From: Polycarp66@aol.com
Date: Thu Apr 20 2000 - 07:55:08 EDT
In a message dated 4/20/2000 5:40:54 AM Central Standard Time, karolus@wf.net
writes:
<<
The discussion of Rev 19.9 gives me a chance to make a case for translating
AGGELOS as 'messenger' rather than using the transliteration 'angel.' In my
experience 'angel' tends to generate static in the mind of the reader.
Strange to say, it seems to give them too much information. 'Messenger'
draws attention to the fact that these are beings with a duty to perform,
namely the bringing of a message. 'Angel' seems to draw attention to the
bearer of the message and conjures up those confounded unscriptural winged
critters who inevitably steal the show.
>>
I agree that there are certain preconceptions in the public mind regarding
what is intended by the term "angel." There are times when you definitely
would NOT wish to translate/transliterate AGGELOS as "angel." The reference
to the messengers from John the Baptizer is one (I would contend also for the
AGGELOI of the seven letters of Revelation). Despite its flaws, however,
there is a necessity to distinguish divine messengers from human ones -- here
the term "angel" is useful.
gfsomsel
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:06 EDT