Abbott-Smith note on γινώσκω vs οἶδα

[Stephen Carlson]

No, not really. οἶδα simply has the same range of meaning, or close to it, as our English "know." It's used frequently and commonly in Greek in this sense, and it's normally used as a present tense despite it's o-grade perfect stem (Yes, Stephen, if you are reading this, although my earlier discussion on this I was more interested in historical development than synchronic usage).

What's the earlier discussion?

[Jason Hare]

But a "inherently" verb does not exist.
Only the verb + contest are existing

What said Emile Benveniste about this verb?

Two things from this post don’t quite make sense to me. Can you tell us what “a[n] ‘inherently’ verb” means? Also, what is “verb + contest”? Do you mean to say “context”?

Thanks!

[anuswara]

You should ask this to Barry Hofstetter.

[sosthenes_hoadelphos]

Hi
I am the author of the article referenced by your contributor. http://adayofsmallthings.com/ginosko-and-oida/.

I am neither a Greek scholar nor a theologian - just a simple lover of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have learned enough to follow the scriptures in the original. I have a question though:

Why does our Lord use ‘ginosko’ in John 17:3? – ‘This is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent./ αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν, καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν’. Our Lord’s desires is that we might have an intimate knowledge of God, formed by a personal relationship. Why is this not οἶδα/oida?

Greetings in His Name
Sosthenes

[Stirling Bartholomew]

I have a question though:

Why does our Lord use ‘ginosko’ in John 17:3? – ‘This is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent./ αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν, καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν’. Our Lord’s desires is that we might have an intimate knowledge of God, formed by a personal relationship. Why is this not οἶδα/oida?

I haven't read the entire thread dating back to whenever. I will just address your question alone.

It looks like L&N see a difference between γινώσκω vs οἶδα. L&N draw a distinction in that οἶδα is not included in 27.18

27.18 γινώσκωc: to learn to know a person through direct personal experience, implying a continuity of relationship — ‘to know, to become acquainted with, to be familiar with.’ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν ‘then we are sure that we know him’ 1Jn 2:3; ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν ‘for people to know you, the only true God’ Jn 17:3. In translating γινώσκω in Jn 17:3, it is important to avoid an expression which will mean merely ‘to learn about.’ Here the emphasis must be on the interpersonal relationship which is experienced.

L&N shows a contrast to another kind of knowing:

28.1 γινώσκωa; οἶδαa; γνωρίζωa; γνῶσιςa, εως f: to possess information about — ‘to know, to know about, to have knowledge of, to be acquainted with, acquaintance.’

See also in Matthew 7:23 where Jesus uses ἔγνων in the first sense implying emphasis on the interpersonal relationship.

Matt. 7:22 πολλοὶ ἐροῦσίν μοι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ· κύριε κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐπροφητεύσαμεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν, καὶ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι δυνάμεις πολλὰς ἐποιήσαμεν; 23 καὶ τότε ὁμολογήσω αὐτοῖς ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς· ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν.

Henry Alford on Jn 17:3

The knowledge spoken of is no mere head or heart knowledge,—the mere information of the mind, or excitation of the feelings,—but that living reality of knowledge and personal realization,—that oneness in will with God, and partaking of His nature, which is itself life eternal:—the knowledge, love, enjoyment, of Him who is infinite, being themselves infinite. ἡ ὕπαρξις τῆς ζωῆς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ περιγίνεται μετοχῆς· μετοχὴ δὲ θεοῦ ἐστι τὸ γινώσκειν θεὸν καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ. adv. Hær. iv. 20. 5, p. 254.

It is possible that L&N are not in total agreement with BDAG on this.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

It is possible that L&N are not in total agreement with BDAG on this.

Here is the data according to Danker:

BDAG οἶδα p693 §2 standing in close relationship, to know
Samples:

Matt. 26:72 καὶ πάλιν ἠρνήσατο μετὰ ὅρκου ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 73 μετὰ μικρὸν δὲ προσελθόντες οἱ ἑστῶτες εἶπον τῷ Πέτρῳ· ἀληθῶς καὶ σὺ ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ, καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ. 74 τότε ἤρξατο καταθεματίζειν καὶ ὀμνύειν ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. καὶ εὐθέως ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν.

Mark 14:71 ὁ δὲ ἤρξατο ἀναθεματίζειν καὶ ὀμνύναι ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦτον ὃν λέγετε.

Luke 22:57 ὁ δὲ ἠρνήσατο λέγων· οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν, γύναι.

2Cor. 5:16 Ὥστε ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κατὰ σάρκα· εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν.

Matt. 26:72 (NRSV) Again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” 73 After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” 74 Then he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know the man!” At that moment the cock crowed.

Mark 14:71 (NRSV) But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know this man you are talking about.”

Luke 22:57 (NRSV) But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.”

2Cor. 5:16 (NRSV)   From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way.

BDAG οἶδα p693 §2 to know God
Samples:

2Th. 1:8 ἐν πυρὶ φλογός, διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσιν θεὸν καὶ τοῖς μὴ ὑπακούουσιν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ,

Titus 1:16 θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται, βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι.

John 7:28 ἔκραξεν οὖν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ λέγων· κἀμὲ οἴδατε καὶ οἴδατε πόθεν εἰμί· καὶ ἀπ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλήλυθα, ἀλλ᾿ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς ὁ πέμψας με, ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε·

John 8:14 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· κἂν ἐγὼ μαρτυρῶ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ, ἀληθής ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία μου, ὅτι οἶδα πόθεν ἦλθον καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγω· ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ οἴδατε πόθεν ἔρχομαι ἢ ποῦ ὑπάγω.

2Th. 1:8 (NRSV) in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Titus 1:16 (NRSV) They profess to know God, but they deny him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

John 7:28 (NRSV) Then Jesus cried out as he was teaching in the temple, “You know me, and you know where I am from. I have not come on my own. But the one who sent me is true, and you do not know him.

John 8:14 (NRSV) Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid because I know where I have come from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.

*********************

It doesn't look to me like most of these qualify as strong examples of what L&N is talking about in 27.18 γινώσκω.

27.18 γινώσκωc: to learn to know a person through direct personal experience, implying a continuity of relationship — ‘to know, to become acquainted with, to be familiar with.’ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν ‘then we are sure that we know him’ 1Jn 2:3; ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν ‘for people to know you, the only true God’ Jn 17:3. In translating γινώσκω in Jn 17:3, it is important to avoid an expression which will mean merely ‘to learn about.’ Here the emphasis must be on the interpersonal relationship which is experienced.

The samples of Peter's denial are semantically ambiguous. John 7:28, 8:14 appear to be counter examples. Not sure if the to know God examples are any less ambiguous. Probably evidence that I getting tired and need to go take a walk.

[Jason Hare]

Stirling,

I don't know if it's just by chance, but I was able with all of the instances you quoted to say "know who x is" and have the sentence make sense.

I personally read γι(γ)νώσκειν as knowing someone in the sense of having a familiarity with them (which comes from experience) and οἶδα to have a knowledge in your mind regarding the person.

γινώσκω τὸν πατέρα - I know my father (because we are family, etc.).
οἶδα τὸν ἄνδρα - I know (who) the man (is). (I've heard of him and could recognize him.)

When Peter denies Jesus, he isn't just denying that he had a relationship with him, he's denying that he would recognize him or that he has even heard of him.

That's how I read it, anyway.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

For what it's worth...

In Finnish we have two words, "tietää" and "tuntea".

"Tietää" usually means "to know, have knowledge about" (cognitively). For example in "I know how it goes", "I knew this would happen", "I know elephants are animals", "I know the answer" etc.

"Tuntea" means usually "to feel" (experientally), for example "I feel like I'm ill", "I feel some vibrations" etc. The related words are used for example "feelings" or "it feels good/bad", "this pillow feels soft".

When used for human relationships these two words are used in strictly different senses: "tietää" means that I know who someone is but I'm not personally familiar with him. "Tuntea" means that I'm personally familiar with him. I can for example say that "I know him but I don't know him", i.e. I know who we are talking about but I haven't talked to him personally or at least the meeting has been short and maybe he doesn't even remember me. If I use the word "tuntea", "I know him", it always implies having been personally in touch with him in some way. It's practically impossible to use "tuntea" without qualification if I have for example written a biography about some late person who I haven't met, even if have more knowledge about him than his relatives and friends do. They knew ("tuntea") him, I didn't.

However, it would be an exegetical fallacy to talk about "intimacy" when talking about these Finnish words. "Tuntea" (know personally) may be superficial knowing and "tietää" (knowing about) can be more intimate than knowing personally. People tend to theologize and overemphasize such notions when we are talking about Greek.