Iwan M. Whiteley 46 uses. Any syntactic construct that is highlighted is open to reproduction. It is normal for a dative noun to follow ὅμοιον, and the accusative υἱός in ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, 1:13 is difficult to explain. Mussies suggests that ‘…the case of the substantive has been attracted to that of ὅμοιον’66. Charles suggests that ὅμοιος is being treated as synonymous in meaning with ὡς67. Neither of these authors supply an explanation of why John would use these strategies. It appears that the accusative case is inspired by the need to remove ambiguity68. This becomes clearer upon examining the hermeneutical timeline. First, John sees ‘seven golden lampstands’ (accusative, non-ar- ticular). The reader partially understands the significance of the lamp- stands, but is unclear as to why there is no article. Consequently, they speculate a qualitative scenario. In the middle of the lampstands is one ‘like a Son of Man’ (accusative, non-articular). The reader is aware that the text is referring to Daniel 7; however, there is an ambiguity: is John referring to the one ‘…‘like a son of man’ as found in Daniel 7:13’69, or is John saying ‘like ‘a son of man’ as found in Daniel 7:13?’ Consequently, John utilizes two methods to inform his reader that that which is be- ing communicated is the latter: First, he changes the word ὡς (from the Daniel context) to a synonym, ὅμοιος.70 This has the effect of alienating ‘like’ from the Daniel context. Second, he aligns the case of ‘Son’ to that of ‘golden lampstands’. 1:13 then provides the syntactic template for ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, 14:14; the latter is essentially referring to the former and could be defined as a quote (i.e. it qualifies for section 2). Mussies considers λέγοντας (masc.), 5:13 to be unclear71 because its case is expected to align with κτίσμα (neut.). The reason for the choice of case is probably because λέγοντες, 5:12 is also masculine; John also adopts syntactic precedence cataphorically; in 9:20 προσκυνέω is followed by an accusative. The reader is meant to ponder as to its significance until 13:8,12; 14:9, 11 and 20:4 where προσκυνέω is primarily followed by τὸ θηρίον (acc.). The result is that the reader is perpetually reminded that to worship the beast is to worship ‘demons’. Mussies, The Morphology, 99. 66 Charles, A Critical, vol. I, 36. 67 See I. Whiteley, ‘A Search for Cohesion in the Book of Revelation with Specific Refer- 68 ence to Chapter One,’ (Ph.D thesis submitted to the University of Lampeter, UK, 2005) 157-58. So seemingly G. Krodel, Revelation (Augsburg Commentary on the NT; Minneapolis 69 1989) 95. In Daniel 7:13, as in Daniel 10:6, the choice of Greek words for comparison are ὡς 70 and ὡσεὶ (Theod.). It appears that one reason for John’s choice of ὅμοιος for this purpose is stimulated by the need of a synonym for ὡς since it is required so much in the text. Mussies, The Morphology, 139. 71