Romans 12:3

Manolis Nikolaou aei_didaskomenos at hotmail.com
Sun Apr 28 14:02:47 EDT 2002


> I am studying Romans 12:3  I am trying to understand the meaning of the
> last phrase, hEKASTWi hWS hO QEOS EMERISEN METRON PISTEWS. On my initial
> reading, I translated this phrase as " . . . according to the standard,
> faith, that God gave to each."  C.E.B. Cranfield argues in the ICC
> commentary that hEKASTWi is in dative case because of attraction.  This
> would yield something like ". . . each [should think of himself in sober
> judgement]according to the standard, faith, that God gave." Would hEKASTWi
> be attracted to the phrase "PANTI TWi ONTI EN hUMIN" that occurs in the
> earlier part of the verse, and what clues would I look for to indicate
> that this was the case?
> 
> Thank You,
> Ron Geib

LEGW GAR DIA THS CARITOS THS DOQEISHS MOI PANTI TWi ONTI EN hUMIN, MH
hUPERFRONEIN PAR' hO DEI FRONEIN, ALLA FRONEIN EIS TO SWFRONEIN, hEKASTWI
hWS O QEOS EMERISEN METRON PISTEWS.

I think the way "attraction" is meant here is irrelevant to PANTI TWi ONTI
EN hUMIN. The implied subject of hYPERFRONEIN and FRONEIN is AUTON
(regarding PANTA TON ONTA EN hUMIN). So, according to the commentary, the
accusative hEKASTON would have been appropriate here if hEKASTWi hadn't
functioned as an object (objective dative) of EMERISEN.
 
You may also have a look at 1 Cor 7:17

EI MH hEKASTWi hWS EMERISEN O QEOS, hEKASTON hWS KEKLHKEN O QEOS, OUTW
PERIPATEITW.

The subject of PERIPATEITW is the implied hEKASTOS; but as an object of
EMERISEN and KEKLHKEN it occurs in dative and accusative- not in
nominative as it "should".



More information about the B-Greek mailing list