[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