[B-Greek] Alford on Acts 7:59
frjsilver at optonline.net
frjsilver at optonline.net
Tue Aug 7 19:42:28 EDT 2007
Please excuse the confused formating in my first attempt to send you this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Silver
Orthodox Church in America
----- Original Message -----
From: Elizabeth Kline
Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2007 2:33 pm
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Alford on Acts 7:59
To: bwmeyers at toast.net
Cc: 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