“Funny thing, every time an angel appeared to someone in the Bible, the first thing he'd say was, "Fear not." ... I guess they were pretty spectacular.”
- GILBERT MORRIS, The Angels of Bastogne
Have you ever seen an angel?
What are angels? Where do they come from? What is the origin of the word?
Welcome to "The Curmudgeon's Bible."
In this curmudgeon's opinion, the word "angel" does not belong in the bible.
What is an angel? (source)
Let's talk about "angels."
The first thing to know is that "angel" is not even really an English word. It is rather what we call a transliteration, and is not a translation at all. When it comes to the word "angel," the translators took the easy way out and did not bother to translate the word. "Angel" is just an English phonetic spelling of a Greek word that approximates the sound of that word.
As a professional curmudgeon when it comes to bible translation, I find this quite annoying. I've learned enough Greek and Hebrew over the years to form a strong opinion on the matter, and in my curmudgeonly opinion, using the word "angel" stinks to high heaven.
Translators, please translate!
Don't leave us to come up with mental images on our own! Or even worse yet, don't prejudice our understanding by using a word that we think we understand. "Angel" forces our mind to contemplate only a celestial being.
In Greek, the New Testament word transliterated "angel" is the Greek word ἄγγελος. The word as defined in the Strongs Concordance means "a messenger; especially an 'angel'". Most translations render the word into English as "angel." Even the King James version transliterates the word as "angel" 179 out of 186 times. The remaining seven times it is translated to what the Greek word actually means in English, namely messenger.
There is also a Hebrew word used in the old testament that is translated "angel" in most English bibles. It is the word מֲלְאָךְ (pronounced mal-awk') and it also means "messenger." In this case, the KJV translators are a little more balanced, translating the word as "angel" 111 times, as "messenger" 98 times, and otherwise five times.
Is this an angel? (source)
Using the word "angel" is deceptive and misleading.
The word "angel" has in the present day come to mean only a heavenly being of some sort. Yes, in common English usage, we also speak of someone particularly endearing or beautiful as "an angel," but the primary meaning in English is now a transcendental celestial being.
As a student of scripture,
I can tell you that there are at least three different kinds of persons that the bible speaks of as "angels."
Yes, it is true that quite often the two biblical words ä'n-ge-los and mal·äk' do refer to celestial beings. But that is only one of the three uses.
The words are also used to refer to Jesus-God himself. Often the phrase "angel of the LORD" is used. Speaking technically and grammatically, "angel of the LORD" is a appositive genitive, analogous to the phrase "city of San Diego." In other words, in the same way that "The city of San Diego" means "The city which is San Diego," likewise, "The angel of the LORD" means "The angel WHO IS the LORD."
This is an angel? (source)
Finally, these two words may refer to mere human messengers. Yes, people like you and like me. And perhaps, in some cases, people like you and me who have died physically and transitioned into the heavenly realm, and who God choses to use as special messengers.
Are there any translations that have gotten this right? Any that refrain from confusing things by using the word "angel?"
Once again, we have a clear winner.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT) avoids the word "angel" entirely. "Angels" do not appear in the YLT at all!
Angel or Messenger? (source)
What can you take away from all this?
If you're going to claim to be a "translation" of the bible, then translate! Don't transliterate. Use a word or words that preserve as much as possible of the original meaning of the word that you are translating.
When you read the bible, any time you see the word "angel," please think messenger. And then, from the context, see if you can figure out what kind of messenger is being mentioned.
- Is it a celestial being?
- Is it Jesus-God himself?
- Is it a mere man?
There are usually adequate clues in the surrounding passage.
If this curmudgeon "ran the zoo," he would consistently translate both the Hebrew and the Greek words as "messenger," even as the YLT does.
More from the Curmudgeon:
Jesus and Nicodemus
Second Thessalonians Chapter 1
The Word "Church"
The Word "Angel"
🕎Is John's Gospel Anti-Semitic?🕎
~FIN~
Do you think the use of transliteration in this way is mistake, laziness, or obfuscation of the message, or something else?
Wow, my friend, what an excellent question! Probably deserving of another entire article.
In some cases, I'm fairly quick to assign blame and bad motives; in others, I hesitate. As curmudgeonly as I get in this series of articles, I really do have some level of compassion for the translators. They have to make judgement calls at every turn. They tend to run in packs, working as committees. They often have oversight boards that steer them one way or another. Unfortunately, translation by committee is kind of like herding cattle...
I think that perhaps the best translations are the ones done by individuals - for example, Young's Literal Translation. Robert Young's deliberate intention was to be as literal as possible. However, going that route does make it hard for the English reader to understand.
Other individual translators definitely bring their own theological prejudices to the table, for example the J.B. Phillips New Testament. Phillips is an example of the theological prejudice I complained bitterly about in the "II Thessalonians 1" entry in this series.
In other words, dag-nabbit, there's just no satisfying this curmudgeon! I just have to do my own translation! Better yet, we need to download expert knowledge of Greek and Hebrew into the brain of anyone seriously interested in the topic! :D
In other cases, I damn well will condemn the translators and their committees... for example, watch for an upcoming entry about Romans 13:1 and following.... When I manage to get that entry written, I will roundly condemn the modernists for utterly, intentionally obfuscating and misdirecting the reader! :O
Thanks a lot, friend @lifeworship, for your insightful question! :)
I tend to focus on the message rather than the messenger.
That sounds like an excellent mindset. :)
my family and I have encountered an ä'n-ge-los many times. Actually, I just did recently. I wondered if these persons were human messengers from heavenly places, especially the last one who seemed very natural in a supernatural way. There's just something wondrous about the encounters and you always wonder afterwards if you just met an angel, and you usually conclude that you did ;)
Very interesting. I've never (to my knowledge) yet met one.
I've certainly met people, however, who have been genuine "angels of mercy" to me and my family! :)
Thank you for this, I do believe in Angels, Never seen one but have my own stash of Angel ornaments :)
Yes. To me, some of the most interesting messengers/angels appear in another book that John wrote, the Apocalypse, a.k.a. the Book of Revelation. :) I'm pretty sure that some of the messengers there are people...
I think alot of angels are land angels. :)
I haven't heard this before. Apparently, I have been indoctrinated already. I will remember angels as messengers. Your article does make sense.
Thank you! Glad to help a touch... :)
Very well written. I'm new to the platform but am a surfer, christian, and investor. i think we'll be friends!
Hello, Jordan,
And welcome to Steemit! Thank you very much for reading my article, introducing yourself, and for your kind comment. I look forward to getting to know you. You can get to know me by checking out my library - just click the GIF below:
😄😇😄
