From: CWestf5155 (CWestf5155@aol.com)
Date: Tue Dec 09 1997 - 11:26:01 EST
Dear Chris,
In a message dated 97-12-09 02:43:27 EST, you write:
>
> A question that arrises in connection with this post is whether it is
> possible from the Greek to determine if AGGELOS is to be translated as
> 'messenger' or 'angel'. Is there any way to tell, or is it just guessed
> from the context?
>
> Another possible translation of AGGELOS as 'messenger' might be 1 Peter
> 1.12:
> EIS hA EPIQUMOUSIN AGGELOI PARAKUPSAI
> .... things into which angels long to look (RSV). All the EVV have
> 'angels', but the context might suit 'messengers' better. The messengers
> being the prophets of v 10.
>
This observation has an interesting application to Hebrews 1:1-3:1. Louw and
Nida indicate a rather significant overlap of semantic domain between AGGELOS
and PROFHTHS (12:28, p. 144; however, the concern about the overlap appears to
be an overlap in translation into other languages), and in 33.195-196 AGGELOS
and APOSTOLOS are listed consecutively. DIAKONOS, however, is not viewed as
close a cognate to the other three.
Since prophets, apostles and angels are all viewed as close cognates which can
all be translated as 'messenger', the texture of Hebrews 1:1-3:1 emerges as
very cohesive, where Jesus is contrasted with prophets (1:1) and angels
(1:4-15), and presented as the ultimate spokesman and apostle (1:1, 2:1-4,
3:1). Therefore the seemingly curious reference to Jesus as an apostle in 3:1
serves to summarize his office as a messenger, and in Hebrews, all three terms
should be viewed primarily in terms of the function of a prophet, angel, or
apostle as a messenger through whom God spoke.
It seems to me that we often view words such as AGGELOS, APOSTOLOS and
PROFHTHS in terms of their translation. And the words in English seem to
emphasize office and identity (angel, apostle, prophet). The focus in English
is on their use as technical terms
When we read these words in Greek, it would be best to view them in terms of
their function (which overlaps), as well as their office. Check out the
context to see what the author's point is--if the idea of witnessing,
speaking, prophecying, etc, is prominent in the near context, the function
would be in view and emphasized. If there is not a lot of reference to
function in the near context, I would take it primarily as an office (or
identity).
In regards to I Peter 1:12, two things are important. First, in the near
context speaking and preaching are predominant, so the inclusion of AGGELOI
indicates that the prophets, preachers (who are probably apostles) and
*angels* are all viewed primarily in terms of their function as messengers of
the word of God. However, second, all three terms are part of a network of
options for the concept of *messengers of the word of God*. Since all three
terms are used in conjunction, both their similarity as well as their
distinctiveness are emphasized. Since angels are viewed consistently as
messengers of God, I would see this as a reference to a heavenly beings, but
with the primary focus on the heavenly beings' function.
In the early church depicted in the Pauline epistles, the offices of prophet,
apostle, etc, was determined by (or equated to) the function of the the
individual in the area of his/her spiritual gift (in slight contrast with
Luke, who seems to use the term APOSTOLOS more technically).
Cindy Westfall
PhD Student, Roehampton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:37 EDT