"MarYah deception" ???

[Paul Younan]

Paul, I have another avenue I am going to explore. There are only 7 hits on Mau-Rau` in the entire NT, so it is not a difficult task for me to do a full concordance on it, to see if the context calls for emphatic or absolute. My argument was based on it being absolute.

See Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21: "Mara de Shmayya" (The Lord of Heaven"). The Emphatic Mara is indicated due to its position prior to the Daleth Proclitic. If it were Absolute it would be Mara Shmayya, without the Proclitic.

See especially Luke 14:23 for the Emphatic - "w Emar Mara l Awadeh" (and said the lord to his servant....). Contextually the only possibility here is the Emphatic.

Do note, Akhi Jerry, that the Absolute and Emphatic for the lexical root MRA are identical, and unaltered from the root. For the Absolute form, see Matthew 13:52, 20:1, 20:11 - "Mara Beytha" ("Lord of the House") without the Daleth Proclitic. Also Matthew 20:8, "Mara Karma" ("Lord of the Vineyard")

It is immaterial to the argument whether or not the noun is in the Emphatic, or in the Absolute. In neither case would you introduce a Yodh to form the state. Not for the Emphatic, and not for the Absolute. Nouns don't behave that way in the Emphatic or the Absolute.

But if Mau-Rau` is conclusively the emphatic, then I will have to rethink MauR-Yau`, as both can't be the emphatic at the same time.

This. If MRYA is not the Emphatic of MRA (and it isn't), then what is it? And why is it only used of God and Christ? Never, for instance, of a king, or a landlord or a male head of household.

Remember that in English you do not add a suffix of "-or" to a noun root, only to a verb root, when creating a substantive. Creat-or is fine, King-or is not. In the same way, you do not add a Yodh to a noun root in Aramaic to form an Emphatic.

Two different grammatical conventions, for two different parts of speech.

+Shamasha