09-14-2011, 03:29 AM
Shlama akhi,
i've got some thoughts here that might be worth sharing. (here's hoping!)
first, i think Roth did a good job by explaining the nuances of the texts as to whom Messiah spoke and when, and how He asked His question. i think that brings a clarity there that is much needed and helps to possibly arrive at an answer.
now, here's a proposal as to a "fix" since Matt. reads MARYA while the other two parallel texts read MARI (i've got two possibilities to share, so bear with me):
MARYA in Aramaic: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yrm[/font]
MARI in Aramaic: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Yrm[/font]
notice the only difference spelling-wise is the additional [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0[/font] Alaph in MARYA. otherwise, the spelling is identical.
ok, look at the word that comes immediately after MARYA in Matt. 22:43
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]rm0[/font] AMAR = "said"
together in the flow of text, the reading is:
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]rm0 0yrm[/font]
notice how the very next letter AFTER the Name MARYA begins with the letter [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0[/font] Alaph?
so my proposal is that POSSIBLY the original reading aligned with the others, and contained MARI here [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Yrm[/font], and the letter that immediately followed it - [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0[/font] Alaph - which begins the word [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]rm0[/font] AMAR, was accidentally reduplicated by the hand of the scribe, thus yielding the Divine Name where it really should not have been. take into consideration that the scribe knows he would be writing MARYA for certain in just a couple words in the next verse, and an explanation / resolution would exist that makes EVERYTHING gel together without any headaches. this would also have to be applied to the reading in verse 45, which could also be a candidate for reduplication: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0nky0 0yrm[/font] MARYA AYKANA. reduplication of letters by accident is something that i've seen in my text critical studies of the ancient manuscripts - Greek and Aramaic. i KNOW it happens, so what i'm proposing isn't so far out as it may seem at first to some. take a look at the codexes and see for yourself how closely packed the accounts are written. reduplication could easily occur. if taken this way, the reading from Matt. fits right into the readings from the other parallel passages. otherwise, the presence of MARYA here just doesn't entirely fit. i've no theological reason against Yeshu'a being one with MarYa, to be sure, as it is stated clearly enough elsewhere, but here the "idea" that is coming across isn't making any sense if read in connection with the other passages.....
..... <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> UNLESS <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: -->
Yeshu'a is interpreting the verse VERY DIFFERENTLY -- the way i've seen some in Judaism do, which is to say that it MUST and can ONLY be understood properly via a third person approach: ie, Daweeyd is saying that HE HIMSELF is the "my master" identity, which would make MARYA there of necessity being the role of Messiah. while this approaches the verse in a much different manner than it is widely understood, don't stop reading just yet - give me a chance to explain why it could work.
notice to WHOM Messiah is speaking in Matt. -- the Pharisees -- the promoters of the Torah Shel b'Peh (the Oral Torah [so they call it]). this is important if this view is taken, for in the Jewish MIDRASH TEHILLIM (Psalms) 21:12, it says this:
so Messiah is talking at this point to the Pharisees particularly, and textually, the word He uses with them really is different than what He uses with the scribes and Sadducees: MARYA instead of MARI. the scribes and Sadducees only used the Word to interpret itself, but the Pharisees relied also on their traditional interpretations and schools of thought - additional materials. in this regard, knowing that Rabbinic Judaism is willing to concede that Messiah WILL be named YHWH at least from their Midrashim, perhaps Yeshu'a was exegeting the verse via THEIR understanding that the Messiah CAN be called MARYA and it be legitimate. in the other parallel passages, the different word of MARI is used because He was making a different point in that the people to whom He spoke only used the Word itself, and so could ONLY understand it via the "my master" route as being "David's Master," - ie, the Messiah. this would make the account from Matt. a distinctly different question being posed to the Pharisees than that posed to the scribes and Sadducees. nothing wrong with that, as it would also fit with how Roth proposed the order of events went via the nuances of the text.
this route would also make His statement here in Matt. smooth out and make complete sense without having to go the "reduplication" route. i would personally rather an explanation without having to say the text is in error.
however, if ANYONE can come up with a better explanation of all this, i would so be willing to hear it. this is just the best i can come up with from my studies.
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
i've got some thoughts here that might be worth sharing. (here's hoping!)
first, i think Roth did a good job by explaining the nuances of the texts as to whom Messiah spoke and when, and how He asked His question. i think that brings a clarity there that is much needed and helps to possibly arrive at an answer.
now, here's a proposal as to a "fix" since Matt. reads MARYA while the other two parallel texts read MARI (i've got two possibilities to share, so bear with me):
MARYA in Aramaic: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yrm[/font]
MARI in Aramaic: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Yrm[/font]
notice the only difference spelling-wise is the additional [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0[/font] Alaph in MARYA. otherwise, the spelling is identical.
ok, look at the word that comes immediately after MARYA in Matt. 22:43
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]rm0[/font] AMAR = "said"
together in the flow of text, the reading is:
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]rm0 0yrm[/font]
notice how the very next letter AFTER the Name MARYA begins with the letter [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0[/font] Alaph?
so my proposal is that POSSIBLY the original reading aligned with the others, and contained MARI here [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Yrm[/font], and the letter that immediately followed it - [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0[/font] Alaph - which begins the word [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]rm0[/font] AMAR, was accidentally reduplicated by the hand of the scribe, thus yielding the Divine Name where it really should not have been. take into consideration that the scribe knows he would be writing MARYA for certain in just a couple words in the next verse, and an explanation / resolution would exist that makes EVERYTHING gel together without any headaches. this would also have to be applied to the reading in verse 45, which could also be a candidate for reduplication: [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0nky0 0yrm[/font] MARYA AYKANA. reduplication of letters by accident is something that i've seen in my text critical studies of the ancient manuscripts - Greek and Aramaic. i KNOW it happens, so what i'm proposing isn't so far out as it may seem at first to some. take a look at the codexes and see for yourself how closely packed the accounts are written. reduplication could easily occur. if taken this way, the reading from Matt. fits right into the readings from the other parallel passages. otherwise, the presence of MARYA here just doesn't entirely fit. i've no theological reason against Yeshu'a being one with MarYa, to be sure, as it is stated clearly enough elsewhere, but here the "idea" that is coming across isn't making any sense if read in connection with the other passages.....
..... <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> UNLESS <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: -->
Yeshu'a is interpreting the verse VERY DIFFERENTLY -- the way i've seen some in Judaism do, which is to say that it MUST and can ONLY be understood properly via a third person approach: ie, Daweeyd is saying that HE HIMSELF is the "my master" identity, which would make MARYA there of necessity being the role of Messiah. while this approaches the verse in a much different manner than it is widely understood, don't stop reading just yet - give me a chance to explain why it could work.
notice to WHOM Messiah is speaking in Matt. -- the Pharisees -- the promoters of the Torah Shel b'Peh (the Oral Torah [so they call it]). this is important if this view is taken, for in the Jewish MIDRASH TEHILLIM (Psalms) 21:12, it says this:
Quote:God will call the King Messiah after His own Name, for it is said of the King Messiah: This is his name whereby he shall be called: The Lord Our Righteousness.
so Messiah is talking at this point to the Pharisees particularly, and textually, the word He uses with them really is different than what He uses with the scribes and Sadducees: MARYA instead of MARI. the scribes and Sadducees only used the Word to interpret itself, but the Pharisees relied also on their traditional interpretations and schools of thought - additional materials. in this regard, knowing that Rabbinic Judaism is willing to concede that Messiah WILL be named YHWH at least from their Midrashim, perhaps Yeshu'a was exegeting the verse via THEIR understanding that the Messiah CAN be called MARYA and it be legitimate. in the other parallel passages, the different word of MARI is used because He was making a different point in that the people to whom He spoke only used the Word itself, and so could ONLY understand it via the "my master" route as being "David's Master," - ie, the Messiah. this would make the account from Matt. a distinctly different question being posed to the Pharisees than that posed to the scribes and Sadducees. nothing wrong with that, as it would also fit with how Roth proposed the order of events went via the nuances of the text.
this route would also make His statement here in Matt. smooth out and make complete sense without having to go the "reduplication" route. i would personally rather an explanation without having to say the text is in error.
however, if ANYONE can come up with a better explanation of all this, i would so be willing to hear it. this is just the best i can come up with from my studies.
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy