Abbott-Smith note on γινώσκω vs οἶδα

[Jonathan Robie]

How accurate do you think this note is?

γινώσκω, to know by observation and experience is thus prop. distinguished from οἶδα, to know by reflection (a mental process, based on intuition or information)

[cwconrad]

How accurate do you think this note is?

γινώσκω, to know by observation and experience is thus prop. distinguished from οἶδα, to know by reflection (a mental process, based on intuition or information)

I've often thought that the clearest distinction between ἰδεῖν/εἰδέναι and γι(γ)νώσκειν/γνῶναι is in line 3 of the proem of the Odyssey

πολλῶν δʼ ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔγνω.

Sight-seeing is the work of a tourist, learning the mind of a human being requires the mind of a connoisseur.

On the other hand, I've seen more than one passage where the distinction between ἰδεῖν/εἰδέναι and γι(γ)νώσκειν/γνῶναι is not so clear-cut, after all. Many of us (not all, of course) agree that there's an overlap of meaning between ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν -- even -- or especially -- in John 21 in the celebrated dialogue of Jesus with Peter. Perhaps it is only if and when we do lexicography in the abstract that word-meanings are "crystal-clear." Sometime "usage" seems to be "confusage."

[Jean Putmans]

Hello all,

Reading 1 Kor 2:11 I stumbled over the question οιδεν / εγνωκεν.

Searching the internet pointed me to this thread (and to http://adayofsmallthings.com/ginosko-and-oida/ ).

I wonder, if the people in the centuries of the Early Christianity still made this distinction.

I've found 45 quotations of 1 KOR 2:11 in my (very raw) database of Migne PG: 25 of them have οιδεν, 20 have εγνωκεν (or some other form of γινωσκω, paraphrasing the Paulus-Text made that sometimes necessary).

So probably this distinction wasn't made in those times any more.

Regards
Jean Putmans

[Jacob Rhoden]

How accurate do you think this note is?

γινώσκω, to know by observation and experience is thus prop. distinguished from οἶδα, to know by reflection (a mental process, based on intuition or information)

I seem to recall that Porter (1989) suggested that some believe the distinction doesn't carry into the time of the New Testament. I've not done a systematic study. I am not sure the distinction is clear in at least some instances in the New Testament. It would lead to some interesting exegesis though, i.e.:

John 8:55 καὶ οὐκ ἐγνώκατε αὐτόν, ἐγὼ δὲ οἶδα αὐτόν. κἂν εἴπω ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν, ἔσομαι ὅμοιος ὑμῖν ψεύστης· ἀλλὰ οἶδα αὐτὸν καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τηρῶ.

Does John intend to suggest that the Pharisee's have not literally seen or experienced the Father. But Jesus knows based on intuition the father.

I do think that Porter is right to engage in the discussion of the distinction here, as his verbal model predicts other reasons that John may have chosen γινώσκω over οἶδα.

[anuswara]

εἰ ἐγνώκειτέ με, καὶ τὸν πατέρα μου ἂν ἤδειτε: ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτὸν καὶ ἑωράκατε.
John Gospel 14.7

[Barry Hofstetter]

Hello all,

Reading 1 Kor 2:11 I stumbled over the question οιδεν / εγνωκεν.

Searching the internet pointed me to this thread (and to http://adayofsmallthings.com/ginosko-and-oida/ ).

I wonder, if the people in the centuries of the Early Christianity still made this distinction.

I've found 45 quotations of 1 KOR 2:11 in my (very raw) database of Migne PG: 25 of them have οιδεν, 20 have εγνωκεν (or some other form of γινωσκω, paraphrasing the Paulus-Text made that sometimes necessary).

So probably this distinction wasn't made in those times any more.

Regards
Jean Putmans

Since this old thread has resurfaced, quoting Jean's response above. There has always been sufficient semantic overlap between these that the "traditional" distinction tends to break down in usage. This is especially true in later Greek as witnessed by the colloquia and the papyri.

[anuswara]

In John passage quoted by me, the distinction is remarked.
I guess:
OIDA = I know because I have seen, but I did not see with my eyes but with my heart.

[anuswara]

Please put my posts into one, thanks.

John 14.7.

analysis #1:
gignosko + oida + gignosko + oraw. ok?

then, If you start from oida (I know because I have seen throgh my mind/heart - because only Adam+Eva were able to see God Father with their own eyes...before the Original sin, ok?) + the Hypothetic period IV type [fully ignored by the CEI translators!!] is employed because the Eucaristia was not discovered yet....only "now" during the latest dinner the Eucatistia has been discovered, ok?
analysis #2: if you start from oida (i.e. from the God not from Christ), you got:

you would had seen (l'avreste visto), therefore (now) you would know (lo conoscereste); but dont worry because now (just after discovering the sacred bread) you have just seen (l'avete visto) God and you are knowing/meeting him (to seen is not exactly to know):

so in analysis #1 we see a parallelism (ABAB), in analysis #2 we see a logical chiasmos (ABBA); I suppose that it is an Hysteron-prwteron: firsly I see/meet hin, THEN I am a bit knowing him: present = continous action, (then I know him).

So...gignosko (here at least) is something physically that required my real experience (I eat the bread!!), then this bread let me to feel ("seen") animadverto/intellego/oida the God.

[Barry Hofstetter]

In John passage quoted by me, the distinction is remarked.
I guess:
OIDA = I know because I have seen, but I did not see with my eyes but with my heart.

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). Any idea of "heart" or "eyes" would have to be derived from the context, not "inherently" from the verb itself. As an example, here's a line from the Colloquium Harleianum 10.b:

καὶ οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι ἀργίαι τοὺς παῖδας ἀπιδεύτους ποιοῦσιν, "and you don't know that the holidays make boys ignorant."

The Colloquia are ancient teaching texts, usually teaching Greek speakers Latin. Interestingly enough, the Latin renders οἶδας with nescis, a present tense form.

[anuswara]

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

What said Emile Benveniste about this verb?