From: Jim Beale (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 24 1998 - 14:03:23 EST
At 9:53 PM +0200 11/24/98, Tom Belt wrote:
>It is true, as you say, that GINWSKW behaves a little differently
>when followed bo hOTI. But the same thing is true of OIDA. So this
>doesn't prove much in terms of the alleged distinction between the
>two verbs. It does, as you mentioned, signify a slight difference
>between the subject and the object of the knowledge. Once again,
>though, the same is true of OIDA. That is, it is not apparent that
>a distinction between the subject and object of knowledge is something
>"built into" GINWSKW as such, for the same distinction arises with
>OIDA. Indeed, the fact that hOTI must be used to introduce such a
>distinction between subject and object shows that the verbs
>themselves do not carry it within them.
Thanks for the response. I should have stated in my original
post that I'm not so much interested in the distinction between
GINWSKW and OIDA as I am between "<greek verb:to know> + object"
and "<greek verb:to know> + hOTI + object". That is, I'm
interested in the effect of hOTI on the subject-object relation
when a verb of knowing is immediately followed by hOTI. I
think, if my understanding is correct, that without hOTI, the
verbs of knowing can both connote some level of union between
the subject and object. However, when the verb is followed by
hOTI, a barrier is more-or-less erected between the subject and
For instance, in John 9:20, the parents of the man born blind
say to the Pharisees, "OIDAMEN hOTI hOUTOS ESTIN hO hUIOS hHMWN"
in (what seems to me to be) an effort to distance themselves
from him so as to avoid retaliation of the Jews. If they had
said, "OIDAMEN TON hUION hHMWN" that would have been a statement
of solidarity with their son. It would have been equivalent to
saying, "we know our son is telling the truth" and would surely
have provoked the wrath of the Pharisees.
We can compare John 14:9 with John 6:69. In the former, Jesus
asks Philip, "OUK EGNWKAS ME?" This is a personal kind of knowing
used to make Philip realize that he has "seen" the Father in Him.
This would make one think that Jesus and the Father are united.
But in the latter, Peter declares "EGNWKAMEN hOTI SU EI hO hAGIOS
TOU QEOU." This is a profound declaration, but nevertheless, it
seems to me to be primarily an intellectual one. Peter sees the
truth, but is still somewhat distant from it.
In Romans 5:3, Paul writes "EIDOTES hOTI hH QLIYIS hUPOMONHN
KATERGAZETAI" which is something quite different in character
from the statement of Jesus in Rev. 2:9, "OIDA SU THN QLIYIN."
To know _that_ tribulation produces perseverance is to look
at it objectively, but to know tribulation is to unite the
subject and the object in some measure.
Anyway, that is the gist of what I am trying to wrestle with.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:08 EDT