ta melE humOn doula in Rom 6:19
CConrad wonders about the appropriateness of using the term "double accusative"
to describe this phrase. He seems to prefer limiting the term "double
accusative" to instances involving both a person and a thing (personal and
impersonal objects). However my perusal of a few grammars (BDF sec 155 ff.;
ATR p. 479 ff.; Smyth 1612 ff. e.g.) seems to indicate the use of "d.a." to
describe not only personal/impersonal objects but also primary/secondary,
direct/complement, internal/external objects. It seems like any appositional
accusatives fit into this "category".
I note from glancing through the paristEmi section in Moulton and Geden that
this verb often has a "d.a" object. Cf Rom 6:13, 16; 12:1; Col 1:22, 28;
2 Tim 2:15. In Rom 6, v. 19 is not that different from the personal and
impersonal type of "d.a." since one's members may be synecdoche for one's
self. In 6:13a one is not to present one's melE as hopla adikias but to
present one's self (heautous) to God. Is this like what H. W. Wolff called
"stereometric thinking" in his Anthropology of the OT?