49 An Explanation for the Anacolutha in the Book of Revelation καὶ ἡ φωνή ἣν ἤκουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πάλιν λαλοῦσαν μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ, 10:8. λαλοῦσαν is accusative when nominative would be expected to conform with ἡ φωνή. Thompson suggests that the reason is because the text reflects the Hebrew circumstantial accusative participle82. It is more likely that the choice of accusative is stimulated by the presence of ἣν ἤκουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Ἀκούω takes an accusative if the speech is accurate/complete. John is working up to a climax where Jesus is offering reconciliation to the churches for their sin. This choice of case, based upon earlier uses of ἀκούω + acc./gen. makes the reader aware that John heard clearly what is about to be said, suggesting that it is very important. 19:1 ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν μεγάλην ὄχλοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λεγόντων 19:6 ἤκουσα ὡς φωνὴν ὄχλου πολλοῦ καὶ ὡς φωνὴν ὑδάτων πολλῶν καὶ ὡς θωνὴν βροντῶν ἰσχυρῶν λεγόντων It was argued earlier that λεγόντων (masc. pl. gen.), 19:1, 6 could be refer- ring to the referent of the respective metaphors. Although the number (since ὄχλος is a collective noun) and gender of the participle agrees with this premise, the case does not. Aune argues that the genitive aspect is present because ὄχλος is genitive. This article has argued that certain texts refer to the referent of the metaphor, not to a specific lexeme, so one would expect the referent of φωνὴν μεγάλην ὄχλου πολλοῦ to be accusative. This principle can be seen in John’s use of τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχὰς, 8:9; οἱ τηροῦντες, 14:12; οὗτοι, 17:16. The choice of genitive case appears to be based upon the fact that it is following ἀκούω. Conclusion This article has sought to challenge the general assumption that the book of Revelation is littered with solecisms. It was argued that the lack of grammatical succession in many sentences in the book is not because John made a mistake, but because he has adjusted his hermeneutic in a way that influences the morphosyntactical aspect of his work. Revela- tion is highly pragmatic and problems have arisen in previous analyses because commentators have not traced the pragmatic development of the work. The reason that the Greek speaker Dionysius did not understand Revelation was probably because he assumed that the hermeneutic and morphology of the text remains stationary. Thompson, The Apocalypse, 79. 82