[B-Greek] Alford on Acts 7:59
George F Somsel
gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 6 20:07:21 EDT 2007
TEXT
καὶ ἐλιθοβόλουν τὸν Στέφανον ἐπικαλούμενον καὶ λέγοντα· κύριε Ἰησοῦ, δέξαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου.
KAI ELIQOBOLOUN TON STEFANON EPIKALOUMENON KAI LEGONTA, "KURIE IHSOU, DEICAI TO PNEUMA MOU."
I'm simply guessing since I don't have Alford. It would not be too much of a stretch to consider QEON to be either understood or even missing due, as seems indicated, because of the ending of the preceeding ἐπικαλούμενον [EPIKALOUMENON]. I think there is no evidence for θεὸν [QEON], but this is not a forum for textual criticism. It would not have been θεοῦ [QEOU] as you indicate in your post since an accusative is required. Note 1 Sam 12.18 which has
καὶ ἐπεκαλέσατο Σαμουηλ τὸν κύριον
KAI EPEKALESATO SAMOUHL TON KURION
Here κύριον [KURION] is accusative, not genitive.
Note what BDAG states regarding ἐπικαλέω [EPIKALEW]
① to call upon deity for any purpose (‘invoke’ Hdt. 2, 39; 3, 8) to call upon, call out 1 Cl 39:7 (Job 5:1). In the mid. to call on, invoke for someth. (ἐ. τοὺς θεούς [E. TOUS QEOUS] Hdt. et al.…
Here also the invoked are placed in the accusative though in this case we have a plural τοὺς θεούς [TOUS QEOUS].
While generally it is a diety [or "the name" of the diety being used as a substitute for the diety] which is invoked, we find Stephen in Acts 7.59 invoking Jesus Christ. I find it slightly strange to note that there is no object to designate who or what is being invoked, but that is apparently to be understood from the direct speech of Stephen which follows.
george
gfsomsel
Therefore, O faithful Christian, search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
- Jan Hus
_________
----- Original Message ----
From: "bwmeyers at toast.net" <bwmeyers at toast.net>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2007 12:25:09 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] Alford on Acts 7:59
In Alford's Greek Testament, on Acts 7:59, Henry Alford writes:
>59.] The attempt to escape from this direct prayer to the
>Saviour by making 'Ieesou' the genitive, and supposing it
>addressed to the Father, in the face of the ever recurring
>words kurios Ieesous (see Rev. xxii. 20 especially), and
>the utter absence of any instance or analogy to justify it,
>is only characteristic of the school to which it belongs.
>Yet in this case it has been favoured even by Bentley
>and Valcknaer, who supposed Theou to have been
>omitted in the text, being absorbed by the preceding -on.
I need understanding of this last statement: All of my
commentators, including Alford, indicate there is no
Theou at all, in any manuscript or other reference to this
verse, many of them severely criticising the KJV for
inserting it. What does Alford mean, "who supposed
Theou to have been omitted" and what does "being
absorbed by the preceding -on" mean?
>But if any such accus. had been used, it would certainly
>have been [ton Theon].
And this is also Greek to me. Could someone explain
what he is saying here?
>The same prayer in substance
>had been made by our Lord on the cross (ref. Luke) to
>His Father. To Him was now committed the key of David.
>Similarly, the young man Saul, in after years: 2 Tim. i. 12.
Thank you
Bob Meyers
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list