"MarYah deception" ???

[Burning one]

Shlama Jeremy,

Sorry for confusing you with someone else. I think it was Justalex.
You did write this however:

i was suggesting that the AN"K's usage of the "spelling" of MARYA / MARYE' could be evidence that it should have been understood singularly, in the Aramaic, as well. of course we can't totally know, but it is interesting that the LXX chose to render it singular, instead of plural.

Here you suggest MARYE may be singular- MARYA, which is the same thing Justalex wrote of Acts 16, so I see no difference where in scripture this argument is used. The plural form is marked and voweled as plural in Isaiah as it is in Acts 16.

Shlama David,

thanks for replying. my reasoning for suggesting MARYE' in Isaiah could possibly be singular is because of the context of the passage, as well as the parallel passage i mentioned where YHWH called Himself ADONEEM, as well. when it comes to Acts 16, the context is clearly plural MARYE' - "masters" -- no argument from me there, so really, you should see a difference in Scripture from where the argument is used, because it must be noted by the context. yes the plural form is marked and voweled in Isaiah, i am not contesting that. my pondering, again, is merely: could the AN"K be wrong with the syame mark and vowels, as we've seen the Peshitta NT could arguably be wrong at times with the "traditional" reading of the syame / vowel marks? i'm not gun-ho one way or the other, but i truly see some room for wiggle here. our disagreement is not based on any doctrinal issue, please note. i've got no problem with calling Yeshu'a MARYA, i'm just very hesitant to demand that a word must always mean only one thing, especially when there is evidence to suggest it might possibly be understood differently.

I wrote:

"Marya" is as much His Name as is YHWH.

Actually, neither Marya nor YHWH is His Name. Both are English transliterations of Hebrew and Aramaic Names. "Marya" represents the Aramaic Name [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font], which represents hwhy.
You are splitting hairs, I think, in denying Marya [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font] represents YHWH hwhy, if you are insisting that the Peshitta must use the Hebrew form hwhy in order to contain God's Name. The Jews of the 1st century did not speak Hebrew in public; it was reserved for the synagogue in the reading of scripture, and even then required a Targum in Aramaic for the people to understand. Yeshua's preaching and teaching was Aramaic, or the people would not have understood, hence He would have not spoken The Sacred Name in Hebrew, but the Aramaic equivalent "Marya".

to be clear, i am NOT denying that Marya [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font] represents YHWH. i am just not entirely convinced yet that it must always represent YHWH, so there is no splitting of hairs in a negative sense, just in a very cautious way that i think is not to be denigrated, as we're talking about the search for truth here, so caution over being dogmatic should be welcomed. also, i am NOT insisting that the Peshitta use the Hebrew form of YHWH, either. i never suggested this at all.

"Marya" is not simply "Mara". It is more; it is like many compound names in Aramaic: "Elya" (Elijah), "Uurmya" (Jeremiah), "Eshaya" (Isaiah) , Zkarya (Zechariah), etc., all of which end with ?ya? and come from Hebrew names ending with ?YAH?- the Hebrew abbreviated form of YHWH. The distinctive feature of [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm [/font] is that it is not a name ever applied to a human before Yeshua Netsari, but used only of YHWH in the Aramaic language.
?Marya? then = ?Mar YAH? (Aramaic has ?YAH? also in the Peshitta OT., but compound names use YA as an ending instead.)

Blessings,

Dave

yes, i am fully aware of the compound nature of the way "Yah" is used in people's names in the Peshitta, but my hesitancy is in it's proposed use in Marya. i guess one piece of evidence that would really help me to decide is to see the term MAR (master) in use during first century times by itself, as i've only ever seen it used in writings from later periods. if you have access to such information, i would most happily receive it and seriously look at changing my ponderings to a more definite, conclusive position in favor of "MarYah" as is normally promoted. or if anyone else reading this has access to such material, feel free to respond.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy