From: Maurice A. O'Sullivan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 18 2000 - 04:45:44 EDT
<x-flowed>At 07:30 18/09/00, clayton stirling bartholomew 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?
Here is the actual quote --- progressing from " most probable" to " is "
I would rate as blunt rather than nuanced <g>
>>One of the many theologically significant constructions is AGGELOS
KURIOU (cf. Matt 1:20; 28:2; Luke 2:9; Acts 12:7; Gal 4:14 [AYYELOS QEOU]
In the LXX this is the normal phrase used to translate MLACH ADONAI ("the
angel of the Lord").
The NT exhibits the same phenomenon, prompting Nigel Turner to suggest that
"AGGELOS KURIOU is not an angel but the angel [of the Lord]." Indeed,
although most scholars treat AGGELOS KURIOU in the NT as "an angel of the
Lord," there is no linguistic basis for doing so. Apart from theological
argument, it is most probable that AGGELOS KURIOU is the angel of the Lord
in the NT and is to be identified with the the angel of the Lord of the OT.<<
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
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 - 15:36:36 EDT