Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is MRYA the same as YHWH?
#16
Shlama,

i've got a question:

MARYA/MORYO as i see it shouldn't be read as "that-the-master" - or am i missing something? wouldn't "that" entail the Dalet proclitic? this doesn't appear in the texts in question.

i was under the impression MARA/MORO and MARYA/MORYO is the same exact term. obviously, there is the added aspect of MARYA being used most often to refer to YHWH in the Peshitta A"NK, as well as at certain points in the Peshitta NT. but i thought the two were basically the same = "Master."

as it is, i think verse 44's "Mari" refers to Marya in verse 43 in the sense of "Master," and not YHWH. i know there are others who would respectably disagree, but that is how i would translate it.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#17
I believe that the appearance of marya here is a mistake because (1) it's showing that Dawid called Y'shua mari contextually and (2) Luke and John both record it as mari.

I believe Marya is plural+emphatic form of [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]rm[/font] (MR)
Check out Colossians 4:1... it uses marya in that exact way.
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ym4b 0rm wh ty0 Jwkl P0d Ny9dy Jwtywhw Jwkydb9 twl 0twn0kw 0twyw4 wdb9 0yrm[/font]
Masters, do equity and justice to your servants, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1 Etheridge)
Reply
#18
There are a lot of oddities on the inflections for "master". (more`) for example, one would typically think to be the emphatic plural "the-masters", but by context is singular construct "master-of".

My hypothesis on (mor:yo`) being a demonstrative emphatic such as "that-a-master" "that-the-master" could be wrong. Just thought I would share my thoughts on it. I do agree with Aaron though, that something doesn't look right with Matay 22: 43 & 45, and Colossians 4:1 is the plural form of it as well, written as (morayo`).
Reply
#19
FWIW, the grammatical inflections shown on the Dukhrana website seems to resolve my issues. Others may disagree, but this is my general take on it:

12398 (moro`) = singular absolute, "master"
12399 (more`) = singular construct, "master-of"
12407 (mor:yo`) = singular emphatic, "the-master" or "a-master" per context.
12404 (morawon) = plural absolute, "masters"
12415 (moray) = plural construct, "masters-of"
12408 (morayo`) = plural emphatic, "those-masters" or "the-masters" per context.

It makes Matay 22: 43-45 read smoothly, and is workable for Colossians 4:1 as well.
Reply
#20
Shalom Jerry,

I think this is the best answer without throwing out the Aramaic of this verse. But it doesn't seem to solve the most obvious: why use [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yrm[/font] if he's referring to [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]zrm[/font] in Aramaic Psalm 110:1? This question completely disregards whether [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yrm[/font] and [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]zrm[/font] can mean the same thing due to the proximity of the quote of Psalm 110:1.

Blessings
Reply
#21
Aaron, I'm not sure if I am reading your comment correctly. But I will take a stab at it.

For me, it was a foregone conclusion that (MoR:Yo`) referenced back to (YHWH), but I was wondering why it was also used as a plural form (MoRaYo`), and also as non-YHWH specific in Matay 22: 43-45. So it was just a matter of grammar to me.

My take is that Matay used (MoR:Yo`) in 22:43-45 because it means both "the-master" (YHWH) and "a-master" of any sort. In the Peshitta NT, the definite and indefinite articles are vocalized the same. Thus, it is our English translations that have to distinguish them by context.

So while (MoR:Yo`) is used to represent (YHWH) in Aramaic; it is not, in my belief, a specific designate to (YHWH) only.
Reply
#22
shlomo 'amkun,

Some base definitions:
moro (sing) (Emphatic) -- The Lord
morawoto (plural) (Emphatic) -- The Lords
more (sing) (Absolute/Construct) -- A Lord / Lord of
moray (plural) (Construct) -- Lords of
morayo (plural) (Emphatic) -- The Lords

moryo (sing) (Emphatic) -- Lord-Yah

Example of another irregular plural:
ido (sing) (Emphatic) -- The Hand
idayo (plural) (Emphatic) -- The Hands
iday (plural) (Construct) -- The Hands of

idyo (sing) (Emphatic) <= doesn't exist as a word

Comments:
morayo isn't the plural of moryo. moryo is a construct
of mor and yo. These type of constructs are common in
Semitic languages.

Col. 4:1
It starts with "morayo" and not "moryo" followed by a
plural verb of the 2nd person imperative.

I don't see the issue that you're having with the verses in
Matthew.

Here are a few examples from Aramaic liturgical texts:
teshbuhto laloho bamrawme <= Here we know that "aloho" refers to moryo, even thou they used the generic word for God
wlokh mor(y) shubho <= here "mor(y)" means "My Lord" and we know it refers to Jesus who is moryo
moro dramshe wamtaksono dkhul <= here "moro" means "Lord" and we know its refers to the Father who is moryo
moryo moran moro d'ire wadmalakhe <= here it says "Lord-Yah Our Lord The Lord ..."
lmoryo aloho dilan <= here it says "to Lord-Yah Our God"

push bashlomo,
keefa bar morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#23
Shlama Keefa,

The problem is not with the words themselves but the fact that Mark 12:37 and Luke 20:44 (the parallel verses) read [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]zrm[/font].

The questions regarding Matthew 22:43-45 are:
  • Can this variant be correct?
  • Had Y'shua been making a reference to [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]zrm[/font], as is a constraint of the context, why would he say [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yrm[/font]?

My conclusion is that [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yrm[/font] in Matthew 22:43,45 either was not the original reading or was a mistake by the hand of Matthew.
Reply
#24
Aaron S Wrote:Shalom Jerry,

I think this is the best answer without throwing out the Aramaic of this verse. But it doesn't seem to solve the most obvious: why use [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yrm[/font] if he's referring to [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]zrm[/font] in Aramaic Psalm 110:1?

Not sure if I have followed all the subtlties here, but maybe he was not referring to the Aramaic psalm 110 that we have.
IIRC these verses in psalm 110 seem to have been troubling for some at various times and possibly subject to "improvement" by one hand or another.
Reply
#25
Is it possible that Matti (possibly being Judean as opposed to Galilean or Assyrian) was familiar with a different variant of psalm 110 , and different dialectical peculiarities WRT the use of these terms ?

As I alluded to earlier wasnt this part of psalm 110 subject to some hand altering it is some textual traditions?
Wasn't adonai inserted in one tradition to "clear things up".
Perhaps the variations we see in the NT peshitta are a function of this same kind of process, in pre NT times?
Reply
#26
shlomo 'amkun,

Parallel Passages:
Mat 22:43: ?????????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????????
Mat 22:44: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Mar 12:36: ???????? ?????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????
Mar 12:36: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Luk 20:42: ?????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????????
Luk 20:42: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Acts 2:34: ?????????? ????????????
Acts 2:34: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Psalm 110:1: ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ????????????????

Mat 22:45: ?????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ??????????
Mar 12:37: ???????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????????????????? ?????????? ????????????????????
Luk 20:44: ?????? ?????????????? ???????????????? ?????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ??????????

Other Passages:
Acts 2:36: ???????????????????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????????????????? ????????????????????
Luk 2:12: ???????????????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????????????????????????? ????????????????????
Psalm 16:2: ?????????????????? ?????????????? ?????????????? ????????????

Comments:
So based on the fact that both Mat 22:43 and Mat 22:45 use ?????????????????? we can be sure that it wasn???t accidental.
Looking at Acts 2:36 which is part of mor keefo???s address, he identifies Him (yeshu???) as ??????????????? ?????????????????????, in relation to the passages in question. In Luk 2:12, Luke indentifies Him as ??????????????? ?????????????????.

Also in my previous post I showed that ???????????????? can be used to address ??????????????????, based on context. Also see Psalm 16:2 quoted above.

The question itself asked by (yeshu???) answers itself, by the fact that the Lord of David is ??????????????????, as is highlighted by Acts 2:36 and Psalm 16:2.

So with relation to whether the question being asked used "??????????" or "????????????" depends on what the individual Apostle heard. But one thing is for sure, the Apostles understood that yeshu' msheeho is moryo.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#27
The more I think about this the more I think that a simple solution is that Matti was quoting a different version of this psalm, or possibly even inventing his own in order to clear up what had been a misunderstanding thAT HAD CREPT IN DUE TO THE Hebrew?Aramaic of psalm 110 becoming corrupt.

1. We know from the DSS that slightly differing verions of the Hebrew scriptures existed when the NT was penned.
2. IIUC psalm 110 was a psalm that had been revised around this very point (I am happy to be corrected here).

Why would we assume that Matti would always be familiar with or use the same version as Luqa or Marqus?
Reply
#28
shlomo Judge,

judge Wrote:The more I think about this the more I think that a simple solution is that Matti was quoting a different version of this psalm, or possibly even inventing his own in order to clear up what had been a misunderstanding thAT HAD CREPT IN DUE TO THE Hebrew?Aramaic of psalm 110 becoming corrupt.

1. We know from the DSS that slightly differing verions of the Hebrew scriptures existed when the NT was penned.
2. IIUC psalm 110 was a psalm that had been revised around this very point (I am happy to be corrected here).

Why would we assume that Matti would always be familiar with or use the same version as Luqa or Marqus?

If you look at what I quoted in the earlier post, you'll see that the relevant part of the Psalm is the same for the three gospels:

Mat 22:44: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Mar 12:36: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Luk 20:42: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Acts 2:34: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Ps 110:1: ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ????????????????

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Reply
#29
This is how I think it may have been grammatically intended, using (mor:yo`) in "singular emphatic" form.

Matt: ... "Of said the-Lord to my-lord, 'Sit to thee from my right, until of I to put thy enemies below thy feet.'" If therefore David calling to him 'a-lord', how is it his son be he?

Mark: ... "Of said the-Lord to my-lord, 'Sit to thee from the right, until of I to put thy enemies the footstool below thy feet.'" He it be thus David, therefore calling to him 'my-lord'; how is it his son? ...

Using (mor:yo`) as some form of unique construct to YHWH seems problematic to me in Matthew:

Matt: ... "Of said Lord-YHWH to my-lord, 'Sit to thee from my right, until of I to put thy enemies below thy feet.'" If therefore David calling to him 'Lord-YHWH', how is it his son be he?

Were I to try to build a further case for (mor:yo`) as being nothing more than the "singular emphatic" to (moro`), it would be that (moro`) does appear to be the singular "absolute" and (more`) the singular "construct". This leaves only (mor:yo`) to fill the void for "singular emphatic". Not that (mor:yo`) does not represent YHWH in most cases, just that it is not a unique qualifier to it.
Reply
#30
(moro`) as singular "absolute", a bit questionable, but workable:

Mt 11:25, "my-Father, Lord of-the-Heavens"
Lk 14:23, "and-says Lord to-his-servant"
Jude 1:4, "of-being-him, only-him; Lord the-Alah, our-Lord, Yeshua the-Anointed"
Rev 11:4, "before Lord of-all-her the land"
1Tm 6:15, "the-King of-the-Kings, and-Lord of-the-Lordships"

(more`) as singular "construct":

Mt 9:38, "from lord-of the-harvest"
Mt 13:52 "lord-of the-house"
Lk 7:41, "two indebted, being they-were, to-one lord-of the-debt"
Lk 20:12, "saying lord-of the-vineyard"
Acts 14:12, "naming they-were to Barnabas, 'lord-of the-alahs'"

(mor:yo`) as singular "emphatic":

Mt 1:22, "from the-Lord, in-hand-of the prophet"
Lk 1:16, "upon the-Lord their Alah"
Acts 1:24, "thee the-Lord, knowing of-in-the-hearts of-all"
Eph 4:5, "One is-he thus the-Lord, and-one the-faith, and-one the-baptism"
Heb 6:3, "If the-Lord permitting, we-to-serve"
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)