Re: MALLON DE (Galatians 4:9)

Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Sun, 19 Jan 1997 07:35:08 -0600

At 3:23 AM -0600 1/19/97, Eric Weiss wrote:
>Galatians 4:9
>
>...NUN DE GNONTES QEON, MALLON DE GNWSQENTES hUPO QEOU...
>
>The usual translation "but now that you have come to know God, or rather
>to be known by God" (NASB, similar to others) bothers me. It's like Paul
>is saying that the Galatians had never really known God (his choices of
>GINWSKW vs. OIDA in this letter seem to be deliberate) - yet that would
>seem to be contrary to the points he makes about them being sons, and
>encouraging them to walk in the Spirit.
>
>Anyway, comparing this to Romans 8:34
>
>...XRISTOS IHSOUS O APOQANWN, MALLON DE EGERQEIS, hOS KAI ESTIN EN DEXIA
>TOU QEOU...
>
>which the NASB translates "Christ Jesus is he who died, yes, rather who
>was raised, who is at the right hand of God," it seems to me that based
>on these two verses at least, MALLON DE might mean something like "but
>more [than this]," making Galatians 4:9 mean something like "but now
>that you have come to know God - but more than this, that you have come
>to be known by God - i.e., you both know God AND - BETTER THAN THIS -
>ARE ALSO KNOWN BY HIM (which when combined achieve the ne plus ultra of
>human experience - i.e., the reason you were created) - how is it that
>you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things...?" It
>seems to me that if they had never really GINWSKW-ed God, but had only
>been GINWSKW-ed by him, the apostle wouldn't or shouldn't have been so
>surprised that they were returning to their former behavior - unless
>he's being sarcastic here (which I wouldn't put past Paul), except I
>don't think sarcasm in this clause supports his incredulity and dismay.
>
>BAGD support the traditional translation, saying MALLON DE in these
>verses "introduces an expr. or thought that supplements and thereby
>corrects what has preceded" (MALLON p. 489, 3.d.), so maybe I'm just
>wishing the translation could be something other than what everyone says
>it is.
>
>Is there any support for my thoughts?

Eric: While I don't think BAGD is wrong on this, I nevertheless agree with
you that Paul's use of the expression MALLON DE in these instances does not
indicate any intention to annul the first expression; rather (MALLON DE ;-)
) it indicates a preference for the second expression as being more to the
point than the first one, which is by no means necessarily or even probably
false; it seems to me that Paul's mental process typically jumps to what
occurs to him, by power of suggestion, to be an even better way of saying
what he means, and often of indicating his conviction that the initiative
in matters between God and individual or community lies always with God.
It's also, I would say, a rhetorical device which probably has been given a
name that I don't know (something like EPILHPSIS? I'd call it "capping it"
or "topping it"). Two examples come readily to mind:

(1) Phil 3:12 OUC hOTI HDH ELABON H HDH TETELEIWMAI, DIWKW DE EI KAI
KATALABW, EF' hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN ... Here he starts with the simple aorist
ELABON ("I reached it"), then as he begins his racing metaphor, he shifts
over to the compound in the subjunctive KATALABW ("to grasp, if at all
possible") and then shifts rhetorically into the passive of that same verb
in EF' hWi KAI KATELHMFQHN ("for which I have even been grasped") in order,
I believe, to underscore the paradoxical mutuality of human endeavor and
divine initiative in the process of salvation.

(2) 1 Cor 13:12 ARTI GINWSKW EK MEROUS. TOTE DE EPIGNWSOMAI KAQWS KAI
EPEGNWSQHN. This is the consummation of the thread against proto-gnostic
tendencies in the Corinthian congregation, the thread that runs through the
whole letter ranging from subtle suggestive undermining (beginning even in
the Thanksgiving at 1:5 EPLOUTISQHTE ... EN PASHi GNWSEI--which phrase
I've suggested previously in this forum appears to me to be loaded with
irony) to straightforward comparison and contrast of GNWSIS and AGAPH (in
chapters 8 and 10--although that word doesn't appear in 10, the argument is
parallel to that in chapter 8) through the discussion of PNEUMATIKA to this
sublime phrasing in 13:12, where again we have the simplex GINWSKW, then
the compound in the active: EPIGNWSOMAI, and finally the passive
EPEGNWSQHN. (It now occurs to me tha the rhetorical term for this is
"Climax").

At any rate, I think Paul's use of MALLON DE and shift to the passive in
these instances is a characteristic rhetorical device intended not to annul
the force of the active so much as to underscore the importance of the
divine initiative in the salvation process.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/