Angel of the LORD

In the Old Testament, somebody called 'Angel of the LORD' shows up a lot. Sometimes, this person/angel confuses the understand the characters in the story. In Genesis 22, it was 'the Angel of the LORD' who stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. Also in Exodus 3, 'the Angel of the LORD' calls Moses from the burning bush.

In either passage, the following portion suggests that the one who is present is the LORD Himself. 

As I was checking the translation of both stories, there seems to be some confusion of character. A word/sign used for 'Angel of the LORD' is something like a being which has a wing, so this being is considered a different being from the LORD Himself. But, this being talks as if he is the LORD.

The word 'Angel' has a very strong imagery, the being with wing, and in many cases that's a female like figure. It might be this 'image' the translators had when they were translating these portions.

The word 'angel' is from 'αγγελος' in Greek and in either Hebrew or Greek, they mean 'messenger.' In the OT passages above, 'Angel of the LORD' is 'מלאך יהוה’, and again, this should mean 'the messenger of the LORD.' In NT, equivalent expression would be 'αγγελος κυριου'. So, now what can be 'messenger'? Does it have to be a being? 

I have never come across in NT that 'αγγελος' denote non-being (I might be wrong, but that's my observation). 

According to the Word Biblical Commentary, in many part of Pentateuch, this expression of 'the angel of the LORD' can mean the sign/symbol/representation of the LORD. That means, this 'angel' may not mean a being apart from the LORD, rather it is part of the LORD. So, it may be like the Sun and the radiation from the Sun. The Sun is understood to be the LORD and the radiation as the messenger... 

That would solve the problem of understanding, but it would be still difficult to translate... I guess. 

Hearing way or Deaf way?

The word 'translation' is perceived so vague to some that it requires a modifier to restrict its meaning often times. Sometimes we say 'literal' translation, and other times, 'meaning-based' translation, or 'dynamic-equivalence'... and so on.
In many cases, I'm not sure how 'literal' one can translate. Each word has multiple senses and it is not likely to find word-to-word match up in cross-language translation. Also When the bible is translated into other languages, word order matters, too. Hebrew basic word order is VSO and Greek basic word order also is VSO (though Greek is highly flexible in word order). If, for example, we translate the bible into Japanese which is a SOV-basic-word-order-language, it is already not 'literal' once we change its word order. But if we retain the word order of the original language, it will cost the comprehensibility of the translated text.
Also as I have studied Discourse of languages, it matters how we use structures like repetition, chiasm, fronting the words, information load, pronoun use... so on. Depending on how we use them, it changes the force, focus, emphasis, hesitation... many things so the reader/audience gets different concepts.
If 'literal' risks the accuracy of what the text means, then the meaning should (in my opinion) be retained and changes the literal-ness of the text.

So, now here is an example I have found today. It is from Exodus 3:4.

3:4 When the LORD saw that he had turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”

When the LORD calls Moses, He calls Moses' name twice. It is so natural for the Hearing folks. But for the Deaf, it is not the case. At least, here in the Philippines, the Deaf taps, never calls people's name.
Their first draft had this "Moses! Moses!" in their translation. But they'd probably change it to "Tap Tap." In hearing way, it sounds like "Hey hey!" This is a little funny example, but that's how things are different in different language, I think.
I have heard a message once from this passage that the LORD knows the name of Moses!! It may be a good message, but I don't think that's really meant here.

flat bread?

Continuing the thoughts on Exodus chapter 12.

There is a passage where the Lord is telling Moses and Aaron that Israelites are not to put 'yeast' in the dough of the bread.

The translators translated that passage as 'flat bread'. "You must eat it (roasted lamb/goat) with bread and bitter herb..." and further explains how to prepare the bread, that 'without yeast' you must make.

So, I asked them what it means to be 'flat' bread. They answered, it should not be 'fat' but 'flat.' So, we went over the passage. I asked again, with a little different question, 'what does this yeast do?' Their answer was that it makes the bread 'fat'... probably meaning big.

So, I asked them to show me (in sign language) how to bake bread. And they did. They showed me in two ways, one way that they experienced baking in India, and the other way that requires this magical 'yeast.'
(Indian way... I'm not really sure how much is true, but they said this is how they did there)
1. Put water in a bowl.
2. Put flour in the bowl of water.
3. Make a dough.
4. Bake it.
5. Eat it.

(With yeast...)
1. Put water in a bowl.
2. Put yeast in the water (they put 'yeast' in the same way they would put pepper or salt! - in their gesture/sign)
3. Put flour in the bowl.
4. Make a dough
5. Bake it.
6. Eat it.

I asked, when the bread become 'fat.' Their answer was 'during it is being baked...'
Apparently they didn't know what this 'yeast' do.

In the later passage, the sons of Israel brought the dough without yeast from the Egypt. So, they made A LOT of dough! If they had to wait for the dough to rise, they had to wait for a loooooooooooooong time. We can see the 'hast' of Passover meal from this part, too.

Since they are not sure about this part, we are having a baking experience on coming Monday night and see how they decide to sign this part... I'm sure they will change their story signing!

Destruction, Destroyer, Messenger of God, or God Himself?

Translation team moved into the translation of the Passover. There are a lot of movies out there showing how the Passover event happened. One of my favorites is an animation film called "Prince of Egypt." There a vague light comes into the scene from the sky and go around the houses, checking if there is a blood on the doorposts. If there is, the light goes around it, and if there isn't, it goes in and kills the first born male in that house. Here, in Exodus 12:23, Moses is announcing to the leaders of the community of Israel what he heard from the Lord.

Exo. 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to strike down the Egyptians; when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over that door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you down. (NRSV)

It says 'destroyer.' Who is this 'destroyer'?
The translation team has not even think about this question, but came to certain conclusions: two translators interpreted as an Angel. It is quite clear because he signed (sign language) obvious 'angel', one translator just skipped this word and let the Lord be the one doing the direct action of killing the first born (obviously, he thought it was not an important information...).

In Hebrew
‏וְעָבַ֣ר יְהוָה֮ לִנְגֹּ֣ף אֶת־מִצְרַיִם֒ וְרָאָ֤ה אֶת־הַדָּם֙ עַל־הַמַּשְׁק֔וֹף וְעַ֖ל שְׁתֵּ֣י הַמְּזוּזֹ֑ת וּפָסַ֤ח יְהוָה֙ עַל־הַפֶּ֔תַח וְלֹ֤א יִתֵּן֙ הַמַּשְׁחִ֔ית לָבֹ֥א אֶל־בָּתֵּיכֶ֖ם לִנְגֹּֽף׃

המשחית‏ is the word here causing a bit of problem. This word is a articular participle, and the participle is Hiphil participle masc.sg.abs. There are basically two ways to understand this construction here: 1) the one who does the action (of destruction), or 2) the concept itself (i.e. the destruction). Many of the translations go with the first interpretation.

It is obvious from the other verses that it, killing of the first born, was the LORD's doing. If so, separate denotation to the destroyer makes things confused. If LORD = the Destroyer, then the LORD is not allowing/permitting Himself to enter into the houses of the sons of Israel to strike... funny.

For me, the easiest understanding is to take this articular hiphil participle as an abstract concept, i.e., 'destruction', since the destruction is the Lord's doing but the Lord watches ('vigil', in later passage) to keep the 'destroyer' out of the houses of the sons of Israel sounds like there is an opposing being against the Lord... Anyways, ancient Hebrew worldview must be investigated to answer this question... I have to e-mail many people.

A thought

I've been writing my Japanese Blog, and came to a thought that I might do the same with English. I spend a few minutes a day updating anyway, so I would increase that time and write a bit more in English, too.