γινώσκω AND οἶδα

Looking at various language helps the different in meaning is explained.

W.E. Vine explains it well.

Why does the "Sense" line of John 8:55 have "to know (experientially)" for all four occurences when the first is "γινώσκω" and the next three are "οἶδα"?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Accepted answers

All comments

Graham Criddle

Why does the "Sense" line of John 8:55 have "to know (experientially)" for all four occurences when the first is "γινώσκω" and the next three are "οἶδα"?

Presumably because the producers of the Bible Sense lexicon thought all four occurrences had the same meaning. This is consistent with the analysis in NIDNTTE

NT In contrast with the LXX, the NT writers use οἶδα (almost 320×) more often than γινώσκω (c. 220×). The Gospel of John (84×) and 1 John (15×) account for almost a third of the occurrences of οἶδα (relative to book length it is most freq. in 1 Thessalonians, 13×). These Johannine writings also account for almost 40% of the occurrences of γινώσκω, and both vbs. are often used in close proximity without any noticeable semantic distinction, e.g., John 3:8–11; 7:27–29; 8:55; 10:4–7; 14:4–5; 21:15–17; 1 John 2:29–3:6; 3:14–16; 5:18–20

Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 461.

Lew Worthington

I hope you don't mind me barging into this discussion by jumping into a rabbit hole. @Graham Criddle answered it perfectly. But I wanted to fill in a few gaps to satisfy my own curiosity.

While it is sometimes risky to agree with TDNT, my natural inclination that there are rarely distinctions intended by using one term over another is supported here:

…in the koine it is hard to establish any distinction of meaning.2

2 So correctly Moult.-Mill., s.v., as against Cr.-Kö., s.v.

Heinrich Seesemann, “Οἶδα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–) 116.

However, I'm not sure I agree with Seesemann's interpretation of Moulton-Milligan since the text sited by the footnote only mentions the Hellenistic period:

The distinction between οἷδα, “know” absolutely, and γινώσκω, “come to know” (cf. Lightfoot on Gal 4:9), cannot be pressed in Hellenistic Greek.

James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, in The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), 439.

Indeed, Seesemann continues with this:

Only in the Fourth Gospel can one say with certainty that Gnostic usage has intruded into εἰδέναι. To the same degree that the unity of Jesus with God is expressed in the Johannine writings by the term γινώσκειν (→ I, 711), the same is true in respect of εἰδέναι, especially in the repeated statement of Jesus that He has knowledge of, or knows, God: 7:28f.: καὶ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλήλυθα, ἀλλʼ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς ὁ πέμψας με, ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε· ἐγὼ οἶδα αὐτόν, ὅτι παρʼ αὐτοῦ εἰμι κἀκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν. 8:55: ἐγὼ δὲ οἶδα αὐτόν. κἂν εἴπω ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν, ἔσομαι ὅμοιος ὑμῖν ψεύστης· ἀλλὰ οἶδα αὐτὸν καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τηρῶ (cf. 8:14). This knowledge is not abstract. In 7:28f. it is a knowledge of the goal and purpose of His mission, and according to 8:55 it takes concrete shape in His obedience to the word and commandment of His Father. His union with God explains His knowledge of the divine plan of salvation which is fulfilled in His mission, and especially in His death: 13:3: εἰδὼς ὅτι πάντα ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ πατήρ … καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὑπάγει. To this extent His death does not catch Him unawares, cf. 13:1: … εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἦλθεν αὐτοῦ ἡ ὥρα ἵνα μεταβῇ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, cf. 18:4; 19:28: μετὰ τοῦτο εἰδὼς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι ἤδη πάντα τετέλεσται.11

11 Cf. on this the knowledge of the Gnostics, e.g., Ign. Eph., 12, 1: οἶδα, τίς εἰμι καὶ τίσιν γράφω, or Iren., I, 21, 5: ἐγὼ οἶδα ἐμαυτὸν καὶ γινώσκω ὃθεν εἰμί. Cf. also the warning in Corp. Herm., XI, 21a against the closing of the soul to revelation, which will necessarily result in the insight: οὐκ οἶδα τίς ἤμην, οὐκ οἶδα τίς ἔσομαι. Here one may see plainly the proximity of Gnostic-Hell. use to that of the Fourth Gospel. Cf. G. P. Wetter, ZNW, 18 (1917/18), 49–63; Bau. J. on 8:14; H. Schlier, “Religionsgesch. Untersuchungen zu den Ignbriefen,” Beih. ZNW, 8 (1929), 141 f.; also esp. Bultmann Joh. on 8:14 etc., Index, s.v. εἰδέναι. For more remote par. cf. also L. Bieler, ΘΕΙΟΣ ΑΝΗΡ, I (1935), 73 ff.

Heinrich Seesemann, “Οἶδα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–) 118.

However, I'm not sure how far you can go with the gnostic stuff that was so popular several generations ago.

My conclusion: IMO, it's hard to make a case for semantic differences in cases like John 8:55 (or John 21:15ff with ἀγαπάω and φιλέω). Rather, the differences are probably stylistic and rhetorical. I can't imagine trying to complete the "Sense" editing and sleeping at night. 😉

NichtnurBibelleser

Using the Multiview / Add parallel text setup (see here), I noted that the AYBC elaborates explicitly on the question:

https://www.logos.com/product/41467/the-gospel-according-to-john-i-xii?queryId=5d81fd768777f54904ec2d82297293c6

you do not know Him … I do know Him. The first “know” is from gignōskein; the latter from eidenai (oida). See App. I. The affirmation that Jesus does know the Father is expressed both with eidenai (7:29) and with gignōskein (10:15, 17:25). Especially instructive for comparison are: 7:28–29: “Him you do not know. I know Him.”—eidenai in both parts. 17:25: “Though the world did not know you, I knew you.”—gignōskein in both parts.

App. I see here https://ref.ly/logosres/anchor64ajn?ref=Page.p+513&off=3047&ctx=nt+of+the+believer.%0a~To+a+certain+extent+