"MarYah deception" ???

[Thirdwoe]

Jerry,

I'll answer your question.

Q: "You don't say this explicitly, but do you think one has to adopt the hypothesis of the personal pronoun MarYah before they can know that Yeshua is the Word in flesh?"

A: No.

And as Paul points out, and I am glad he did so....The Holy Spirit taught me this through reading the Scriptures in English many years ago now, before I ever knew about the Peshitta and how it reads, it's verses have only confirmed what the Holy Spirit had already taught me.

Look at Acts 2:38: Shimon said to them, Repent and be immersed each of you in the name of Master YHWH-Y'shua for the forgivness of your sins, that you may recieve the gift of the Ruach haKodesh. -AENT

And Mr. Roth has a note on this verse, that reads thus: "MarYah and Y'shua appear next to each other! Therefore, Keefa is saying that the divine part of Y'shua and YHWH are one and the same; he is refering to him in both ways."

[Jerry]

You refuse to give me another example of a noun root that is modified with a Yodh to form the emphatic. Instead you keep bringing up that MRA is somehow unique when it's no different from any other noun.

Until you come up with another example where a Yodh is used to form the Emphatic from a noun please don't waste my time.

+Shamasha

You have narrowed your sample to what you call "noun" roots only, even though a noun root like "son" matches poorly with the "lord" root. Consider the root for the noun "captive", derived from the verb to "capture". Sh-B-A is the root.

What is the singular emphatic for "the-captive"? It is (ShaB-Yau`). A Yod used to form the singular emphatic.
What is the plural emphatic for "the-captives"? It is (Sh-Ba-Yau`). A Yod used to form the plural emphatic.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:20466&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?ad ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:20467&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?ad ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

Assume for a moment that the root for "lord" actually is M-R-A, like Sh-B-A, even though there is no apparent verb base.

What might be the singular emphatic for "the-lord". It might be (MauR-Yau`).
What might be the plural emphatic for "the-lords". It might be (Mau-Ra-Yau`).

[Paul Younan]

Akhi Jerry. That's the whole point. We know there are plenty of examples of verb roots, like Sh-b-a, that form substantives by adding a Yodh for the weak-III radical.

I'll give you another example. Physician is Asya, from A-S-A which is a verb meaning to heal.

The whole point is nouns don't behave that way. Have you been reading at all what I've posted?

Why are you bringing up this verb, and the substantive formed from it? We already know that.

The point is mar isn't a verb. You can't mar something. There's no action associated with it. It's a noun.

+Shamasha

[Paul Younan]

My goodness Jerry we are going around in circles. You have to show me a Noun, not a substantive derived from a verb. We already know that Emphatic state results in the addition of the Yodh in place of the weak third radical.

I don't want to assume lord is a verb. It isn't. So this post was useless.

[Jerry]

Paul, you remind me of the fellow who is given a jelly bean, and then says it has to be a red jelly bean; and when he gets the red jelly bean, says it has to be a dark red jelly bean.

I think you have too many rules for jelly beans. Maybe because you never wanted to eat of a jelly bean in the first place.

[Paul Younan]

Paul, you remind me of the fellow who is given a jelly bean, and then says it has to be a red jelly bean; and when he gets the red jelly bean, says it has to be a dark red jelly bean.

I think you have too many rules for jelly beans. Maybe because you never wanted to eat of a jelly bean in the first place.

Jerry,

I'm not asking for jelly beans, just evidence. Do you have a noun that, when in the Emphatic, substitutes a Yodh for the weak-III radical?

+Shamasha (Aramaic for "The Deacon-er")

[Jerry]

Paul, "captive" is a noun, so is "lord". In grammatical parlance, both "captive" and "lord" are substantive nouns, both are adjective nouns.

I am not comparing verb to noun; I am comparing noun to noun, substantive noun to substantive noun, adjective noun to adjective noun. I am comparing an S-B-A root to a M-R-A root. I am comparing the only root in the entire Peshittal NT (S-B-A) that matches the two Yod emphatics of (M-R-A); not to mention, by deduction, its singular construct as well.

(Sha-Be`) (Mau-Re`) singular construct
(ShaB-Yau`) (MauR-Yau`) singular emphatic
(Sh-Ba-Yau`) (Mau-Ra-Yau`) plural emphatic

From what I've seen so far, those are the only two nouns in the Peshitta NT that share that same type of paradigm. Even though you choose to discount it as meaningless, in my opinion, it has some relevance.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Jerry.

You cannot compare a substantive noun with a regular noun. Not in English and not in Aramaic. The rules for forming the emphatic are completely different.

In English and in Aramaic, the part of speech of the root dictates the form of the noun.

In Aramaic, the noun root is transformed into the Emphatic by simply adding an Aleph to the end for the singular. If it already has an aleph, like the weak III radicals we are examining, then the form remains in the emphatic just as the root. No difference.

There is no Yodh added to a noun root to form the emphatic lexeme.

Are we past this part yet?

[Jerry]

Paul, you are using grammatical terms that can be construed many different ways. I don't think it is the rigid box you have assigned to it.

A substantive noun is one that is tangible, a captive and a lord are both substantive nouns.
An adjective noun is one that can be perceived as both noun and adjective, captive and lord are both adjective nouns.
And of course, captive and lord are both simply nouns.

Captive has a verb in the same root, presumably meaning to "capture"; captive is the noun, capture is the verb; two different paradigms, but each derived from the same base root, Sh-B-A.
Lord has no apparent verb in the same root as M-R-A, but it doesn't matter. If two noun paradigms match, they both don't have to have a verb paradigm as well.

You are convinced of the proper noun MarYah, I am not. I am open to different possibilities for (MauR-Yau`), you seem not to be. We will just have to leave it at that.

[Jerry]

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")
+Shamasha

Paul, on a technical matter, Matthew 13:52, 20:1, 20:8, and 20:11 are the singular construct (Mau-Re`); not the same as (Mau-Rau`). Singular construct (Mau-Re`) is used in contexts where there is no "D" prefix on the trailing noun, as shown here.

the-lord-of a-house (13:52 & 20:1)
says the-lord-of the-vineyard to-his-steward (20:8)
they-complain upon the-lord-of the-house (20:11)

There are 17 hits on the singular construct (Mau-Re`), all representing "the-lord-of".

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:12399&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?ad ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

[Paul Younan]

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")
+Shamasha

Paul, on a technical matter, Matthew 13:52, 20:1, 20:8, and 20:11 are the singular construct (Mau-Re`); not the same as (Mau-Rau`). Singular construct (Mau-Re`) is used in contexts where there is no Daleth Proclitic on the trailing noun, as shown here.

the-lord-of a-house (13:52 & 20:1)
says the-lord-of the-vineyard to-his-steward (20:8)
they-complain upon the-lord-of the-house (20:11)

There are 17 hits on the singular construct (Mau-Re`), all representing "the-lord-of".

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:12399&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?ad ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

Shlama Akhi Jerry,

I already pointed out that in this post:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic....&start=165

For the Emphatic:

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.

Here's a great resource you can use to become more familiar with the grammar of the Aramaic noun:

http://www.introlessonsinaramaic.com/dow...sson04.PDF

+Shamasha

[Jerry]

Shlama Akhi Jerry,

I already pointed out that in this post:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic....&start=165

+Shamasha

I didn't see anything there where you pointed out that (Mau-Re`) was the singular construct, and not the absolute as you claimed a couple of posts above.

Regardless, now that I have differentiated (Mau-Re`) for you as the construct, perhaps we can address (Mau-Rau`).

I agree with you that Luke 14:23 and a couple of other verses suggest the emphatic for (Mau-Rau`) vs. the absolute.

However, if (Mau-Rau`) is the singular emphatic, it doesn't make (MauR-Yau`) a proper noun. Other nouns add a consonant to create two singular emphatics. It is done to add an attribute to the base emphatic, such as turning "the-day" into "this-day", or "the-week" into "the-Sabbath", likely a literal meaning to the effect of "the-weekend" or "the-last-of-week".

Similarly, for (MauR-Yau`) it is a matter of determining what that added attribute is. You are convinced it makes it a proper noun. I am of the opinion it shares the same added attribute used for the "captive" noun, more a grammatical device of some sort, likely a type of denominative emphatic similar to "this-day" vs. "the-day", but of course not "this".

[Paul Younan]

I didn't see anything there where you pointed out that (Mau-Re`) was the singular construct, and not the absolute as you claimed a couple of posts above.

My bad, I mistyped - it's a construct, not an absolute.

I agree with you that Luke 14:23 and a couple of other verses suggest the emphatic for (Mau-Rau`) vs. the absolute.

OK, now that we agree that the emphatic is MRA, and not MRYA, let's go on to your next point.

However, if (Mau-Rau`) is the singular emphatic, it doesn't make (MauR-Yau`) a proper noun.

I didn't say that. I said MRYA is not the emphatic of MRA. I left open the question, what is it then?

Other nouns add a consonant to create two singular emphatics. It is done to add an attribute to the base emphatic, such as turning "the-day" into "this-day", or "the-week" into "the-Sabbath", likely a literal meaning to the effect of "the-weekend" or "the-last-of-week".

What does the irregular form for "this day" (yowmana) have to do with MRA ?

Similarly, for (MauR-Yau`) it is a matter of determining what that added attribute is. You are convinced it makes it a proper noun. I am of the opinion it shares the same added attribute used for the "captive" noun, more a grammatical device of some sort, likely a type of denominative emphatic similar to "this-day" vs. "the-day", but of course not "this".

Ah, you mean something akin to "THEEE Lord" with a long e, as opposed to "Thuh Lord". I got it.

The Shabya noun, captive, is not special. It is how the noun is supposed to be formed from the pattern Ca-C-Y-a for a III-weak verb root. So it is not akin to MRYA at all.

Again, the question becomes - are you aware of any other noun root that applies that pattern? SHBA is a verb, so is ASA (heal). If not (and you won't find a single example), then you cannot claim that MRYA is grammatically an Emphatic for MRA.

It is its own special word, reserved for God alone. That's one clue.

[Jerry]

Ah, you mean something akin to "THEEE Lord" with a long e, as opposed to "Thuh Lord". I got it.

Paul, I hadn't thought of that one yet, the one with three "E"s. Thanks.

[Paul Younan]

i wonder because i've only personally seen MAR used at a later date than the Peshitta's apostolic timeframe. i had asked Bauscher in an earlier post on this thread to provide evidence showing some kind of usage of MAR from earlier times, but he never responded.

Shlama Akhi Jeremy,

See Targum Pseudo-Yonathan, Numbers 1:5 for Mar-kol ("Officer"). Actually verses 7-15 as well.

This word is made up of "Mar" and "Kol" (all), "lord of all" or "officer." Incidentally, this word is also frequently found in the Liturgy of Addai and Mari used by the Church of the East. "Marekol nehweh amman...." (may the Lord of All be with us)

As you can see from the below, it was also known to the Rabbis in Jerusalem and Babylon.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Sew9Lby...kl&f=false



+Shamasha