The Dative in Rom 7:10 καὶ εὑρέθη *μοι* ἡ ἐντολὴ

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

The Dative in Rom 7:10 καὶ εὑρέθη *μοι* ἡ ἐντολὴ

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Rom 7:10 wrote:ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον καὶ εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, αὕτη εἰς θάνατον·
Can anyone explain the function of the dative μοι in Rom 7:10? A lot of translations and even BDAG (s.v. εὑρίσκω) seem to construe it with θάνατον ("and the commandment ... was found to be death for me"), but I find this to be unlikely, as it belongs to a following clause / intonation unit.

This dative is not specifically discussed in Robertson or Wallace. BDF/BDR § 190(3) includes this in a string cite of several verses without comment in a comment that suggests it's a dative with a predicate noun, but it seems to me that, if this so, the predicate noun should be the subject of the MP2 aorist εὑρέθη, i.e. ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, not εἰς θάνατον.

Any ideas?

Stephen
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: The Dative in Rom 7:10 καὶ εὑρέθη *μοι* ἡ ἐντολὴ

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Carlson wrote:
Rom 7:10 wrote:ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον καὶ εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, αὕτη εἰς θάνατον·
Can anyone explain the function of the dative μοι in Rom 7:10? A lot of translations and even BDAG (s.v. εὑρίσκω) seem to construe it with θάνατον ("and the commandment ... was found to be death for me"), but I find this to be unlikely, as it belongs to a following clause / intonation unit.

This dative is not specifically discussed in Robertson or Wallace. BDF/BDR § 190(3) includes this in a string cite of several verses without comment in a comment that suggests it's a dative with a predicate noun, but it seems to me that, if this so, the predicate noun should be the subject of the MP2 aorist εὑρέθη, i.e. ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, not εἰς θάνατον.

Any ideas?

Stephen
Well,on the one hand, the dative used for the subject of a passive verb is pretty standard in Greek, especially with a perfect or aorist passive, and some might be content to understand that as sufficient explanation here. On the other hand, there are a couple of matters that seem to me worthy of particular notice here, namely (a) the quasi-idiomatic usage of the passive of εὑρίσκω, and (b) the obvious highlighting of the first-person pronouns in these two clauses. Let's take these ὕστερον πρότερον:

(b) Emphasis on the first-person pronoun: the chiastic arrangement of ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον καὶ εὑρέθη μοι is striking. Whether one prefers to understand this section of Romans 7 as autobiographical or as a figurative first-person retelling of the onset of sin in Genesis 3 (LXX: Gen. 3:7 καὶ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῶν δύο, καὶ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι γυμνοὶ ἦσαν ...), the text speaks of a profound eye-opening personal experience: the experience of death is personal and the discovery of the death-dealing power of the commandment is also personal -- or they may constitute two perspectives on the same experience. At any rate the phrasing clearly underscores that this is not a statement of an abstract theoretical proposition but rather a personal existential awakening. In view of this, the placement of the dative pronoun μοι seems very deliberate.

(a) We've had discussion in the past over the question whether the passive forms of εὑρίσκω ought properly to be understood as passive or as middle intransitive. Iver Larsen has insisted that εὑρέθη in Mt 1:18 (εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα) and in Acts 8:40 (Φίλιππος δὲ εὑρέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον) is really passive, while I've argued that neither text really supposes any process of search and discovery but rather this usage describes a process of the coming-to-light of a surprising fact. I think that εὑρέθη in Rom 7:10 and in the other two passages has much the same sense as ἐφάνη or ἐγένετο: "came to light" or "turned out to be." BDAG's entry on εὑρίσκω seems to view this usage of εὑρέθη as a Semitism:
נִמְצָא be found, appear, prove, be shown (to be) (Cass. Dio 36, 27, 6; SIG 736, 51; 1109, 73; 972, 65; POxy 743, 25 [2 BC]; ParJer 4:5; Jos., Bell. 3, 114; Just., A I, 4, 2; Tat. 41:3; Mel., P. 82, 603; Ath. 24, 4) εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα it was found that she was to become a mother Mt 1:18. εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ εἰς θάνατον (sc. οὖσα) the commandment proved to be a cause for death to me Ro 7:10. οὐχ εὑρέθησαν ὑποστρέψαντες; were there not found to return? Lk 17:18; cp. Ac 5:39; 1 Cor 4:2 (cp. Sir 44:20); 15:15; 2 Cor 5:3; Gal 2:17; 1 Pt 1:7; Rv 5:4; 1 Cl 9:3; 10:1; B 4:14; Hm 3:5 and oft. ἄσπιλοι αὐτῷ εὑρεθῆναι be found unstained in his judgment 2 Pt 3:14. σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος when he appeared in human form Phil 2:7. εὑρεθήσομαι μαχόμνενος τῷ νόμῳ κυρίου . . . εὑρεθήσομαι παραδιδοὺς ἀθῶον αἷμα GJs 14:1.
It's noteworthy that the lexicographer (I don't know whether this is Danker or one of the earlier editors) clearly views the μοι in Rom 7:10 as understood with εἰς θάνατον; I think that's true (and so I don't think that it's the dative with a passive verb( , but I think that the μοι is fronted here, as I noted above, in an intentional chiastic pairing with the ἐγὼ that opens the sequence: ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον καὶ εὑρέθη μοι .. "it became evident in my case that the life-giving commandment was death-dealing."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The Dative in Rom 7:10 καὶ εὑρέθη *μοι* ἡ ἐντολὴ

Post by Stephen Carlson »

cwconrad wrote:It's noteworthy that the lexicographer (I don't know whether this is Danker or one of the earlier editors) clearly views the μοι in Rom 7:10 as understood with εἰς θάνατον; I think that's true (and so I don't think that it's the dative with a passive verb( , but I think that the μοι is fronted here, as I noted above, in an intentional chiastic pairing with the ἐγὼ that opens the sequence: ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον καὶ εὑρέθη μοι .. "it became evident in my case that the life-giving commandment was death-dealing."
Thanks for the discussion. As far as I can tell, your suggested translation and your explanation seem to be at some odds with each other, and I like your rendition (adverbial "in my case") much better. So, can μοι be some kind of an ethical dative or dative or reference/respect, as "in my case" suggests?

I don't technically consider the μοι to be fronted, because it is found after the verb and in the Wackernagel position just like a well-behaved clausal clitic should. I do think that μοι designates the topic of the clause (if that's what you mean by emphasis) and an ethical dative / dative of respect/reference is perfectly suited for that: "I died, and, in my case, the life-giving commandment, well, it turned out to be death-dealing."
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: The Dative in Rom 7:10 καὶ εὑρέθη *μοι* ἡ ἐντολὴ

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Carlson wrote:Thanks for the discussion. As far as I can tell, your suggested translation and your explanation seem to be at some odds with each other, and I like your rendition (adverbial "in my case") much better. So, can μοι be some kind of an ethical dative or dative or reference/respect, as "in my case" suggests?

I don't technically consider the μοι to be fronted, because it is found after the verb and in the Wackernagel position just like a well-behaved clausal clitic should. I do think that μοι designates the topic of the clause (if that's what you mean by emphasis) and an ethical dative / dative of respect/reference is perfectly suited for that: "I died, and, in my case, the life-giving commandment, well, it turned out to be death-dealing."
I do think I'd call this "a dative of reference" (I've always been a little puzzled by the term "ethical" or "ethic" -- that old phrasing puzzles me even more!) and I would definitely construe it with εἰς θάνατον. I do not think it's a "dative subject of a passive verb."
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: The Dative in Rom 7:10 καὶ εὑρέθη *μοι* ἡ ἐντολὴ

Post by David Lim »

cwconrad wrote:It's noteworthy that the lexicographer (I don't know whether this is Danker or one of the earlier editors) clearly views the μοι in Rom 7:10 as understood with εἰς θάνατον; I think that's true (and so I don't think that it's the dative with a passive verb( , but I think that the μοι is fronted here, as I noted above, in an intentional chiastic pairing with the ἐγὼ that opens the sequence: ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον καὶ εὑρέθη μοι .. "it became evident in my case that the life-giving commandment was death-dealing."
I also read it similarly: "moreover I died, and [it] was found [to be the case] for me [that] this commandment for life [was] for death" or less idiomatically as I would prefer it: "moreover I died, and this commandment for life was found to me [to be] for death". Is the demonstrative "αυτη" modifying "η εντολη η εις ζωην" as I understood it, or is it functioning as the subject?
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The Dative in Rom 7:10 καὶ εὑρέθη *μοι* ἡ ἐντολὴ

Post by Stephen Carlson »

I view the demonstrative αὕτη as resuming the left-dislocated subject ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, which is attached to the subject of εὑρέθη in a kind of prolepsis. Paul is making a connection between two bits of information, a commandment intended for one purpose and its actual result, and he partitions the introduction of these elements into two separate intonation units to assist the audience's processing of his argument.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Iver Larsen
Posts: 127
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am

Re: The Dative in Rom 7:10 καὶ εὑρέθη *μοι* ἡ ἐντολὴ

Post by Iver Larsen »

Carl quoted a portion from BDAG. It comes under sense 2:
② to discover intellectually through reflection, observation, examination, or investigation, find, discover,
Further down in this entry, we read:
Pass. εὑρέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν I have let myself be found by those who did not seek me Ro 10:20 (Is 65:1).—As נִמְצָא be found, appear, prove, be shown (to be)

So, BDAG (and BAGD) agree that this is a passive rather than middle. However, I find it more helpful to look at this from a semantic point of view. This is a verb of perception. When the verb is used in the active form, the object will express the Patient role (what is perceived/found) and the subject will express the perceiver, but the semantic role is an Experiencer, not an Agent. When the verb is changed to passive, the Patient role is expressed as subject. An Experiencer (or we could even call them perceivers) are regularly expressed in the dative when they do not appear in the subject slot. Sometimes an ἐν is added as P46 and B did in Rom 10:20:

Εὑρέθην [ἐν] τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν,
ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν.

Whether an ἐν is there or not does not change the meaning. In both cases, I would say that this dative expresses the Experiencer. The difference between εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ (the commandment was found/discovered by me) and εὗρον τὴν ἐντολὴν (I found/discovered) is in my view a matter of slight emphasis. With the passive, the focus is on the verb more than on the perceiver as well as what is perceived.

So, I don't see a good reason not to see the dative as expressing the Experiencer of the discovery. When the εὑρίσκω verb is changed to a passive construction, the Patient role becomes the subject and the Experiencer is expressed in the Dative, although it is often implicit.

In Acts 8.40 Φίλιππος δὲ εὑρέθη εἰς Ἄζωτον Philip is the Patient, who was found/discovered. The Experiencer is not mentioned. It might be himself in which case we could call the verb middle, or it might be others who found him there.

In Gal 2:17 εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί (We, too, were found as sinners) it is the Judaizers who believe Paul and his group to be sinners, not Paul himself. αὐτοὶ is subject in the Patient role while the Experiencer is not stated.

In Rev 20:11 καὶ τόπος οὐχ εὑρέθη αὐτοῖς the place is subject and in Patient role while the Experiencer is in Dative. They found no place.

Iver Larsen
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”