[B-Greek] Alford on Acts 7:59

frjsilver at optonline.net frjsilver at optonline.net
Tue Aug 7 18:36:23 EDT 2007


OH!  It's all becoming clear to me now!The problem is that Alford (whoever that is) thinks that IHSOU is gennetic -- but it's NOT.  Otherwise, we're struggling with why St Stephan would have addressed his prayer 'O Lord of Jesus'?!Holy conundrum, Batman!But this isn't a difficult situation:  IESOU here is kaletic, just like KURIE.This is very often true of foreign nouns, especially names, which simply have a hard time accommodating Greek case endings.  In the matter of IHSOUS, *all* the oblique cases  (except aitiatic IHSOUN) are expressed as IHSOU.As I think about it, this is just as true in Latin IESUS and IESUM, with all other cases covered by IESU. Father James Monk James SilverOrthodox Church in America----- Original Message -----From: Elizabeth Kline Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 2:33 pmSubject: Re: [B-Greek] Alford on Acts 7:59To: bwmeyers at toast.netCc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org> > On Aug 6, 2007, at 10:25 AM, bwmeyers at toast.net wrote:> > > 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.> > > KAI ELIQOBOLOUN TON STEFANON EPIKALOUMENON KAI LEGONTA,> "KURIE IHSOU, DEICAI TO PNEUMA MOU."> > > I agree with Father James Silver, the object of EPIKALOUMENON > isn't  > required. Alford is also pointing out that KURIE IHSOU where > IHSOU is  > a genitive limiting KURIE is not found anywhere in the NT. An > example  > of IHSOU in the genitive limiting QEOS indirectly is found:> > 2COR. 11:31 hO QEOS KAI PATHR TOU KURIOU IHSOU OIDEN, hO WN > EULOGHTOS  > EIS TOUS AIWNAS, hOTI OU YEUDOMAI.> > Here the genitive TOU KURIOU IHSOU limits PATHR. But this > example  > certainly provides no support for reading IHSOU as a genitive  > limiting KURIE in Acts 7:59 as Alford observed  " ... the utter  > absence of any instance or analogy to justify it".> > A search for KURIOS [lex, not genitive] IHSOU [string] turned up > > several examples of KURIWi IHSOU but only one KURIE IHSOU:> > RE. 22:20 LEGEI hO MARTURWN TAUTA: NAI, ERCOMAI TACU. AMHN, > ERCOU  > KURIE IHSOU.> > Alford's objection appears to be a valid one.> > Elizabeth Kline> > > > > ---> 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