Iwan M. Whiteley 48 Charles noticed that we should expect λεγούσης (gen.) to be rendered as λέγουσαν (acc.) to conform with φωνὴν. He suggests that there is no accidental error here because John uses a similar construct in 4:176, but he does not provide a solution to the problem. Aune suggests that the par- ticiple is attracted to the case of σάλπιγγος77, and this proposal appears to explain 4:1 also78, but not the similar uses in 6:7 or 10:8. The reason that this verb is in the genitive while the trumpet is in the accusative is probably related to the previous verb ἀκούω: the verb takes either the ac- cusative or genitive case. There seems to be an issue as to what each case signifies. Wenham79 says that the genitive case is adopted if one hears a person and the accusative is used if one hears an object make a sound. Winer notes that this does not account for all the situations. Wallace80, following Robertson81 suggests that ἀκούω with the accusative indicates understanding, while the genitive highlights the act of hearing. Wallace shows that this notion also does not account for every use. There could be a different significance to the use of ἀκούω. The ac- cusative appears to be related to the accuracy/completeness of the in- formation. If a person is listening to somebody else in the present, then their grasp of the information will be relatively accurate/complete. If an object makes a sound, then there is no problem regarding its accuracy/ completeness (hence Winer and Wenham) and so it is accusative. Also, if one has heard accurately/completely, then there is the logical implication that one understands (hence Wallace and Robertson). However, the geni- tive case is used for any situation where there could be doubt. Therefore, if one hears something about somebody else, the information could be questionable/incomplete. If it was heard in the past, then something may have been forgotten. Future hearing events are questionable/incomplete because they have not yet taken place and so adopt a genitive. This then leads to the present discourse. John heard a loud sound that requires an accusative because there is no question of accuracy/complete- ness. However, when that metaphor is transformed into language, the fact that this is a past occurrence forces λέγω into the genitive. This does not say that the information is essentially inaccurate/incomplete, only that it could be. Consequently, this construct is not an anacoluthon, simply a new construct stimulated by John’s juxtaposing of imagery. This ἀκούω + accusative + genitive structure appears in Revelation again in 6:7. Charles, A Critical, vol. I, 24. 76 Aune, Revelation, 64. 77 Aune, Revelation, 269. 78 J. Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek (Cambridge 1975) 203. 79 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 133. 80 A. Robertson, A Grammar, 506. 81