Word of the Day To Return (I Hope)

I am going to try to start up Word of the Day again (not that it really started last time...). I figure since this site is named for this feature, the feature ought to be there...And in honor of this hopeful return:

Word of the Day: ἐλπίς (elpis - hope, expectation)

BDAG gives it the definition "the looking forward to something with some reason for confidence respecting fulfillment." It seems to me as a casual English user that hope and expectation have different meanings in English. Hope (μὲν) is more of a wish or desire that has no reasonable chance or at least a very small one of actually being fulfilled. Expectation (δὲ) has a decent chance of being fulfilled.

Thus, if you really wanted a nice new Lego set for Christmas but your parents have made no mention of it and have in fact hinted at socks and underwear, you might hope for Legos but expect socks. Now, if you wandered into their room while they were gone and find a way to look on the top shelf (obviously for pure reasons) and just so happen to see a Lego set, you would no longer hope for Legos, you would expect Legos. There is now a basis for your desire.

The Greek word, at least when used by Christian authors, has the same connotations as the English 'expectation.' Our hopes in Christ are not unfounded, but have a basis in his death and resurrection, and the faithfulness with which God has interacted with his covenant people throughout history. Particularly, we have a basis that Christ will certainly return, judge the living and the dead, and consummate the marriage with the Church even though it has been 2000 years since he left.

Concerning the Greek Verb

As a student of the Greek language, I read and am taught things that make sense, but I often wonder: Was this really how the original speakers thought about their language? For instance, I am reading Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek by Constantine Campbell. He argues that Greek verbs do not have tense (past, present, future, perfect) contained in the words themselves. Only when the verbs are in a context that calls for tense do the verbs show tense. What the verbs do have is aspect, i.e. how the action is viewed, and remoteness, i.e. how close the viewer is to the action. While I am not trying to reproduce his book here and so this might not make much sense, it really does make a lot of linguistic sense to me. The scheme fits well.

However, is this how the Greeks viewed their verbs? Well, at least according to one of their grammarians, Dionysios Thrax, not really. He says (my translation), "There are three times: present, past (having gone by), and future (about to be). The past has four different sections: imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist. There are three relationships between these: present to imperfect, perfect to pluperfect, aorist to future" (the original). He views the verbs more in terms of time (though, that last line is interesting...I might return to that sometime).

The next question is whether or not the Greeks' own view is important. If someone calls all trees trees without recognizing the distinction between the different types of trees, he isn't completely wrong but he lacks the botanical sophistication to point the distinctions out. Or maybe a better example might be the difference between an interior decorator and a normal guy. To the normal guy there is just green, maybe a dark and a light green, but green nonetheless. To the interior decorator, though, there is forest green, jade green, emerald green, sea green (I am a normal guy; those were the only crayons I could think of). The interior decorator has an increased sophistication when dealing with colors.

So maybe, the Ancient Greek grammarians lacked the needed sophistication to recognize what was truly occuring in their language. Maybe they only saw the verbs in context and, therefore, drew conclusions only from the context, which usually showed tense, but they did not have the linguistic sophistication that we have now to look at unaffected meanings.

We have two views (there are other views out there as well). One uses modern linguistic tools to examine what authors have written and considers what might be occurring in the text. The other is looking at the language from within but without the current linguistic tools and discussions.

Which is correct?

Word of the Day: Νομιζω

I suppose this is the first word to be considered. Νομιζω: I suppose, consider, think. It is quite fitting since I will consider many words here. Most of the words will probably come from Koine Greek, but I may find other words especially when I start to learn Hebrew come this fall. I will find a word and unleash my thoughts upon the unsuspecting world.

Now νομιζω had the meaning "I hold as a custom; I use customarily" in classical Greek (according to BDAG, it is used once with this meaning in Acts), but it also had the additional meaning of "I suppose, consider, think" which became the primary meaning in the New Testament. Νομος is a related word meaning "law, custom."

I got The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright by John Piper today from one of my friends who went to the Together For the Gospel conference but already had this book. It looks very interesting.

A great side thought: Paper books will always be better than electronic books for their ability to enable me to waste a lot of time. The interesting words one can find in lexicons.