Re: Messengers bearing Greeks

From: David Moore (dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us)
Date: Thu Jan 11 1996 - 09:39:59 EST


On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Will Wagers wrote:

> 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.

        It is my observation that, when it comes to matters of how
concepts are expressed in different languages according to accepted
usage, it is very difficult, no matter what logic one may present, to
argue for significant change. In English, God's heavenly messengers are
called angels. That has deep roots that go back, as Will has noted,
through Latin and Greek usage to the Hebrew.

        Will mentions that the OED's oldest citation on the usage goes
back to a Latin text of c. 950. There is also a quote ascribed to
Gregory the Great (540-604) to the effect that it would be fitting to
send missionaries to evangelize the "Angles" of the British Isles since
they were already practically "angels."

David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore



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