![]() Local descriptors: Local contextual cues help us determine the nature of many appearances of these figures. Question restatement: Are there hermeneutic principles which help us discover whether there is an intended 'spiritual' or 'human' source implied in the Greek and Hebrew terms for 'messenger', in texts such as these?Ībove I have argued that I would suggest to preserve 'messenger' in every instance, but what tools do we then have to determine the nature of these messengers? The words in question evidently have ranges of meaning, and the Hebrew term particularly is found in texts ranging across hundreds of years, so what indicators can we use to determine its range or intention in a given text? Yet this approach in my view is still lacking, as for unfamiliar readers it would imply that 'messenger' was necessarily non-spiritual. However, some translators will want to preserve 'angel' in some texts for traditional reasons (perhaps they think the passage is best tied-in with our inherited understanding of angels), and so I would advise that this only be done in the few cases where there is no doubt to its spiritual origin. It could be argued that the underlying texts in many instances provoke exactly your question: 'is this a divine being or a human being?' In such cases, if we make a decision as a translator, we risk stealing natural questions and over-writing them with our own theologies. Our motive is usually a good one, because we want to provide more clarity to the reader - but the underlying text does not provide this clarity. If we choose to translate these terms according to the Latin 'angelus / nuntius / legatus' split in order to get to English, we're injecting our own meaning into the text. Q: How should we best translate these terms?Ī: These terms should read 'messenger' in every instance ![]() Personally I find your overall question a lot easier than its associated details: The problem is that we then read inherited traditions of 'angels' into ancient texts which predated these traditions and their associated theologies. It is likely that some translations follow the 'split' used by these early Latin traditions, and evidently others determine the translation for themselves on a case-by-case basis (hence the KJV's variance in translation of Job 33:23 "If there be a messenger with him, one among a thousand.", where the Vulgate used 'angelus'). ![]() Most English translations follow this tradition in some form, maintaining the separation in order to preserve the familiar 'angel' terminology which we have inherited in our cultures. These terms were then used throughout the biblical text, reading 'angelos' back into Old Testament texts. The Latin Vulgate was the first translation which tried to separate the word into divine and human, by transliterating the Greek term αγγελος to create the Latin angelus for divine messengers, and 'translating' it properly for human messengers, typically as either nuntius or legatus. The Hebrew and Greek terms for 'messenger' do have this natural overlap, and can cause contention in translation. In Job 33:23, מלאך is sometimes translated angel, sometimes messenger.Īre there any hermeneutic principles that can help us determine how to translate מלאך or αγγελος in texts like these? Αγγελος in Acts 12:15 and Rev 3:1 (and the whole of Revelation 3) are almost universally translated as angel, even though there does seem to be anything clearly supernatural (or human) about these αγγελοι. Tell a person what constitutes his uprightness (Job 33:23 NET) If there is an angel beside him, one mediator out of a thousand, to That you are alive, but in reality you are dead. The solemn pronouncement of the one who holds the seven spirits of GodĪnd the seven stars: ‘I know your deeds, that you have a reputation “To the angel of the church in Sardis write the following: “This is That it was Peter, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” (Acts However, there are texts where it is not so clear what is meant by מלאך or αγγελος, yet are consistently translated one way or the other.īut they said to her, “You’ve lost your mind!” But she kept insisting If the מלאך or αγγελος is glowing, flying, or kills 185,000 troops in one night, then he an angel. Often, it is clear from context whether מלאך and αγγελος refer to a human messenger or an angelic messenger.įor example, if a מלאך or αγγελος is sent by a human, then the messenger is likely human.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |