[B-Greek] Alford on Acts 7:59
frjsilver at optonline.net
frjsilver at optonline.net
Mon Aug 6 21:19:53 EDT 2007
Dear Friends --
It's apparent from the closest reading of the text that while they ELIQOBOLOUN TON STEFANON that the battered STEFANOS is EPIKALOUMENON TON KURION IHSOUN as he was LEGONTA KURIE IHSOU DEICAI TO PNEUMA MOU.
It's not necessary to repeat the subjects/objects when they're this obvious, at least not in Greek and perhaps some other highly inflected languages, no matter what we're used to in English.
And it's completely inappropriate to supply THEON here, even though a strong case can be made for the (especially Hellenistic Jewish) use of KURIOS as a euphemism for Hebrew YHWH. That's just beyond the text and should not be inserted by editors no matter their agenda.
BTW: Who is Alford? Maybe read Chrysostom on this!
Peace and blessings to all.
Father James Silver
Monk James
Orthodox Church in America
----- Original Message -----
From: George F Somsel
Date: Monday, August 6, 2007 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Alford on Acts 7:59
To: bwmeyers at toast.net, b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> 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"
> 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
> ---
> 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
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list