aggelos

Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Thu Apr 20 07:55:08 EDT 2000


In a message dated 4/20/2000 5:40:54 AM Central Standard Time, karolus at 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



More information about the B-Greek mailing list