This monograph, a revised form of the author’s dissertation, is the first comprehensive examination of the perceived grammatical and syntactical peculiarities of the book of Revelation from synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Importantly, Mot evaluates the Greek language used based on ancient literary expectations rather than modern ones, aiming to describe in each case not what John “should have written, but trying to understand what is the function of the choice he made” (245). The study consists of four main chapters with a three-page summary and conclusion, an extensive bibliography (33 pp.), and indexes for ancient sources, modern authors, and subjects.

Chapter 1 provides a comprehensive review of literature on the peculiarities of the Greek language employed in the book of Revelation, beginning with the third-century writer Dionysius of Alexandria, but focusing more particularly on studies from the eighteenth century to the present. Chapter 2 is a fascinating overview of ancient literary conventions by Greek and Roman authors as to what was considered grammatical errors, including their definitions of barbarisms and solecisms. These conventions become the standard by which the grammar of the book of Revelation is measured.

Chapter 3, by far the largest part of the book, examines barbarisms and solecisms in detail. Mot categorizes them as alleged, explicable, and actual, based on previous studies and his own reading and study of Revelation. Of the many valuable insights and observations made throughout this chapter, Mot’s interpretation of “the most famous solecism” (113) in Revelation 1:4 is worth mentioning here as an example of how the study proceeds. The greeting in Greek, “from Him who is and who was and who is to come,” consists of the preposition apo (“from”), after which the genitive case is expected, but which is instead followed by two substantival participles in the nominative case. Consulting the manuscripts, Mot finds this solecism to have substantial support, leaving “no doubt” that this is the original reading (113). After analyzing the various explanations (beginning with Lorenzo Valla in the fifteenth century), including the “mainstream explanation” that it is an indeclinable name, Mot dismisses less likely possibilities, such as the suggestion that it is accidental, pointing to the other thirty-five occurrences of apo in Revelation, all of which are followed by the expected genitive forms—including the last part of verse 4 (“from the seven spirits”) and verse 5 (“from Jesus Christ”). Mot concludes that John “makes no mistake” here (115), arguing that the noun “God” in the genitive (theou) was deliberately omitted in order to focus the reader’s attention on who God is (appealing to a similar absence of the noun in Revelation 4:2–3). Interesting suggestions based on irregularities in Greek are abundant, such as the “clear demarcation” made between the Spirit of God and the demonic or evil spirits, by means of masculine (Rev 5:6) and neuter participles (Rev 16:14) respectively (171–172).

Implications from the study are drawn in chapter 4. Mot concludes that the Greek of Revelation is more regular than irregular, that John’s language is close to the Greek preserved in contemporary papyri and inscriptions (245), and that his grammar “is always intentional” (221, 246) but “seldom . . . for stylistic purposes” (221). He denies that the peculiarities sometimes result from John’s deficient understanding of the rules of Greek (245), but nevertheless affirms that the “deviant syntax” reflects his “linguistic limitations” (221)—that is, “what he could linguistically perform” (246). To this reader, at least, that sounds like a distinction without a difference.

Mot makes a valuable contribution to the study of the book of Revelation, including some important cautions relative to the use of the manuscript evidence in an attempt to identify what John originally wrote. For those seeking the original form of the text in particular verses, Mot’s conclusions with regard to John’s morphological and syntactical irregularities will be important to consider before drawing any conclusions regarding intrinsic probabilities for the weighing of manuscript evidence. In particular, there are important reasons to question explanations of irregular constructions made on the basis of the supposed influence of John’s Semitic language background. While traces of this influence are present, normally this does not seem to be the source of Revelation’s irregularities. Mot makes a convincing case that explanations based on Greek language considerations are more credible.

While not every reader will agree with the decisions made in particular cases, Mot’s broad consideration of the scholarly literature across many languages, ancient and modern, as well as the depth of his analysis make this a book from which specialists in Greek and teachers of courses in the book of Revelation will learn much. However, it should be added that it is a challenging read, even for advanced students. Making it more difficult to use as a reference is the fact that the ancient sources index does not include biblical materials. This lacuna means that readers will be unable to find discussions of specific passages in Revelation without knowing the precise solecism or barbarism at issue in a particular verse. Also, because of the way the book is organized, discussion of some verses will be found in more than one place. Of more concern is the author’s interpretation of some figures, which seems at certain points to align more with a preterist than a historicist approach (e.g., the sea beast of Revelation 13:1 seems to be identified with “a leader of the [Roman?] empire,” 175). Finally, there are more typographical errors than might be expected (e.g., “lenght” [50], “evailable” [155], “Buttmannn [167, 204], “Stanely” [191], “shinning” [197], “Torrah” [224]) and even occasional lapses in Greek (e.g., misplaced accents [“ἰδίωματα,” 4], use of a grave accent when it should be acute (64), “λέει” [instead of “λέγει,” 200]). Such distractions may lead some readers to underestimate an otherwise quality work.