inverse attraction in Rom 6.17?

Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Tue Jan 22 02:43:20 EST 2002


Hi all:

Another pronoun question!

Rom 6.17: CARIS DE TWi QEWi hOTI HTE DOULOI THS hAMARTIAS hUPHKOUSATE DE 
EK KARDIAS EIS hON PAREDOQHTE TUPON DIDACHS ...

I'm trying to determine the relationship between hON and TUPON. 
According to Wallace, this is a case of "inverse attraction" (p. 339). 
In other words, whereas a relative pronoun will sometimes be attracted 
to the case of its antecedent, in this case (and others) the antecedent 
is attracted to the case of the relative pronoun. This would mean that 
TUPON is actually the object of hUPHKOUSATE, even though hUPHKOUSATE 
would normally take a dative direct object, not an accusative. TUPON is 
accusative because it has been attracted to the case of hON. On the 
other hand, Robertson says that TUPON has been incorporated INTO the 
relative clause. Which is the correct way to understand this 
construction?
==========

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list