Ginosko and Oida

J N Darby and Strong on the Difference between Ginosko and Oida

J N Darby’s explanation of the two words for ‘Know’

Two words for ‘Know’

 

Two Greek words, Ginosko and Oida are used for ‘to know’ in the New Testament – γινώσκω/ ginóskó/Strong 1097and οἶδα/eidó (or oida) Strong 1492. The former signifies objective knowledge, what a man has learned or acquired. The English expression ‘being acquainted with’ perhaps conveys the meaning. Oἶδα/Oidaconveys the thought of what is inward, the inward consciousness in the mind, intuitive knowledge not immediately derived from what is external.

The difference between the two words is illustrated in John 8.55, ‘Ye know [γινώσκω/ ginóskó/Strong 1097] Him not, but I know[οἶδα/oida/Strong 1492]Him.’ Again, in John 13.7, ‘What I do thou dost not know [οἶδα/oida/Strong 1492]now, but thou shalt know [γινώσκω/ ginóskó/Strong 1097] hereafter.’ And finally in Heb 8.11, ‘They shall not teach . . . saying, Know [γινώσκω/ ginóskó/Strong 1097]) the Lord; because all shall know [οἶδα/oida/Strong 1492]me.’ The word [οἶδα/oida/Strong 1492]is used of Christ as knowing the Father, and as knowing the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees, of Paul’s knowledge of ‘a man in Christ,’ (2 Cor 2:12) and of the Christian’s knowledge that he has eternal life, and the knowledge of God Himself.

The words for ‘know’ are different in 1 Cor 8., though the distinction is very faint in Greek.

Verse 1′ We all have knowledge’ is of objective knowledge: γνῶσις/gnósis/Strong 1108[i]. ‘ Knowledge [the same word] puffs up.

Verse 2 ‘If any one think he knows[εἰδέναι/eidenai/Strong 1492– has the inward conscious knowledge of in his mind]anything, he
knows[ἔγνωκε/egnoke/Strong 1097– objectively]nothing yet as he ought to
know[same word] it. But if any one love God, he is
known[ἔγνωσται/egnōstai/Strong 1097]of him.

Verse 3 ‘Concerning eating things offered to idols, we know’[οἴδαμεν/oidamen/Strong 1492 have the conscious knowledge in our minds].

Verse 10, ‘ If any one see thee, which hast knowledge’ [γνῶσιν/gnōsin/Strong 1108objectively, what a man has learned, acquired].  So verse 11 ‘The brother for whose sake Christ died, will perish through thy knowledge’.

Hence from the word meaning ‘ inward conscious knowledge,’ a. derivative ‘means ‘conscience.’  1 Cor 4:4 – ‘For I know [σύνοιδα/synoida/Strong 4894]  nothing against myself[ii]am conscious of no fault.

2 Tim 1:12:  ‘I know [οἴδα/oida/Strong 1492] whom I have believed.’ I have the inward conscious knowledge of who the person is.It is not just, ‘ I know him.’

I know whom I have believed,’ 2 Tim 1.12– I have the inward conscious knowledge of who the person is. Read also 1 Cor 16.15,

In 2 Tim 3:14-15continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing[εἰδὼς/eidōs/Strong 1492) of whom thou hast learned them [he was conscious of it]; And that from a child thou hast known [οἶδας/oidas/Strong 1492he had the knowledge of them in his own mind realised] the holy scriptures’.  All these verses refer to inward conscious knowledge.  The difference between the significance of the two words is often slight and objective knowledge may pass into conscious knowledge, but not vice versa.

Ginosko and Oida are expressed by savoir and connaître in French, wissen and kennen in German. Though the difference is made in French and German, it must not be supposed that the distinct use of the words corresponds exactly, but it suffices here to have shown the use in Greek. The German seems to me to answer more fully to the Greek, but different nations think differently. Thus, ‘Ye know [οἴδατε/oidate/ Strong 1492] the household of Stephanas (1 Cor 16:7).’ It was their inward acquaintance with their qualities, not objective.  Of such a process the French incapable.  It must be ‘vous connaissez, or explicitly ‘vous savez ce qui en est de’.

ἐπίγνωσις/epignósis/Strong 1922is used for certain objective knowledge, and consequent recognition of the truth of a thing e.g. ‘the knowledge of the Son of God’(Eph 4:13), or ‘the acknowledging of the truth, (2 Tim 2:25)

A combination of Darby’s footnote to 1 Cor 8.1, taken from both the 1890 and 1961 editions.

Strong’s Explanations and HELPS Word-studies

 

  1. eidó

 

eidó: be aware, behold, consider, perceive

Original Word: οἶδα
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: eidó
Phonetic Spelling: (i’-do)
Short Definition: I know, remember
Definition: I know, remember, appreciate.

1492 eídō (oida) – properly, to see with physical eyes (cf. Ro 1:11), as it naturally bridges to the metaphorical sense: perceiving (“mentally seeing“). This is akin to the expressions: “I see what You mean”; “I see what you are saying.”

1492 /eídō (“seeing that becomes knowing“) then is a gateway to grasp spiritual truth (reality) from a physical plane.  1492 (eídō) then is physical seeing (sight) which should be the constant bridge to mental and spiritual seeing (comprehension).

  1. gnósis  1922 epignósis

 

gnósis: a knowing, knowledge

Original Word: γνῶσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: gnósis
Phonetic Spelling: (gno’-sis)
Short Definition: knowledge, doctrine, wisdom
Definition: knowledge, doctrine, wisdom.

Cognate: 1108 gnṓsis (a feminine noun derived from 1097 /ginṓskō, “experientially know”) – functional (“working”) knowledge gleaned from first-hand (personal) experience, connecting theory to application; “application-knowledge,” gained in (by) a direct relationship.  See 1097(ginōskō).

1108 /gnṓsis (“applied-knowledge”) is only as accurate (reliable) as the relationship it derives from. For example, the Gnostics boasted of their “applied knowledge” gained by their personal spiritual experiences – and it was (is) disastrous!

[“Gnosticism” is literally, “the cult based on having special, personal knowledge” (1108 /gnṓsis).]

ginóskó: to come to know, recognize, perceive

Original Word: γινώσκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginóskó
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin-oce’-ko)
Short Definition: I come to know, learn, realize
Definition: I am taking in knowledge, come to know, learn; aor: I ascertained, realized.

1097 ginṓskō – properly, to know, especially through personal experience(first-hand acquaintance).  1097 /ginṓskō (“experientially know”) is used for example in Lk 1:34, “And Mary [a virgin] said to the angel, ‘How will this be since I do not know (1097 /ginṓskō = sexual intimacy) a man?'”

Hebrew equivalents of Ginosko and Oida – YADA

 I Have a question

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 persoanl relationship. Why is this not οἶδα/oida?

– Please use the comment form to reply

 

 

 

 

[i]As a departure from the norm used by JND, I am showing the form of the verb actually used in scripture in this section only. This is so the reader can get additional explanations from the Bible-hub website.

[ii]Interestingly this is not quoted from either the KJV nor Darby translations, but from the English Revised Version, the translation that

Darby refused to participate in.

 

Author: Sosthenes

Once the ruler of the synagogue at Corinth Then a co-writer of a letter by Paul - just a brother - no longer an official Now a blogger seeking to serve the Lord by posting some words that the Lord has given His Church.

2 thoughts on “Ginosko and Oida”

  1. This article has generated a number of comments in B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum – biblio.org/bgreek/forum/

    Here is the discussion:

    Abbott-Smith wrote:
    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)

    Post by Jonathan Robie » June 5th, 2016, 11:52 am
    Jonathan Robie wrote:
    How accurate do you think this note is?

    by cwconrad » June 5th, 2016, 12:53 pm
    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.”
    0 x
    οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
    ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

    Carl W. Conrad
    Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
    —-
    by Jean Putmans » October 11th, 2018, 7:44 am

    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
    —–

    by Jean Putmans » October 11th, 2018, 7:44 am

    Hello all,

    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

    —-

    by anuswara » May 4th, 2019, 4:54 pm

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

    —–

    by Barry Hofstetter » May 6th, 2019, 11:29 am

    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.
    0 x
    N.E. Barry Hofstetter
    Instructor of Latin
    Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
    Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

    —-
    by anuswara » May 6th, 2019, 6:56 pm

    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.

    ohn 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.
    —-
    by Barry Hofstetter » May 7th, 2019, 3:22 pm

    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.
    0 x
    N.E. Barry Hofstetter
    Instructor of Latin
    Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
    Χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε· πάλιν ἐρῶ, χαίρετε

    —–

    y anuswara » May 7th, 2019, 5:59 pm

    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!
    0 x
    Jason A. Hare
    Tel Aviv, Israel

    — Then my posting pn the Forum

  2. by sosthenes_hoadelphos » May 4th, 2020, 8:27 pm

    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

    —–
    y Stirling Bartholomew » May 5th, 2020, 12:23 am

    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.

    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.
    0 x
    C. Stirling Bartholomew

    ——
    by Jason Hare » May 5th, 2020, 7:59 am

    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.
    0 x
    Jason A. Hare
    Tel Aviv, Israel

    —–

    by Eeli Kaikkonen » May 5th, 2020, 9:12 am

    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.

    0 x
    C. Stirling Bartholomew

    —–

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.