εὐ̂ με?ντοι ἰ?στε, πα̂σαν ὑμι̂ν τὴν ἀλη?θειαν ἐ?ω̂.
Why is “pasan” not in the attributive position, i.e. the whole truth or the entire truth. Both Jowett and Rouse translate it this way, but, as Plato wrote it, shouldn’t it be translated “every truth”?
Roughly speaking, in the attributive position, πᾶς is used to indicate a totality, while in the predicative position, it simply indicates all, so maybe you could say πᾶσα ἡ ἀλήθεια = “all the truth” and ἡ πᾶσα ἀλήθεια = “the truth as a whole” – although, there isn’t really a large difference when it comes to singular nouns. The LSJ entry is not too clear, but it does say:
B. with the Art., in the sense of all, the whole, when the Subst. is to be strongly specified, πᾶς being put either before the Art. or after the Subst., πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμιν all his force, Hdt.1.214; τὰ ἀγαθὰ πάντα X.An.3.1.20 (s. v. l.): with abstract Nouns and others which require the Art., πάντα τὰ μέλλοντα A.Pr.101; πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν Th.6.87; τὰ τῆς πόλεως π. all the affairs of state, Lys. 19.48, etc.: emphatically, τὰς νέας τὰς πάσας Hdt.7.59.
It’s unlikely to be “every truth” though, because the “every” meaning rarely occurs with the definite article.
I really do not see a difference between “all” and the “whole,” either, but grammar texts make a point of distinguishing between the two positions with “pan” and I was just wondering why Plato would put it in the predicate position, if he had a specific reason for doing so.
I think the difference is clearer with plural nouns, where you have πάντες οἱ πολῖται = “all the citizens individually” vs. οἱ πάντες πολῖται = “all the citizens as a whole”, but now that I write that, it still seems like a fairly subtle distinction. But my impression is that abstract nouns usually have πᾶς in the predicative position, so this seems pretty normal to me here.