It could well be that the Old Testament appearances of 'the angel of the Lord' was not given a specific name at that time because He was none other than the Son, the pre-incarnate 'Mini-Me' of the Father, with a name that should not be spoken, because it is 'wonderful,' i.e., it is powerful, too sacred to be spoken?
To Joshua He introduced Himself as 'the Captain of the Lord's Host' - surely none other than the Son? Though Arch. Michael is often considered to be a Commander.
However, the angel that accompanies a traveler in Tobias is named (at 3:25). This is Septuagint; I don't know how you derive the concept 'proto-canonical' to exclude this example?
Appearances of angels in the Temple were not unknown; consider the assumption around Zechariah's delay in coming forth from the Holiest, and the reaction to his subsequent dumbness. Thus, during Our Lady's devoted sojourn in the temple, she may well have met and/or spoken with angels prior to the Annunciation, therefore the appearance at Nazareth wasn't so surprising to her. And she spoke to him with confidence, questioning only how she could continue to fulfill her vowed virginity whilst also bearing a son. A big contrast to Zechariah's lack of faith; and of course the obedience as antidote to Eve's disobedience.
Perhaps Zechariah's lack of faith also serves to indicate to us that the Atonement worked in the Jerusalem temple was not fully effectual? Only Christ's Atonement, as the Melchizedekan High Priest would be truly effectual to restore the universe, (ref. Heb. 3-10, i.e., esp. 7.18)
Sure, I lean toward the Angel of the Lord being the pre-Incarnate Christ. However, that doesn't explain *all* of the unnamed angels in both the Old and New Testaments. Consider, for example, the two unnamed angels at the Lord's tomb.
The Old Testament is broken up into the protocanon and the deuterocanon, I didn't think this was controversial.
It's possible that our Lady saw angels before, but this isn't clear from the text.
May I contribute a few thoughts:
It could well be that the Old Testament appearances of 'the angel of the Lord' was not given a specific name at that time because He was none other than the Son, the pre-incarnate 'Mini-Me' of the Father, with a name that should not be spoken, because it is 'wonderful,' i.e., it is powerful, too sacred to be spoken?
To Joshua He introduced Himself as 'the Captain of the Lord's Host' - surely none other than the Son? Though Arch. Michael is often considered to be a Commander.
However, the angel that accompanies a traveler in Tobias is named (at 3:25). This is Septuagint; I don't know how you derive the concept 'proto-canonical' to exclude this example?
Appearances of angels in the Temple were not unknown; consider the assumption around Zechariah's delay in coming forth from the Holiest, and the reaction to his subsequent dumbness. Thus, during Our Lady's devoted sojourn in the temple, she may well have met and/or spoken with angels prior to the Annunciation, therefore the appearance at Nazareth wasn't so surprising to her. And she spoke to him with confidence, questioning only how she could continue to fulfill her vowed virginity whilst also bearing a son. A big contrast to Zechariah's lack of faith; and of course the obedience as antidote to Eve's disobedience.
Perhaps Zechariah's lack of faith also serves to indicate to us that the Atonement worked in the Jerusalem temple was not fully effectual? Only Christ's Atonement, as the Melchizedekan High Priest would be truly effectual to restore the universe, (ref. Heb. 3-10, i.e., esp. 7.18)
Sure, I lean toward the Angel of the Lord being the pre-Incarnate Christ. However, that doesn't explain *all* of the unnamed angels in both the Old and New Testaments. Consider, for example, the two unnamed angels at the Lord's tomb.
The Old Testament is broken up into the protocanon and the deuterocanon, I didn't think this was controversial.
It's possible that our Lady saw angels before, but this isn't clear from the text.