Re: Messengers bearing Greeks

From: Will Wagers (wagers@computek.net)
Date: Thu Jan 11 1996 - 03:17:36 EST


Thx to David Moore for his prompt attention to my questions. Although
the TDNT contains a wealth of information on angelos: it does not address
my concerns directly. For one thing, it does not deal with English usage.

My question is why should the Greek term angelos be carried into English
as angel, rather than translating it consistently with the Greek (and with
the Hebrew mal'ak) in the broad sense of messenger, divine or mundane.
Is it simply an accident of usage with the Latin-trained clergy slipping it
into common English? Surely, in early English, "messenger" must have
had the same connotation of representing a higher power (lord) as do
angelos and mal'ak.

Historically, "angel" (alt. spellings) came from the LXX translation of
mal'ak yehowah, thence into Latin. (The earliest reference in OED is c.
950 _Lindisf. Gosp._ Matt. xxii 30 Sint suelce englas godes in heofnum)
[Incidentally, where did "godes" come from in this verse?]

And, no matter how the translation occurred historically, why is it con-
tinued? Isn't "messenger" a more proper translation than "angel"? Isn't
the retention of "angel" tantamount to leaving it untranslated, in effect,
substituting a theologically-defined word for the actual word ? Is the
reason for this purely theological? This type of transliteration, rather
than translation, seems common among theologically-significant terms.
Was it simply "cool" to know and use the Greek (Latin) terms which found
their way into English? Were such terms considered technical jargon,
having been defined away from the simple text by theologians?

And, given the translation as angel, why do we translate "angel of Satan"
as "messenger of Satan" (C2 12:7) ?

In asking why, I am looking for a textual reason, underlying any
historical, sociological, psychological, etc. reasons. If the reason is not
textual, then I suggest that the translation is in error. If the reason is
linguistic, I should like to understand it.

The only reason why I am so concerned with such a common and trivial
borrowing from another language is, of course, the fact that the text
is considered sacred and not to be tampered with.

Sincerely,

Will



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:35 EDT