the similarity between ἔχων (masc.) in τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα ἓν καθ᾿ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἔξ, 4:8 and ἔχων, 4:753. It appears that the former is based upon the latter; ἔχων, 4:8 refers to the male entity behind each living creature. The same idea continues in 5:6, ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον ἔχων κέρατα ἑπτὰ, ἔχων (masc.) referring to Jesus behind ἀπνίον (neut.)54. One would expect τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχὰς (fem.), 8:9 to be singular to conform to τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων55. It is likely that the former participle is referring to the referent of the latter phrase, namely the creatures. οὗτοί (masc.), 11:4 refers to the masculine concepts behind αἱ δύο ἀλαῖαι (fem.)56; λέγοντες (masc.), 11:15 refers to the God (sing.) behind φωναὶ μεγάλαι (fem.), while the number of the participle conforms to the plural sounds57. λέγων (masc.), 13:14 refers to the person behind τὸ θηρίον (neut.)58, 13:11; οἱ τεροῦντες, 14:12 is masculine because it refers to the masculine plural entity behind ἡ ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων. τὸν μέγαν (masc.), 14:19 involves a new leap in thinking and its refer- ent is not so clear. The reader is looking for a masculine equivalent for the metaphor τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (fem.). Mussies suggests that it is referring to either θυμοῡ or θεοῦ59, and a connection with θυμός is an Mussies, The Morphology, 138. 51 J. Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte der griechischen Apokalypse-Textes vol. 2 52 (Münchener theologische Studien; München 1956) 233-34. Aune, Revelation, 272. 53 Beale (Beale, The Book, 354; also R. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Com- 54 mentary (Chicago 1992-95) 392) entertains this possibility, although he wonders why, if this is the situation, did John not adopt ἐσφαγμένος (masc.) instead of ἐσφαγμένον. It is not possible to explore the pragmatic options to explain this construct in this article. Charles (Charles, A Critical, vol. I, 234) notes interesting parallels in Ezekiel 23:7, 12. 55 Aune, Revelation, 579. 56 Similarly Beale, The Book, 612; that the ‘voices’ refer to God, see Exodus 19:16. 57 Aune, Revelation, 720. 58 Mussies, The Morphology, 139; Similarly Aune, Revelation, 791; I. Beckwith, The 59 Apocalypse of John (New York 1919) 664.