From: Edgar Krentz (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 27 1997 - 12:06:12 EST
>Hi all b-greekers,
> I have been off this list now for several months and intend to get back
>onto it again. We have all heard of the so-called preacher Greek. My
>question is: what do you guys think of the popular usage of RHMA(trans?) as
>opposed to LOGOS? The popular usage of preachers is that LOGOS refers to the
>written word whereas RHMA refers to the spoken word.
I think it has no basis in liguistics. There are three terms that can be
1. ONOMA, "name," is also the grammatical term for noun.
2. hRHMA is the term ancient Greek grammarians use for "verb." Therefore
it can also mean a statement, since every verb is a statement it Greek
also. Its connotations are compounded by its use as the translation of the
Hebrew DAVAR, which can mean "thing," or "act" in addition to having the
sense of statement.
3. LOGOS means rational or logical speech, that is it connected, rational
discourse. The book of Hebrews is one LOGOS. Its usage is complicated by
the factd that it is used in ancient Greek philosophy of that which gives
the universe order, in Stoicism of the rational PNEUMA that runs through
the universe. It also, via Philo and the LXX comes to be identified with
Hebrew CHOKMA = Greek SOFIA.
A LOGOS can be oral or written. So can a hRHMA.
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 EAST 55TH STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60615
Tel:  256-0752; (H)  947-8105
Reply to: email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:07 EDT