From: Eric and Karol-Ann Weiss (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 01 2000 - 00:28:46 EDT
>  In fact, that sentence is why I take
> the AGGELOI to be `messengers'
> and not angels. The idea of "speaking"
> (LALEW) is forefront in the
> author's mind. It is the first aorist
> finite verb. Messengers speak.
> And the first reference to AGGELOI
> is articular, thus indicating that
> the author thinks of the persons as
> already in the reader's cognitive
> environment. Who are they? Well,
> I think they are the "PROFHTHS" of
> verse 1. Why is PROFHTHS articular?
> Because they are already in the
> cognitive environment from the original
> reader's extra-textual context.
> To postulate that angels were already
> in the extra-textual context would
> require their prominence. Our not
> being able to produce extra-Biblical
> evidence in support indicates (to me)
> no prominence. Thus it seems
> more likely that they refer to the
> prophets who were prominent to a 1st
> century Jew.
But ... whereas the AGGELOI of 1:4 might be the PROFHTHS, I find it
difficult to reconcile this with 1:6-7 wherein the quotes from the
Psalms, which use AGGELOS in the LXX, seem to refer to divine messengers
(i.e., "angels"). I am a complete novice at DA, but I find it hard to
explain why the author would change his meaning for AGGELOS from
"prophet" to "angel" in the space of a couple verses, especially since
the later verses seem to flow from the earlier ones.
"Eric S. and Karol-Ann Weiss"
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:33 EDT