Acoluthia or Anacoluthia (Rev 21)?

[NaphtaliPress]

Durham in his lecture on Revelation 21:1 says the below. No edition corrected this but am I right that this should be anacoluthia (interruption) rather acoluthia (a companion)? Do I have the gist of the other two words correct?

This argument from the series and acoluthia [sic] of the prophecy, will bind the more strongly if we consider that there will hardly be found any such hysterosis [inversion] or hysterologia [last phrase first] in one and the same explicatory prophecy (such as this is), for though an explicatory prophecy may go back over events contained in a principal prophecy, yet that in one and the same explicatory prophecy, there is such retrogressing over one event to set down some other wholly antecedaneous [previous] to it, and having no connection with anything successive unto it, as this would be if it did belong to a state of the church before the final sentencing of the wicked mentioned in the close of the former chapter, will not be easily found.​

 

[VictorBravo]

It’s hard, parsing double negatives and looking at chap 20 flowing into 21, but I lean toward acoluthia.

In his broader discussion is he saying new heaven and earth is out of sequence? I’m not really catching that sense.

 

[py3ak]

Chris, I think acoluthia (also spelled acolouthia) may be correct, because Durham seems to be using it in the sense of sequence or arrangement. The comments succeeding refer to the ordering principle of the prophecy. The argument for an interruption would be that he is speaking against a "flashback" technique being used here, and of course a flashback would be an interruption. But since an interruption is a particular kind of sequence, it seems to me to work more clearly with the more general reference.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Ακολουθια, "the regular order of words", from Diccionario Griego-Español.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thanks all, that will make this much simpler!