[B-Greek] LOGIKOS again

Troels Hansen tkmh at get2net.dk
Thu Apr 10 05:55:47 EDT 2003


Aarhus, Denmark, April 10. 2003



Dear B-Greekers!


I wrote to you last year in May about the strange word 'LOGIKOS' an my
strange opinion as to what it might mean - or what function it might
have - in Rom 12:1 and 1 Pet 2:2. The idea is that if you have two
very similar relations you can substitute the name any of the
participants of any one of the relations for the corresponding
participant of the other relation if you put the word 'LOGIKO' in
front of that name. For example, the relation between Christ and the
congregation is very similar to that of the shepherd and his sheep and
so the shepherd becomes the LOGIKO Christ of his sheep and they become
his LOGIKOS congregation, and Christ becomes the LOGIKOS shepherd of
the congregation and it becomes His LOGIKOS sheep.
This way of putting things is hardy irrelevant, as the struggle
between Paul and Peter becomes the struggle for being the LOGIKOS
Moses to the new Christians of Jewish origin - Peter won, as you will
know, whereas Paul has to settle for being the LOGIKOS Pinehas to the
new Christians of heathen origin. The reason why is this: In 1 Pet 2:2
the elected ones to whom Peter - or whoever it was - was writing are
urged to long for the living stone - i.e. Christ - as infants are
longing for pure milk. In Rom 12:1 the picture is a little more
complicated, but seeing from Rom 9:4 that the LATREIA belongs to the
Israelites it becomes clear that the Romans are urged to see their
presentation of their pure bodies as the parallel to the Israelitic
sacrifices in Jerusalem. And as the words 'QUSIA' and 'LATREIA' are
found together only in Exo 12:25f and in Jos 22:27 - the story of the
trans-Jordanian altar, Pinehas and the Reubenites, the Gadites, and
the half tribe of Manasseh - if becomes clearer what Paul is talking
about - though it also becomes clearer why he was not understood.
Very soon after I first presented this idea, Iver Larsen argued
against my idea which he found semantically unsound. I still don't
know anything about semantics - the word has a ring of sorcery to me -
but I do find it troublesome that he no doubt has understood my
argument even though it may be semantically unsound. Then why
shouldn't some of the more clever Romans have understood it? If
something can be said and understood, does it matter so much then,
what others centuries later declare 'semantically unsound'?


Happy Easter!
Yours
Troels Hansen
tkmh at get2net.dk




More information about the B-Greek mailing list