pe,sh| — It seems to me that this clause could alternatively be
diagrammed as an object clause for blepe,tw. 1Co 10:16 to.n a;rton — It is odd to have an accusative-case noun diagrammed as subject of a finite verb. However, Robertson (Word Pictures) takes this as an instance of inverse attraction with the relative pronoun; that is, the antecedent is attracted to the case of the relative rather than the more common vice-versa. What makes this instance especially unusual, for the New Testament, at least, is that it crosses the boundary between the nominative case and the oblique cases. Ordinarily attraction occurs among the oblique cases (genitive, dative, and accusative), especially where an accusative-case object is attracted to one of the other cases. Given the position of ouvci, within each of the verse’s two clauses, it is attractive to consider a;rton (and the first clause’s corresponding poth,rion) as a pendent construction. But even viewing the clauses so does not resolve the question of why a;rton (and by analogy apparently poth,rion as well) should be accusative rather than nominative. Apparently the puzzlement is only mine, however. NA27 shows no textual variation at this point, so the scribes must have thought the construction entirely natural. 1Co 10:12 mh. pe,sh| — It seems to me that this clause could alternatively be diagrammed as an object clause for blepe,tw. 1Co 10:16 to.n a;rton — It is odd to have an accusative-case noun diagrammed as subject of a finite verb. However, Robertson (Word Pictures) takes this as an instance of inverse attraction with the relative pronoun; that is, the antecedent is attracted to the case of the relative rather than the more common vice-versa. What makes this instance especially unusual, for the New Testament, at least, is that it crosses the boundary between the nominative case and the oblique cases. Ordinarily attraction occurs among the oblique cases (genitive, dative, and accusative), especially where an accusative-case object is attracted to one of the other cases. Given the position of ouvci, within each of the verse’s two clauses, it is attractive to consider a;rton (and the first clause’s corresponding poth,rion) as a pendent construction. But even viewing the clauses so does not resolve the question of why a;rton (and by analogy apparently poth,rion as well) should be accusative rather than nominative. Apparently the puzzlement is only mine, however. NA27 shows no textual variation at this point, so the scribes must have thought the construction entirely natural.