From: clayton stirling bartholomew (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 18 2000 - 05:44:45 EDT
on 09/17/00 11:30 PM, clayton stirling bartholomew wrote:
> on 09/17/00 2:33 PM, Dan Parker wrote:
>> On page 252 Daniel Wallace in his Exegetical Syntax says he considers
>> AGGELOS QEOU to be definite along with all usages of ANNGELOS KURIOU
>> in both the OT and the NT.
> You sure Wallace said that? Have you overlooked a nuance?
>> The second hWS in the verse is generally taken as adverbial. If the
>> AGGELOS QEOU is definite . . .
> I don't think it is definite in this context. Also take a look at Acts 10:3
> AGGELOV TOU QEOU and Dan 3:25 (LXX) AGGELOU QEOU. Keep in mind who is
> speaking in Dan 3:25.
A few clarifications are in order here.
Dan 3:25 is the MT reference but it is Dan 3:92 in the LXX.
Dan, after some reflection on this, I suspect that when you are intending to
On page 252 Daniel Wallace in his Exegetical Syntax says he considers
AGGELOS QEOU [in Gal. 4:14] to be definite along with all usages of
ANNGELOS KURIOU in both the OT and the NT.
Wallace is swimming aginst the tide on Gal. 4:14, see F.F. Bruce (NIGTC),
H.A.W. Meyer, H. Ridderbos, H. Alford and who knows how many others.
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:36 EDT