[B-Greek] LOGIKOS again
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Apr 10 07:08:10 EDT 2003
IF this subject is to be discussed again, could the discussion remain
focused upon grammatical/philological/lexicographical reasons for the
supposed usage of the adjective LOGIKOS and NOT upon more general and
theological interpretation of some broader or all-inclusive New Testament
context?
At 11:55 AM +0200 4/10/03, Troels Hansen wrote:
>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
>
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list