Epignosis (``Accurate Knowledge") : Are They Kidding?

by Room 215 5 Replies latest jw friends

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Given their incessant boasting of how they alone of all religions have a monopoly on ``accurate knowledge," it strikes me as amusing how oblivious the JWs are to their vulnerability to being ``blindsided" by the laundry list of all-but-unanwerable questions lurking out there for them: questions not only relating to their absurd, bankrupt chronology, but also the obvious dilemmas in holdong stubbornly to Biblical inerrancy (i.e., the global flood, Jonah, virgin birth, etc.). It almost seems that they have to rely on the public's ignorance/apathy to make any progress in their door-to-door ``ministry."

    My experience has been that it doesn't take too may well-placed questions to dent their arrogant smugness.

  • minimus
    minimus

    Regarding "epignosis", we had a DO that used love talking about this word. Talk about love, he'd get epignosis in there. Disfellowshipping---epignosis was the key. Why does God permit wickedness? It must be because of epignosis.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Not to mention that "accurate" was probably the worst possible adjective to carry the (doubtful) shade of meaning of Greek epignôsis...

  • cyber-sista
    cyber-sista

    If the knowledge was accurate why does it keep changing and proven to be inaccurate? When I first started studying this accurate knowledge business was deeply impressed upon my mind "this means everlasting life their taking in accurate knowledge"...I am no longer impressed.

  • Terry
    Terry
    VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY SAYS:

    epignosis akin to epiginosko, denotes "exact or full knowledge, discernment, recognition," and is a strengthened form of gnosis, expressing a fuller or a full "knowledge," a greater participation by the "knower" in the object "known," thus more powerfully influencing him. It is not found in the Gospels and Acts. Paul uses it 15 times (16 if Heb_10:26 is included) out of the 20 occurrences; Peter 4 times, all in his 2nd Epistle. Contrast Rom_1:28 (epignosis) with the simple verb in Rom_1:21. "In all the four Epistles of the first Roman captivity it is an element in the Apostle's opening prayer for his correspondents' well-being, Php_1:9; Eph_1:17; Col_1:9; Php_1:6" (Lightfoot).

    It is used with reference to God in Rom_1:28; Rom_10:2; Eph_1:17; Col_1:10; 2_Pet_1:3; God and Christ, 2_Pet_1:2; Christ, Eph_4:13; 2_Pet_1:8; 2_Pet_2:20; the will of the Lord, Col_1:9; every good thing, Php_1:6, RV (AV, "acknowledging"); the truth, 1_Tim_2:4; 2_Tim_2:25, RV; 2_Tim_3:7; Titus_1:1, RV; the mystery of God. Col_2:2, RV, "(that they) may know" (AV, "to the acknowledgment of"), lit., "into a full knowledge." It is used without the mention of an object in Php_1:9; Col_3:10, RV, "(renewed) unto knowledge."

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    The problem with Vine's definitions (and much more with those who use them without an "accurate knowledge" of NT Greek) is that there is not necessarily a shade of meaning for every prefix, diminutive, particle, or other detail of koinè Greek. The difference may just be stylistic, nor semantic.

    Cf. Bultmann's article in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. I p. 703f:

    [epiginôskein] is often used instead of [ginôskein] with no difference in meaning. In Gk. [epignôskein] can mean "to observe" if the prepos. is emphasised, but this means much the same as "to perceive," so that any distinction disappears. In fact the simple and compound forms are used interchangeably in the pap[yrii], where [epiginôskein] really means "to affirm" or "to confirm" rather than "to test," as Preisigke maintains. Only in the sense of "to (re-)cognize," or, in law, "to reach a further conclusion," does the compound have a special sense, but this does not affect early Christian usage, nor do certain special uses in the pap[yrii]. In the LXX the two terms are often used as equivalents, and they occur as par. in Hab. 3:2; cf. Ez. 25:14 with Is. 43:10; Hos. 14:10 with Jer. 3:13; Ps. 78:6 with Ps 86:4. (...)
    P. 707:
    Rather curiously, the compound [epignôsis] has become almost a technical term for the decisive knowledge of God which is implied in conversion to the Christian faith. (...) To be sure, there is no technical use in R. 1:28 (...). This is plain, however, in the Past[orals]; cf. 1 Tm. 2:4...
    It is just as hard to find any strict distinction between [gnôsis] and [epignôsis] in the NT as it is in the LXX and Philo...

    And perhaps Bultmann himself is reading too much into the epignôsis of the Pastorals.

    IOW a specific, doctrinal, "sectarian" sense of epignôsis may appear only in 2nd century Christianity (the Pastorals and 2 Peter, as well as Patristic literature). In this context it could be better translated as "true knowledge" (which is still wider than "accurate knowledge"). But this cannot be read backwards into 1st century texts, where epignôsis means no more than gnôsis.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit