ὑμει̂ς δὲ λέγετε ̔̀Ος ἂν εἴπῃ τῳ̂ πατ?ὶ ἢ τῃ̂ μητ?ί Δω̂?ον ὃ ?ὰν ?ξ ?μου̂ ὠφεληθῃ̂ς, [6] ο? μὴ τιμήσει τὸν πατέ?α α?του̂:
Matthew15.5-6
is the accusative “o ean” used here as an adverbial accusative of degree, i.e. “…to whatever extent you may gain advantage from me…”?
I’m not sure about this verse, but I in the main clause, the only way I can see to read it is as δῶ?ον [?στὶν τοῦτο] ὃ ?ᾶν… so taking it as degree doesn’t seem to fit in the larger clause.
In the relative clause, I understand at is as some kind of object of ὠφεληθῇς, which would mean something like “receive as help” or “derive benefit from/by” (or maybe even simply “acquire”). Sort of like an extension of πολλὰ ὠφελεῖν τινα. So “whatever you might receive as help from me”.
I looked in LSJ, though, and did not see any evidence of the aorist passive having an object in the accusative. The whole verse is confusing to me, and I’ve looked at several commentaries on it.
I think that the relative pronoun is nominative and is the subject of ὠφελήθης and that it is in apposition to δῶ?ον. δῶ?ον would be nominative because of the implied ?στιν. I am willing to be corrected though.
Well, the LSJ has “esp. of troops, acquire booty, πολλὰ πα?ὰ τὴν στ?ατείαν ὠ. Plu.Cat.Ma.10;” although πολλὰ is probably not a direct object here. But the passive forms already had a middle meaning in Classical Greek so it wouldn’t be all that strange for them to be construed with a direct object. I agree that it’s an odd verse but I’m not sure how else to understand it.
It also seems to have been understood this way in ancient times. Here’s a commentary on this verse (based on a passage from John Chrysostom):
Τί ?στιν, “ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ πατ?ὶ ἢ τῇ μητ?ὶ δῶ?ον, ὃ ?ὰν ?ξ “?μοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, καὶ ο? τιμήσῃ τὸν πατέ?α ἑαυτοῦ;? ?παίδευσαν τοὺς νέους, ε?σεβείας σχήματι, καταφ?ονεῖν τῶν γονέων· οἷον, εἴ τις εἶπεν τῷ ἰδίῳ υἱῷ· δός μοι τὸ π?όβατον, ὃ ἔχεις, ἢ τὸν μόσχον, ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον, ἔλεγε π?ὸς πατέ?α, δῶ?όν ?στι τῷ Θεῷ τοῦτο, ὃ θέλεις ?ξ ?μοῦ ὠφεληθῆναι, καὶ ο? δ?νασαι λαβεῖν·
This has the same issue with ὃ and the passive of ὠφελῶ but I think the context is clearer for what is meant