[B-Greek] Acts 26:2-3
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Mon Feb 4 13:28:06 EST 2008
On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Conrad"
> <cwconrad2 at mac.com>> By virtue of its initial position in the
> sentence and common usage
>> MALISTA will always govern the whole sentence that follows. And I
>> don't think the meaning of MALISTA is adequately rendered by "in
>> as much as", but corresponds better to English "especially". BAGD
>> suggest the following glosses: "most of all, above all, especially,
>> particularly, (very) greatly."
>> So, MALISTA may govern the implied verb hHGHMAI carried over from
>> the previous clause, or it may govern the implied EPISTAMENOS plus
>> what that verb governs. This could be expressed by something like
>> (1) I am especially fortunate (to defend myself before you),
>> because I know that you are en expert in Jewish matters or (2) I
>> am fortunate, especially because (I know that) you are an expert
>> in Jewish matters. I prefer (1), but it doesn't make much
>> difference to the meaning.
>
> [Carl:] I never meant to imply that MALISTA means "inasmuch as. What I
> suggested for the whole phrase MALISTA GNWSTHN ONTA SE was "inasmuch
> as you are especially knowledgeable ... " -- I intended MALISTA to be
> represented by "especially" -- and I still believe that MALISTA
> governs the clause GNWSTHN ONTA SE ... ZHTHMATWN rather than the
> entire following sentence.
>
> BDAG s.v. MALISTA (omitting the references preceding comments on our
> passage in particular):
> 1. to an unusual degree, most of all, above all, especially,
> particularly, (very) greatly ... . μ. γνώστην ὄντα σε
> since you are outstandingly familiar Ac 26:3 (cp. Appian, Bell. Civ.
> 2, 26 §100 ὁ μάλιστα ἐχθρός=the bitterest enemy).
>
> Iver:
> Sorry that I didn't read your post carefully enough. Also, I had not
> noticed that BDAG (and BAGD) suggest that the adverb governs GNWSTHN
> ONTA, which in my opinion is a mistake, probably because they missed
> the participle EPISTAMENOS and therefore had problems understanding
> the whole sentence.
Iver, it's hardly that they "missed the participle EPISTAMENOS"; do
you really think that these translators didn't pay any attention to
the textual apparatus and were unaware of the variant EPISTAMENOS? I
think rather that they simply didn't accept that variant, just as the
NA27 editors didn't.
> This does not agree with normal usage of MALISTA in the GNT. I
> notice that NET and (N)RSV, but not most other translations, have
> followed the dictionary here and gone astray. MALLON, Paul is saying
> that he is especially fortunate, knowing that Agrippa is familiar
> with the Jewish customs. In this case I believe KJV got it right:
> "Especially [because I know] thee to be expert in all customs and
> questions which are among the Jews."
(1) The normal usage of MALISTA in the GNT is not really an adequate
criterion; the GNT is not an adequate textual corpus for this sort of
question; but even so, (2) the listing of examples of usage of MALISTA
in the GNT in your message of February 3, 2008 8:57:45 AM EST argues
-- questionably, in my view -- the proposition that in each instance
MALISTA governs a clause with a verb implicit from the preceding
clause. I would argue these cases differently, preferring to
understand the MALISTA, even with the implicit verb, as governing
adverbially the particular noun or phrase in the repeated clause:
> Act 25:26 DIO PROHGAGON AUTON EF' hUMWN,
> KAI MALISTA [PROHGAGON AUTON] EPI SOU, BASILEU AGRIPPA
> That is why I brought him before y'all and especially [why I brought
> him] before you, king Agrippa
I'd see this as "[why I brought him] before YOU in particular, King
Agrippa"
> Gal 6:10 ERGAZWMEQA TON AGAQON PROS PANTAS,
> MALISTA DE [ERGAZWMEQA TON AGAQON] PROS TOUS OIKEIOUS THS PISTHS
> We should do good towards all people, but especially [we should do
> good] towards fellow believers
(a) I think it's TO AGAQON; (b) I'd see this as "We should do good
TOWARDS FELLOW BELIEVERS in particular."
i.e., I think that the qualifying force of MALISTA falls especially
upon what immediately follows it.
But enough. I think we've made our different takes upon the question
of Acts 26:3 sufficiently clear. Nor do I intend to marshal the number
of translations supporting the alternative takes against each other as
having any probative force, beyond demonstrating that there are real
differences of opinion on the matter and that the translators
themselves are not in full agreement over the matter.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list