[B-Greek] Alford on Acts 7:59
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Aug 7 14:32:35 EDT 2007
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
Alford's objection appears to be a valid one.
More information about the B-Greek