ידע and γινώσκω as Prototypical Case Studies for the Formation of Theological Knowledge in the Bible

Petre, Dan-Adrian

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3_3

Dan-Adrian Petre²

41 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents a cognitive analysis of theological knowledge formation in the Bible. It analyzes the meaning of ידע and γινώσκω, the two prototypical linguistic units used to symbolize this epistemological process in the Bible. When these two units are used to conceptualize theological knowledge formation, a similar mental image emerges from the interaction of four elements. First is the contextual usage event. The second element—the profile-base relationship—focuses the reader’s attention on specific cognitive components and ways to relate them. The third element is the area of contextualization that functions as background knowledge for each instantiation of the two linguistic units. Both ידע and γινώσκω are used to profile the embodied human awareness of something about the divine realm by acquaintance with a divine revelatory action. The divine realm has a distinctive christological character in the case of γινώσκω. The fourth element is the four-step prototypical scenario that begins with the state of unknowing and, when the divine realm is manifested, leads to a human embodied awareness by acquaintance with the divine. The cognitive analysis has seven epistemological implications that outline a minimal canonical model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
John R. Taylor, Cognitive Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 186–87.
2.
As Geeraerts explains, “Semasiology takes its starting point in the word as a form, and charts the meanings that the word can occur with; onomasiology takes its starting point in a concept, and investigates by which different expressions the concept can be designated, or named” (Dirk Geeraerts, Theories of Lexical Semantics [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], 23).
3.
Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 188–89.
4.
Paradigmatic relations occur between various linguistic expressions (e.g., synonyms, hyponyms, antonyms, and entailment). The syntagmatic relations co-occur within a linguistic expression (e.g., collocations). For details, see ibid., 190–91. For a detailed description and a criticism of such relations in biblical Hebrew, see Stephen L. Shead, Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical Semantics, BibInt 108 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 13–32.
5.
Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 192.
6.
Knowledge representation forms the conceptual structure while meaning construction refers to conceptualization (Evans, Bergen, and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise,” 5). The description of cognitive linguistics here is dependent upon Dan-Adrian Petre, “Grasping the Conceptual Meaning of the Biblical Text: A Cognitive Analysis of ידע,” DavarLogos 19.2 (2020): 1–8.
7.
Evans, Bergen, and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise,” 5. “To take a cognitive approach to semantics,” write Evans and Green, “is to attempt to understand how this linguistic system relates to the conceptual system, which in turn relates to embodied experience. The concerns of cognitive semantics and cognitive (approaches to) grammar are thus complementary” (Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 49).
8.
Evans, Bergen, and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise,” 21.
9.
Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 27.
10.
Ibid., 28.
11.
Evans, Bergen, and Zinken, “The Cognitive Linguistic Enterprise,” 5–6.
12.
Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 46. Geeraerts and Cuyckens agree, pointing out that “the conceptualizations that are expressed in the language have an experiential basis, that is, they link up with the way in which human beings experience reality, both culturally and physiologically” (Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, “Introducing Cognitive Linguistics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens [New York: Oxford University Press, 2007], 14). This is called the embodiment hypothesis, defined as “the claim that human physical, cognitive, and social embodiment ground our conceptual and linguistic systems” (Tim Rohrer, “Embodiment and Experientialism,” in Geeraerts and Cuyckens, The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 27, emphasis original).
13.
Evans and Green, Cognitive Linguistics, 48.
14.
Ellen van Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 27–28.
15.
Geeraerts and Cuyckens, “Introducing Cognitive Linguistics,” 5.
16.
Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 15.
17.
Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 35.
18.
Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 43. Therefore, according to Talmy, “conceptual content is understood to encompass not just ideational content but any experiential content, including affect and perception” (Leonard Talmy, Concept Structuring Systems, vol. 1 of Toward a Cognitive Semantics [Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000], 4).
19.
Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 24–25.
20.
These categories are distinguished prototypically. For example, the category bird reflects specific salient prototypes (e.g., robin, sparrow, dove), which are distinguished by fuzzy borders from members of other categories (e.g., bats), who share a small number of attributes (e.g., flying). For this and other examples, with a detailed explanation, see Friedrich Ungerer and Hans-Jörg Schmid, An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, 2nd ed. (Harlow, UK: Pearson, 2006), 7–33.
21.
Ibid., 23.
22.
Regarding typographical conventions, I follow here Ungerer and Schmid (ibid., ix). Hence, the cognitive categories and concepts are indicated with small capitals (e.g., bird). Domains are written in small capitals in brackets (e.g., [land]). To these, I am adding the conventions for profiles (trajectors), which are placed within backslashes written in small capitals (e.g., \feather\); for bases (landmarks), which are written in small capitals within slashes (e.g., /bird/); and for the profiled relation, which is written in small capitals within vertical bars (e.g., |location|). The lexemes are indicated in italics in English (e.g., feathers) but not in Hebrew or Greek, where the regular typeface is kept. Phrases or sentences offered as examples are also written in italics.
23.
Charles J. Fillmore, “Frame Semantics,” in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. Dirk Geeraerts, Cognitive Linguistics Research 34 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 381–82. The semantic domain reflects an encyclopedia-type of cultural knowledge of one’s reality (John I. Saeed, Semantics, 4th ed. [Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016], 35).
24.
Langacker writes that “an expression is said to invoke a set of cognitive domains as the basis for its meaning” (Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 44). Specifically, a profile-base relationship is conceptualized against a domain matrix (Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 197).
25.
A base “is the conceptual content that is inherently, intrinsically, and obligatory invoked by the expression” (e.g., |bird|; ibid., 195). A domain “is a more generalized ‘background’ knowledge configuration against which conceptualization is achieved” (e.g., [land]; ibid.).
26.
Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 194. See also William Croft and D. Alan Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 15.
27.
Although the example used here is different, it follows Taylor’s. The terminology is borrowed from him. See Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 205–08.
28.
Ibid., 217–18. A simple relation is profiled by the lexeme above in The branch is above the lake.
29.
Ibid., 216–17.
30.
Taylor, Cognitive Grammar, 216. An atemporal relation can be simple or complex. A simple atemporal relation indicates “a single consistent configuration,” as opposed to a complex atemporal relation, which points to a “multiple consistent configuration” (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 111). For temporal relations, stative verbs indicate a simple temporal profile, while dynamic verbs signal a “temporal process that involves a change over time” (ibid.).
31.
As regards biblical Hebrew, Merwe writes that “although often a few steps behind, developments in BH [biblical Hebrew] tend to follow trends in general linguistics” (Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “An Overview of Recent Developments in the Description of Biblical Hebrew Relevant to Bible Translation,” AcT 22.1 [2002]:231). What Merwe states about biblical Hebrew applies to Greek also. For the OT, see Tiana Bosman, “Biblical Hebrew Lexicology and Cognitive Semantics: A Study of Lexemes of Affection” (PhD diss., Stellenbosch University, 2011); Wendy L. Widder, “To Teach” in Ancient Israel: A Cognitive Linguistic Study of a Biblical Hebrew Lexical Set, BZAW 456 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014); Marilyn Burton, The Semantics of Glory: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Approach to Hebrew Word Meaning, SSN 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2017); Rasmussen, Distress in Psalms; Carsten Ziegert, “What Is חֶ֫סֶד? A Frame-Semantic Approach,” JSOT 44.4 (2020): 711–32, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089219862806. For the NT, see Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen, Prepare the Way of the Lord: Towards a Cognitive Poetic Analysis of Audience Involvement with Characters and Events in the Markan World, BZAW 180 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012); Christian Stettler, Das Endgericht bei Paulus: Framesemantische und exegetische Studien zur paulinischen Eschatologie und Soteriologie, WUNT 371 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017); Steffi Fabricius, Pauline Hamartiology: Conceptualisation and Transferences, HUT 74 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018).
32.
See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 201–05. Her method follows Ronald Langacker’s approach and integrates elements from John R. Taylor (Taylor, Cognitive Grammar). A valuable synthesis of Langacker’s system is Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar.
33.
Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 201–03.
34.
Ibid., 204.
35.
Ibid., 201–02.
36.
Ibid., 202.
37.
Langacker, Essentials of Cognitive Grammar, 15.
38.
See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 204.
39.
The additional two steps are (6) incorporating a reconstruction of the historical development of the unit’s conceptualization, together with a proposal for dating the biblical text based on the linguistic study. (7) An analysis of ANE words reflecting a similar concept may follow. However, given the purpose of the present book, these steps are unnecessary.
40.
The third stage has four steps: (1) lexical analysis; (2) analysis of nominal and relational profiles; (3) analysis of the compositional substructural correspondences; and (4) construal of textual meaning (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 205).
41.
Croft and Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics, 77.
42.
John R. Taylor, Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 54.
43.
Burton, The Semantics of Glory, 12.
44.
Ungerer and Schmid, Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, 23.
45.
As Wolde notes, “The prototypes or prototypical representations of the categories are in fact the points of reference in the formation of meanings that are culture-dependent, context-dependent, and mind-dependent” (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 26).
46.
Croft and Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics, 77.
47.
These five characteristics are taken from Croft and Cruse (ibid., 78–79).
48.
Bosman, “Biblical Hebrew Lexicology,” 104.
49.
Other lexical units convey the concept knowing god (e.g., ראה [“to see”]; שׁמע [“to listen”]; בקשׁ [“to discover”]; אור [“to enlighten”]; דעה [“to search for”]; בין [“to understand”]; נכר [“to regard, recognize”]; or טעם, [“to taste”]). These units are members of the same conceptual category, but their membership results from the set of shared characteristics with the prototype. As such, one needs to start with the prototype in order to grasp the primary conceptual meaning of knowing god. The verb ידע is the most common linguistic unit used to convey the meaning to know. See Michael Carasik, Theologies of the Mind in Ancient Israel, Studies in Biblical Literature 85 (New York: Lang, 2006), 17–32; Johnson, Knowledge by Ritual, 17; James L. Crenshaw, “Knowledge,” NIDB 3:539; William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 37; Gregory Vall, “An Epistemology of Faith: The Knowledge of God in Israel’s Prophetic Literature,” in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God, ed. Mary Healy and Robin Parry (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 24; M. H. Cressey, “Knowledge,” NBD³, 657–58; and Gregory Mobley, “Know, Knowledge,” EDB, 777.
50.
For example, Silva notes that at the core of the semantic field of to know is γινώσκειν. For details, see Moisés Silva, “The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice: ΓΙΝΟΣΚΕΙΝ and Related Verbs,” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday, ed. Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris [Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 187. Consequently, γινώσκω is most often used to symbolize knowing god. Various authors assume its prototypical character. See, for example, Ernst Dieter Schmitz, “γινώσκω,” NIDNTT 2:392–406; Gregory Mobley, “Know, Knowledge,” EDB, 777; and Tucker S. Ferda, “Knowledge: New Testament,” EBR 15:421–23.
51.
See Shead, Radical Frame Semantics, 113, for a list of typical semantic roles.
52.
Shead, Radical Frame Semantics, 112.
53.
B. M. Rocine, Learning Biblical Hebrew: A New Approach Using Discourse Analysis (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 251.
54.
Shead, Radical Frame Semantics, 49, emphasis original. I prefer domain over frame.
55.
Of course, “a degree of subjectivity is most inescapable” (Burton, The Semantics of Glory, 118).
56.
This study focuses on “synchronic, intra-lingual analysis of BH, rather than dwelling on pre- or post-biblical development or comparative philology” (Shead, Radical Frame Semantics, 185, emphasis original). The cognitive analysis here depends upon Petre, “Grasping the Conceptual Meaning,” 10–34.
57.
The search was done in the text provided by the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computing (ETCBC), W. T. van Peursen, C. Sikkel, and D. Roorda, Hebrew Text Database ETCBC4b (DANS, 2015). This database, formerly known as WIVU (Werkgroep Informatica Vrije Universiteit), uses Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. Adrian Schenker et al., 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). The database can be accessed at https://shebanq.ancient-data.org/hebrew/text. The order of the biblical books and the chapter and verse references are taken from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV).
58.
The terminology is borrowed from Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012). The verbal stems and forms are aggregated from the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible (SESB) of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia provided by Logos Bible Software, version 8.15. The morpho-syntactic tagging is based on the WIVU database.
59.
As Wolde indicates, the relational profile indicates either an atemporal relation (when ptc or IC are used) or a temporal relation (when stative or dynamic verbs are used). For details, see Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 130–200. As regards its aspect, being a verb of mental perception, ידע has both stative and fientive (dynamic) traits (Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 366).
60.
Selected here are HALOT, s.v. “ידע I”; DCH 4, s.v. “ידע I”; W. Schottroff, “ידע,” TLOT 2:508–21; and Johannes G. Botterweck and Jan Bergman, “יָדַע,” TDOT 5:448–81.
61.
Among the lexicons and dictionaries selected, only DCH explicitly indicates its linguistic framework (DCH 1:14–15). The other three resources were published before cognitive linguistics appeared in biblical studies. Therefore, one cannot expect to find elements of this recent approach in these three resources. Nevertheless, analyzing them from a cognitive-linguistic perspective helps highlight some limitations these resources have. For a practical evaluation of the significant Hebrew lexicons, see Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “Towards a Principled Working Model for Biblical Hebrew Lexicology,” JNSL 30.1 (2004): 119–37.
62.
I agree with Ziegert here (Ziegert, “What Is חֶ֫סֶד?,” 713) that a dictionary should provide a prototypical definition of the term. Contra Barr (ibid., 713n10). Barr argues that, for biblical Hebrew, a dictionary should provide only glosses, “that is, English words that sufficiently indicate the sort of area in which the Hebrew meaning must lie. The meaning itself, for the user of the dictionary, must remain within the Hebrew” (James Barr, “Hebrew Lexicography: Informal Thoughts,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992], 145).
63.
Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “Lexical Meaning in Biblical Hebrew and Cognitive Semantics: A Case Study,” Bib 87.1 (2006): 85. Two projects attempt to take into account semantic domains: Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (http://www.sahd.div.ed.ac.uk) and Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (http://semanticdictionary.org).
64.
See David J. A. Clines’s introduction to DCH 1:19.
65.
Merwe, “Principled Working Model,” 124–25.
66.
The concept of judgment, a cognitive domain, is pervasive in the OT. Hamilton considers this concept the conceptual foreground of God’s salvific activity. For an overview, see James M. Hamilton, God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 56–59.
67.
Sarna notes that the plagues narrative “is a sophisticated and symmetric literary structure” whose purpose is “to emphasize the idea that the nine plagues are not random vicissitudes of nature; although they are natural disasters, they are the deliberate and purposeful acts of divine will—their intent being retributive, coercive, and educative” (Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991], 38).
68.
The convictions or presumptions expressed structure of the entire book. As Clines notes, “The one thing Job will not allow is that his suffering proves his guilt. To refuse to acknowledge that presumption in the presence of these friends is a launchpad for controversy” (David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, WBC 17 [Dallas: Word, 1989], 77).
69.
When there are different relations profiled in different verses, each verse is indicated, as seen here.
70.
Clines perceptively observes that “the fact that Job ‘knows’ something does not prove it is true” (Clines, Job 1–20, 458–59).
71.
The |understanding of| profile entails an analogy between human and divine thinking. As Balentine notes, “To understand that X is like Y does not require divine revelation of unknown information; comprehension does not require unreasoned obedience to divine law” (Samuel E. Balentine, “Sagacious Divine Judgment: Jeremiah’s Use of Proverbs to Construct an Ethos and Ethics of Divine Epistemology,” in The Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, ed. Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson, VTSup 178 [Leiden: Brill, 2018], 122). Hence, understanding what God requires is not beyond human reach.
72.
Zimmerli’s study of Ezekiel’s recognition formula is unsurpassed. See Walther Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God according to the Book of Ezekiel (1954),” in I Am Yahweh, ed. Walter Brueggemann, trans. Douglas W. Scott (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 29–98. The formula can be seen in the broader context of theodicy, as recognition means humans “telling God that he has been righteous in bringing disaster, in the hope that this recognition will prompt him to reconsider his intentions for the future” (John Barton, “Historiography and Theodicy in the Old Testament,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, ed. Robert Rezetko, Timothy Henry Lim, and W. Brian Aucker, VTSup 113 [Leiden: Brill, 2007], 32–33).
73.
According to Gentry and Wellum, the concept of covenant and especially “the progression of the covenants forms the backbone of Scripture’s metanarrative, the relational reality that moves history forward according to God’s design and final plan for humanity and all creation, and unless we ‘put together’ the covenants correctly, we will not discern accurately ‘the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27)” (Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed. [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018], 31, emphasis original). They criticize Hamilton’s focus on judgment and his perceived failure to give prominence to the concept of the covenant (ibid., 20). It appears that the two emphases fail to consider Gerhard F. Hasel’s concept of a “multiplex approach” (Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 206). As Paul R. Williamson observes, the covenant and the judgment concepts are intertwined from the first explicit mention of the covenant in the OT (Paul R. Williamson, “Covenant,” DOTP, 139–40).
74.
It reflects Deuteronomy’s focus on the covenant between Yahweh and Israel (Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, AOTC [Nashville: Abingdon, 2001], 17), which required renewal, “not because God changed, but because each generation had to recommit itself regularly in love and obedience to the Lord of the covenant” (Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 37).
75.
As regards the Sabbath as the sign of the covenant with the Israelites, Zimmerli notes that “Yahweh’s actions on behalf of his people live not only in the narrative proclamation of the people of God, but equally in the signs Yahweh has given his people as fixed observances, observances witnessing to his particular actions on behalf of this same people. Recognition and knowledge are revivified ever anew from the perspective of these signs and the people’s encounter with them” (Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God,” 70). For more on the connection between the Sabbath sign and the reality it symbolizes, see Sigve K. Tonstad, The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2009), 111–23.
76.
A detailed study of the covenant lawsuit in the OT is Richard M. Davidson, “The Divine Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective,” JATS 21.1–2 (2010): 45–84. Davidson notes that Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant with God triggers divine judgment, thus pointing to the interconnection between covenant, judgment, and covenant lawsuit (ibid., 69).
77.
As Harrison observes, the exodus represents the prototypical deliverance event in which God “liberates people, not to enable them to pursue their former way of life, but that they might be free to serve him and him alone. This concept was fundamental to the Sinai covenant and has been an abiding principle of spirituality ever since” (R. K. Harrison, “Deliverance, Deliverer,” EDT, 330).
78.
“Warfare in the Bible is more than a sociological category, describing historical events,” notes Longman; “it is an important and pervasive theological theme” (Tremper Longman III, “Warfare,” NDBT, 836). The purpose of such a “Yahweh war,” as Longman calls it, is “the eradication of evil and the punishment of sin” (ibid., 839). For a detailed analysis of the warfare concept in the OT, see Barna Magyarosi, Holy War and Cosmic Conflict in the Old Testament: From the Exodus to the Exile, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series 9 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 2010).
79.
Providence refers to divine care and, although inclusive of divine guidance, is treated as a separate cognitive domain according to the results of the cognitive analysis of ידע. Providence entails theological knowledge. According to Williams, it conveys three central lessons about God: his government, character, and purpose for human history. For details, see Stephen N. Williams, “Providence,” NDBT, 711–13.
80.
The cognitive domain of [praise] expresses the human reaction of thanksgiving following a divine intervention of deliverance, restoration, or salvation. It has the character of a confessional testimony that does not limit to mere ahistorical witness, as Brueggemann seems to imply (Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], xvi–xvii). As Childs notes, “To hear the text as witness involves identifying Israel’s theological intention of bearing its testimony to a divine reality which has entered into time and space” (Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 98). Consequently, the confessional testimony is always historically derived.
81.
There are six cases where the knower is not specified (Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9; Hab 3:2; Pss 48:3, 77:19; Jer 28:9).
82.
Hence, as Allwood notes, “No attempt is made to distinguish between lexical and encyclopedic information in terms of the kind of information that is contained in the meaning potential” (Jens Allwood, “Meaning Potentials and Context: Some Consequences for the Analysis of Variation in Meaning,” in Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, ed. Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven, and John R. Taylor, Cognitive Linguistics Research 23 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003], 43).
83.
In Wolde’s example, a singular relational profile represents the meaning of the chosen term (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 258). Widder’s case is similar to the one present in this study; hence, she presents a synthesis of her chosen term’s meaning potential (Widder, “To Teach,” 159).
84.
I am following Wolde’s formulation here, although the data are different. See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 264.
85.
When talking about the recognition formula in Ezekiel, Zimmerli insightfully notes that the knowledge prompted by the recognition formula “always takes place within the context of a very concrete history, a history embodied in concrete emissaries and coming to resolution in them” (Zimmerli, “Knowledge of God,” 63). As a result of such revelation, the knower is not “able to turn away with this knowledge into an ahistorical awareness or into a spiritual sphere that transcends the historical. Rather, precisely this recognition of Yahweh vis à vis the historical encounter will hold the person fast” (ibid., 89–90).
86.
In Wolde’s view, a stative verb “profile[s] a relation that is construed as unchanged throughout the duration of the profiled time segment. The profile of these relations, therefore, consists of a single configuration” (Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 171).
87.
“Thus,” notes Wolde, “the infinitive construct has a relational profile and scans a relation in summary rather than in sequential fashion” (ibid., 151).
88.
As Wolde indicates, the participle “profiles the continuation over time of a stable relation and construes a situation both as internally homogeneous and as progressive or still ongoing” (ibid., 149).
89.
Apart from γινώσκω’s verbal cognates (ἐπιγινώσκω [“to know, learn, recognize, understand”], προγινώσκω [“to know beforehand”], and γνωρίζω [“to make known, reveal, know”]), other units conveying the concept knowing god are ἀκούω (“to hear, listen, learn about, understand”), ἐπίσταμαι (“to understand, know”), ἐραυνάω (“to search, examine”), νοέω (“to apprehend, perceive, understand, gain insight into”), οἶδα (“to know, be acquainted with, understand”), and ὁράω (“to see, notice, perceive, experience”).
90.
As shown in what follows, γινώσκω occurs 115 times concerning theological knowledge formation. The second most used term is οἶδα, with 101 instances about theological knowledge (Matt 9:6; 22:16, 29; 24:42; 26:2, 70, 72, 74; Mark 2:10; 12:14, 24, 32–33; 13:33; 14:68, 71; Luke 2:49; 5:24; 20:21; 22:34; 23:34; John 1:26, 31, 33; 3:2; 4:10, 22, 25, 32, 42; 5:13; 7:27–28; 8:14, 19; 9:12, 21, 24–25, 29–31; 10:4; 11:22; 13:7, 17; 14:4–5; 15:21; 16:30; 18:21; 20:2, 9, 13–14; 21:4, 12; Acts 2:22, 30; 10:36; 12:11; Rom 2:2; 6:9; 1 Cor 2:2, 12; 3:16; 6:9, 15, 19; 11:3; 2 Cor 4:14; 5:11; Gal 4:8; Eph 1:18–19; 5:5; 6:9; Col 3:24; 4:1; 1 Thess 1:4; 4:2, 5; 5:2; 2 Thess 1:8; 2 Tim 1:12; Titus 1:16; Heb 8:11; 10:30; Jas 4:4; 1 John 2:9; 3:2, 3:5; 5:15, 18, 20; Jude 5). Traditionally, γινώσκω and οἶδα were understood in reference to the acquisition of knowledge and to its sure possession respectively (for Johannine literature, see Ignace de la Potterie, “Oἶδα et γινώσκω les deux modes de la connaissance dans le quatrième évangile,” Bib 40.3 [1959]:709–25; for Pauline literature, see Donald W. Burdick, “Oἶδα and Γινώσκω in the Pauline Epistles,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974], 344–56). Nevertheless, as Porter indicates, the relation between the two terms should be seen as hyponymous, “in which γινώσκω—the superordinate term—is used of knowledge whether gained by acquisition or not, with two hyponyms: οἶδα of knowledge specifically without reference to acquisition, and γινώσκω of knowledge with reference to acquisition” (Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, ed. D. A. Carson, SBG 1 [1989; repr., New York: Lang, 2010], 285). Porter’s statement reflects his monosemic approach (see Stanley E. Porter, Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015], 47–59), an approach that is somewhat different from the polysemic structure implicit in cognitive linguistics (see Fewster’s criticism of Wolde’s approach in Gregory P. Fewster, “Towards a Model of Functional Monosemy: A Study of Creation Language in Romans,” in Modeling Biblical Language: Selected Papers from the McMaster Divinity College Linguistics Circle, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Gregory P. Fewster, and Christopher D. Land, LBS 13 [Leiden: Brill, 2016], 257). Porter’s view on γινώσκω as a hyponymous superordinate term reflects what cognitive linguistics views as a prototypical term. From a polysemic perspective, Silva indicates that γινώσκειν represents the core of to know, also indicative of the prototypical character of γινώσκω (Silva, “The Pauline Style,” 187).
91.
The search was done in Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), provided by Logos Bible Software, version 8.15. The mood and tense of each occurrence are aggregated from this version. The order of the biblical books and the chapter and verse references are taken from the NRSV.
92.
Selected here are BDAG, s.v. “γινώσκω”; L&N, s.vv. “γινώσκω^a,” “γινώσκω^b,” “γινώσκω^c,” “γινώσκω^d,” “γινώσκω^e,” “γινώσκω^f”; Rudolf Bultmann, “γινώσκω κτλ,” TDNT 1:689–714; W. Schmithals, “γινώσκω κτλ,” EDNT 1:248–51; and Moisés Silva, “γινώσκω κτλ,” NIDNTTE 1:575–88.
93.
Danker enlarged the definitions found in the third edition of BDAG. While he notes that “this revision builds on and expands Bauer’s use of extended definition” (BDAG, viii), he recognizes Louw and Nida’s impact, pointing out that “their forward linguistic thrust has left its mark, along with generously shared verbal echoes” (BDAG, xi). The definitions of γινώσκω from BDAG are similar to those in L&N. For more on L&N’s influence on BDAG, see Terry Roberts, “A Review of BDAG,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 61–62.
94.
L&N 1:xvi.
95.
The numbers refer to the definitional senses presented in Table 3.6.
96.
It may be because Danker’s definitions build upon previous unrevised glosses. For details, see Andrew Bowden, “Excursus: The Third English Edition; BDAG,” in New Testament Lexicography: Introduction–Theory–Method, by Jesús Peláez and Juan Mateos, ed. David S. du Toit, trans. Andrew Bowden, FSBP 6 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 33–34.
97.
See James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language ([London]: Oxford University Press, 1961), 206–62. Among the problems Barr enumerates are the pretense connection between the conceptual world of the early Christians and the lexical explanations given by TDNT (ibid., 207), together with a perceived vagueness of the conceptual approach of TDNT (ibid., 209).
98.
It reflects Barr’s observation that TDNT—Barr criticizes here the German edition—focuses excessively “on the theological and philosophical differences” (ibid., 222) with unwanted consequences, like false dichotomies between NT words or the Greek usage of language (ibid., 223).
99.
Silva, NIDNTTE 1:584.
100.
See Barr’s criticism of this dichotomy in Barr, Semantics, 209.
101.
“New Testament theology is essentially missionary theology,” writes Marshall, who considers the NT literature as “the result of a two-part mission, first, the mission of Jesus sent by God to inaugurate his kingdom with the blessings that it brings to people and to call people to respond to it, and then the mission of his followers called to continue his work by proclaiming him as Lord and Savior, and calling people to faith and ongoing commitment to him, as a result of which his church grows” (I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004], 34–35).
102.
As used in the present NT cognitive analysis, instruction refers to teaching and providing detailed information about something.
103.
As Harris indicates, in 2 Cor 5:16 γινώσκω is synonymous with οἶδα (Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 427).
104.
The succession of the verbal forms in the Greek of 1 Cor 8:2 is “εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἐγνωκέναι [perfect infinitive] τι, οὔπω ἔγνω [aorist indicative] καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι [aorist infinitive].” Thiselton explains that there is a progression from the Corinthians’s pretense of achieving a specific definitive revealed knowledge—expressed by the resultative perfect ἐγνωκέναι—to Paul’s denial of such pretense using the ingressive aorist ἔγνω, and highlighting the contrast by using the consummative aorist γνῶναι. For details, see Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 624–25.
105.
Pointing out that in 1 Cor 8:3 some older manuscripts omit τὸν θεόν (𝔓46; Cl) and ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ (𝔓46; א; 33; Cl), Thiselton argues that the middle voice of ἔγνωσται solved any potential problems raised by a shorter text. The translation he proffers for this verse, “But if anyone loves, he or she has experienced true ‘knowing,’” is accepted here; hence, 1 Cor 8:3 is included in the analysis. For Thiselton’s argument, see ibid., 625–26.
106.
That in Rom 6:6 the verb profiles |awareness by instruction| is supported by Moo who explains that, in this verse, “τοῦτο (‘this’) is prospective, its antecedent being the ὅτι (‘that’) clause that follows. What Paul describes in this verse, then, is not known through experience (contra, e.g., Hodge), or reflection on that experience (contra, e.g., Gifford), but through Paul’s own words that follow” (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 372n100).
107.
I agree with Fitzmyer that the implied epistemic object has to do with the divine realm in 1 Cor 13:9, 12. For details, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 32 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 500.
108.
As Carson observes, “Just as Israel is about to enter the promised land, the departing Moses addresses the covenant community; just as Jesus’ disciples are about to enter the age of the Spirit, the departing Jesus addresses the new covenant community” (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, PNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 480).
109.
In Matt 24:33 (and Mark 13:29), the verb has an implied subject understood by some commentators as a reference to Jesus Christ. For details, see Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC 33B (Dallas: Word, 1995), 715 and John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 988. Other commentators indicate that the signs preceding the destruction of Jerusalem are in focus. See, for example, R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 538. Nevertheless, taking Luke 21:31 into account, the landmark in all these verses cannot but be /signs anticipating the second coming/. In this regard, see I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 779.
110.
Cranfield’s analysis confirms that in Rom 1:21, γινώσκω profiles |awareness by acquaintance with|. He notes that “in their [human] awareness of the created world it is of Him [God] that all along, though unwittingly, they have been—objectively—aware” (C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., ICC [1975; repr., London: T&T Clark, 2004], 1:116).
111.
Christ’s person is indicated 29 times (Mark 15:45; Luke 10:22; 24:18, 35; John 1:10; 6:69; 7:26; 8:28, 52; 10:14b, 38[2x]; 14:7a, 9, 20; 15:18; 16:3; 17:3, 8, 23, 25c; 19:4; 2 Cor 5:16[2x]; Eph 3:19; Phil 3:10; 1 John 2:13, 14b; 3:6). Jesus’s activity is referenced 19 times (Matt 9:30; 24:33; Mark 5:43; Mark 13:29; Luke 10:11; 18:34; 19:44; 20:19; 21:31; John 4:53; 13:7, 12; 14:31; 2 Cor 8:9; Gal 2:9; 1 John 3:16; Rev 2:23; 3:3, 9) and his teachings 10 times (Matt 13:11; 21:45; Mark 12:12; Luke 8:10; John 3:10; 7:17; 8:27, 43; 10:6; 12:16). Other passages also refer to Jesus either in Paul’s teachings (Rom 6:6; Eph 5:5), Jesus’s own teaching (John 13:35), or in reference with the latter’s statements (John 13:28).
112.
Like in the case of ידע, I follow Wolde’s formulation here, although the data are different. See Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 264.
113.
Of course, this does not mean that theological knowledge formation is only communitarian, as the individual focus shows.
114.
Carson notes that the disciples “had come to the deep conviction that Jesus was God’s messenger, that he had been sent by God and that all he taught was God’s truth” (Carson, John, 559). This reflects their maturity in faith (Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, trans. David Smith and G. A. Kon, 3 vols., Herder’s Theological Commentary on the New Testament [Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK: Burns & Oates; New York: Crossroad, 1982], 3:177).
115.
Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BECNT 3B (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 1922.
116.
The infinitive aorist γνῶναι is part of a catenative construction indicating volition (see the two ἵνα-subjonctives κερδήσω and εὑρεθῶ in verses 8 and 9 respectively). For more on the syntactical construction used here, see Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, 2nd ed., WBC 43 (Nashville: Nelson, 2004), 196–97 and John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 522.
117.
Although not using a cognitive-linguistics approach, Longenecker is in agreement with this conceptual meaning conveyed by this Pauline usage (Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016], 208–09).
118.
The description of these four elements is adapted from Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, 357–60.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Adventus University, Cernica, Romania
Dan-Adrian Petre

Authors

Dan-Adrian Petre
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan-Adrian Petre .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Petre, DA. (2023). ידע and γινώσκω as Prototypical Case Studies for the Formation of Theological Knowledge in the Bible. In: Knowing God as an Evangelical. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26556-3_3
Published: 27 April 2023
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-26555-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-26556-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics