[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Aspect of oida
The following is an excerpt from my (much longer) summary of
Porter's _Verbal Aspect_ (spec. pp. 281-87). See previous msg. re.
Mark 2 for the reason for posting it here.
Because of the unique form and use of oida Porter includes several
pages to explain how this verb fits into his aspectual system.
After summarizing several recent studies on the relation between
oida and ginwskw (de la Potterie, Burdick, Silva--which this
synthesis will skip), he suggests several conclusions. First, oida
is to be viewed as the perfect opposition to eidon from the root
*eidw and "therefore is to be treated as a genuine Perfect" (283)
rather than as aspectually vague or as a present [traditionally:
perfect form, present meaning--but this implies a temporal
conception of the form]. This suggests that although it will often
be translated as a present in English, it carries the full
aspectual weight of the perfect: stative. "The criterion of
translation proves deceptive to understanding the Greek verb,
since...identical temporal implicature in no way determines meaning"
(284).
Second, "oida offers no semantic choice in the Passive" because it
never developed a passive or a middle/passive form. If a passive
form was needed to express the concept of knowing, ginwskw had to
be used by default [though there are only 13 passives of gn. in
the NT (out of 222 uses)].
Third, where there is verbal opposition, "it is legitimate to
posit a lexical semantic difference" (284). In this regard Porter
evaluates Erickson's suggestion as an insufficiently rigorous
treatment of the aspectual question and as "highly suspect" in
regard to lexis. McKay's distinction is "far more useful." This
defines the perfect form egnwka as a state of knowledge with
reference to its acquisition and the perfect form oida as also
referring to a state of knowledge but with no reference to its
acquisition (285). The two terms are thus in hyponymous relation
with ginwskw as the superordinate term. [See Silva, _Biblical
Words and Their Meaning_, 126-27 for a detailed explanation of
these terms. The chart below summarizes the essence of them.]
____________ _____________________________
| | | ginwskw |
| flower | | ________ ________ |
| _______ | | | oida | | egnwka | |
| | rose | | | |________| |________| |
| |_______| | |_____________________________|
|____________|
"This incorporates the non-contiguous availability of verbal
aspect in the tenses, includes both terms within the sphere of
verbs of knowing, distinguishes them along the lines of whether
reference is made to the means of acquisition, and is able to
handle contexts both where reference to acquisition of knowledge
is referred to (using ginwskw) and where it is not (using ginwskw
or oida)" (285). As just one example (of eight discussed), Porter
provides the following explanation of John 21:17.
There is no formal criterion for making a distinction in John
21:17: Kurie, panta su oida, su ginwskei hoti philw se (lord, you
know everything, you know that I love you). John writes that "you
are in a state of knowledge without reference to its acquisition,"
and he elucidates this with a specification introduced by a
contrastive, less heavily marked aspect, "you are in progress
knowing that I love you." Although ginwskw may simply be used
stylistically to avoid repetition or to allow emphasis to fall on
the hoti clause, the context seems to indicate another reason for
its use. Whereas the lord's knowledge with reference to the cosmos
is seen as unlimited and not requiring reference to its
acquisition, the second clause specifies knowledge that the lord
has regarding Peter, acquired through Peter's being a follower.
(285)
In other words, the difference is first of all aspectual: perfect
tense/stative vs. present tense/imperfective. But since oida is
chosen deliberately, there is a second difference in that Peter
chooses not to refer to how Jesus knows all things. Jesus' reply,
according to Porter, does imply reference to the acquisition of
knowledge: Jesus' (human) knowledge gained from Peter's
companionship. <1>
The following chart is a development of material suggested by
Porter's discussion; neither the chart nor the conclusions below
are Porter's. (Statistics come from acCordance.)
Occurrences _______*eidw__________
in NT (#) ginwskw | oida eidon | horaw blepw
to know see mentally to see to see to see
Present 80 0 0 20 127
Imperfect 5 0 0 0 2
Aorist 97 0 340@ 25$ 3
Perfect 21 284+ 0 34 0
Future 18 1 0 34 2
Pluperfect 1 32 0 1 0
@ = eidon (active only)
+ = oida
$ = passive only (all other forms include all voices found)
Only where there are opposing forms may a distinction be
suggested. I.e., there is no difference between ginwskw and oida
in present, imperfect, and aorist (because there is no meaningful
opposition), and probably not in future or pluperfect; there may
be legitimate distinction in the perfect forms. With horaw and
blepw a similar pattern is evident: distinction might be possible
in the present but not in the imperfect, perfect, or pluperfect,
and probably not in the aorist and future.
Note: <1> Should this distinction require that the second phrase
have used egnwka? Porter's conclusion seems to suggest that either
the use of egnwka or the juxtaposition of oida with (any?) form of
ginwskw is significant.
Rod Decker
Calvary Theological Seminary
Kansas City, MO