Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
This needs to be resolved:
#1
This passage does not work right, it seems to me, which is simarly translated as below, in both Roth's AENT and Bauscher's OANT.

Matthew 22:41-45
"But as the Pharisees were assembled, Yeshua asked them, And He said, "What are you saying about The Messiah? Whose Son is He?" They were saying to Him, "The Son of David."
He said to them, "And how did David by The Spirit, call Him ?Master YHWH?, for he said: 'Master YHWH said to my Lord, sit at My right hand until I place your enemies under your feet'?' If therefore David called him ?Master YHWH?, how is He his son?"

It seems to me Brother's and Sister's, that The Messiah is refering to Himself here, in the 2nd instance (Mari), in the quoted passage in Psalms, and not the 1st instance (Marya).

He is saying that David, by the Holy Spirit was inspired to call The Messiah "Mari" (2nd instance)...whereas in the 1st instance it is "Marya", and is speaking of The Father, who is telling Him (the Messiah) to sit at His right Hand.

We know that this refers to The Father, speaking to His Son, The Messiah, telling Him to sit at His right hand...which He did, when He asscended.

So..."Marya", or "Master YHWH" as is rendered by Roth, and "THE LORD JEHOVAH" as Bauscher renders it...is speaking of The Father, in the 1st instance of the qoute in the Psalms passage that Yeshua qoutes...not to The Son...so it must be the 2nd instance "Mari" which Yeshua is refering to, as speaking of Himself (The Messiah).

Now...if this is true...which it seems to me to be. Then can "Mari" be correctly rendered as both Roth and Bauscher have it there...or should it be simply "Master" instead of "Master YHWH".

I think that they may have both mis-understood the verse. Right?

Do you all see what I mean?

Blessings.
Reply
#2
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:

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
Reply
#3
Jeremy,

The plot thickens...

In considering these options you give.

Both Mark and Luke do show that it is "Mari", whom David by the Holy Spirit calls the Messiah, and not "Marya".

And Apostle Peter, In Acts 2:33-36 it seems to me, rules out the option you propose, that would make David the "Mari" rather than The Messiah in the text... Because it says there in Acts, that it is not referring to David, but to The Messiah as the one who is called to sit at Marya's right hand... Apostle Peter making the point, that David had not ascended to Heaven, but the Messiah had.

BUT...He (Peter) goes on to say there that Alaha, has made Yeshua to be both "Marya" and Messiah... So, we have a kunundrum.

Maybe it is as you say, that Yeshua said it two different ways...?

But the "Mari" being a 3rd person referance to King David, seems to be out as an option, based on what Apostle Peter says in Acts...(though Yeshua is Prophetically called "David" in Scripture....and also what Apostle Peter says about Alaha making Yeshua to be both Marya & Messiah...then Matthew's account could stand as worded...and not be a scribal error.

Also It seems the idea that Yeshua was saying it one way in the Matthew account, and another way in the Mark and Luke accounts...may not be an option...??? Because are not all these accounts of the very same event/time, that Yeshua is speaking these words? Each account gives a bit more detail as to how it went down...but I believe it shows that it was just this one time that Yeshua spoke these words.

In any case...I don't think I helped get any closer to a "fix"....maybe even made it worse. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Blessings.

..
Reply
#4
Well, maybe it's not all that meant to be like this.

He gave them some homework to show them that they could not discern the OT as good as they thought they
would.

Psalms 110 has other mysteries, .e.g. verse 5 does, where YHWH is at the right hand. In vers 1 it is JHWH who invites the Lord to sit at the right hand.
Reply
#5
Awesome...thanks for pointing that out.

So GOD is beside Himself....in a good way. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Yeshua is The WORD. And He is both with (beside) and is GOD...John 1:1 i.e. The Trinity...The Father, The Word, and The Holy Spirit...and these three are ONE. Yet there is a distiction as to relationship, position, and function of the Deity.

You just don't get this dynamic so clear in the Greek or Latin texts...only in the Aramaic.
Reply
#6
Thirdwoe Wrote:Jeremy,

The plot thickens...

In considering these options you give.

Both Mark and Luke do show that it is "Mari", whom David by the Holy Spirit calls the Messiah, and not "Marya".

And Apostle Peter, In Acts 2:33-36 it seems to me, rules out the option you propose, that would make David the "Mari" rather than The Messiah in the text... Because it says there in Acts, that it is not referring to David, but to The Messiah as the one who is called to sit at Marya's right hand... Apostle Peter making the point, that David had not ascended to Heaven, but the Messiah had.

BUT...He (Peter) goes on to say there that Alaha, has made Yeshua to be both "Marya" and Messiah... So, we have a kunundrum.

Maybe it is as you say, that Yeshua said it two different ways...?

But the "Mari" being a 3rd person referance to King David, seems to be out as an option, based on what Apostle Peter says in Acts...(though Yeshua is Prophetically called "David" in Scripture....and also what Apostle Peter says about Alaha making Yeshua to be both Marya & Messiah...then Matthew's account could stand as worded...and not be a scribal error.

Also It seems the idea that Yeshua was saying it one way in the Matthew account, and another way in the Mark and Luke accounts...may not be an option...??? Because are not all these accounts of the very same event/time, that Yeshua is speaking these words? Each account gives a bit more detail as to how it went down...but I believe it shows that it was just this one time that Yeshua spoke these words.

In any case...I don't think I helped get any closer to a "fix"....maybe even made it worse. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Blessings.

..


Shlama,


i am not seeing the issue existing so prominently via the reading from Acts, because, as you point out, it says that Yah made Yeshu'a both MarYa AND M'sheekha. this should be a cue that Peter understood it even deeper, likely spurred by what He heard taught by Yeshu'a on this very verse.

the reason why it fits to me is that Peter is reading it one way, the way the "Scripturalist" would do (ie, scribe and Sadducee), whereas Yeshu'a applied it BOTH ways to shut up both groups of His opponents.

the way i see it best, as i mentioned in my former post, was that Yeshu'a used ONE passage and exegeted it TWO ways to two different groups: to the scribes, the "my master" is of necessity M'sheekha, so He points that out, backing them into a corner. but to the Pharisees, "MarYa" there can ALSO be technically understood as M'sheekha, which almost certainly threw them for a loop, because He asks them the same initial question He gave the scribes, but then He twists it, and blows their minds, backing them into a corner, too. no wonder no man dared to ask Him anything after this discussion! He used a single verse and proved His point to two groups of interpretation who were normally at odds, and made them BOTH agree that His position was valid! that is masterful teaching, if you ask me. but it works so seamlessly because of the UNITY that exists between Him and the Father: He can be both MarYa AND M'sheekha, as Keepha pointed out - which fits exactly with the interpretation i've given. it is so awesome, because here He is right before Passover, being examined by those "teachers" just like the Passover lamb was examined for spot and blemish, and He proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no spot or blemish in Him, but that THEY are the ones who are lacking in understanding.

in my opinion, if you look at what He says, and to who, it IS different. this aspect is what Andrew pointed out in his approach that started making things make a little more sense to me. there's a reason why it is worded differently in all three accounts, and why different people groups are listed. to me, it fits best to read it as Him truly asking the same -but slightly tweaked- question to the different groups present, which allowed Him to show His mastery of the Father's Word, and how easy it was to shut up those who had their "pretended" authority.

again, i'm all for another explanation, i just haven't seen anything else that i feel more comfortable about than this take, since the verse from Matthew DOES say Daweed called M'sheekha "MarYa." textually, that is what we have to deal with. so either there is a mistake, as pointed out was a possibility, or else He REALLY meant to go the "MarYa" route and blow the minds of the Pharisees who likely NEVER expected Him to turn it on its head in front of the scribes.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#7
distazo Wrote:Well, maybe it's not all that meant to be like this.

He gave them some homework to show them that they could not discern the OT as good as they thought they
would.

Psalms 110 has other mysteries, .e.g. verse 5 does, where YHWH is at the right hand. In vers 1 it is JHWH who invites the Lord to sit at the right hand.


Shlama,


ah, good point! that makes this equation:

YHWH = Messiah / Messiah = YHWH

hmm... can anyone say ALAHUWTHA?? <!-- sConfusedatisfied: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/satisfied.gif" alt="Confusedatisfied:" title="Satisfied" /><!-- sConfusedatisfied: -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#8
Interesting point of view Jeremy... I'll ponder it a bit more.

But, if what you say there is how it was/is, then Yeshua said this twice, not just once...to each group at separate times that same day. Is this plausible with what is written in the accounts?

To my mind, this would be the only other option, other than a scribal error in Matthew's account. It would be neat if it is as you say there though.

Just a note on Psalm 110:5 The Masoretic text has "Adonai" there, rather than YHWH. The Psalm Targum is of no use, being just extended interpretations and not a translation of the text, and the Dead Sea Scrolls is missing Psalm 110...which is a real bummer.

Blessings
Reply
#9
After reading each of the passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke where Yeshua is telling who He/Messiah truly is...it is clear, that Yeshua had adressed this subject 2 times that day.

Once to the "Pharisee" group (including some Scribes) that had gathered to Him,...and once to the "whole Crowd" who had gathered to Him, BUT AFTER he had silenced all the Saducees, Pharisees, and the Scribes, who had come to Him to try to trip Him up in His words...and this was on the same day at the Temple, when He was teaching in those final days before His passion.

Read all the accounts carefully in their full context...and then notice the progression...as recorded in each account.

Matthew 22:41-45
41 But as the Pharisees were assembled, Yeshua asked them, 42 And He said, ?What are you saying about The Messiah? Whose Son is He?? They were saying to Him, ?The Son of David.? 43 He said to them, ?And how did David by The Spirit call Him Marya, for he said:?

44 'Marya said to my Mari, 'sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet'?

45?If therefore David called Him Marya, how is He his son?? 46 And no man could give Him an answer, and no man (i.e The Saducees, Pharisees, and the Scribes) dared again from that day to question Him.


Mark 12:34b-37
34...And no man (i.e The Saducees, Pharisees, and the Scribes) again dared to question Him.

35 And Yeshua answered and said as He taught in The Temple, ?How are the Scribes saying that The Messiah is the son of David??

36 ?For David himself said in The Spirit of Holiness: 'Marya said to my Mari, ?Sit at my right until I shall constitute your enemies as a footstool under your feet.'?

37 ?David therefore called Him, 'my Mari'', and how is He his son?? And THE WHOLE CROWD was listening to Him with pleasure.



Luke 20:40-47
40 And they (i.e The Saducees, Pharisees, and the Scribes) dared not ask him about anything again.

41 He said to them, ?How do the Scribes say about The Messiah that He is the son of David?

42 And David said in the book of Psalms, 'Marya said to my Mari, ?Seat yourself at my right hand,

43 Until I put your enemies under your feet.' 44 If, therefore, David called Him, 'my Mari', how is He his son??

45 And while ALL THE PEOPLE heard, He said to His disciples: 46 ?Beware the Scribes who like to walk in robes and love greetings in the markets and first class seats in the synagogues and first class rooms at banquets. 47 They who consume widows houses for an offering of prolonging their prayers; those shall receive an extreme judgment.?


Both Mark and Luke...give the 2nd time Yeshua made mention of this subject...in response to what the religious leaders had said about the Messiah being the Son of David, after Yeshua had asked them who the Messiah was. Only Matthew gives the former time, when Yeshua originally asked them the question. Where Mark and Luke, give the follow up of the matter, when Yeshua is adressing the Crowd...AFTER the religious leaders were silenced.

So...Yeshua said it two ways, one way to the Pharisees, and the other way to the people later, and the nuance is only to be seen in the Aramaic text. And if there is no scribal error in Matthew's account...then it may be something like Jeremy has proposed above, as to why the change in wording.

Very interesting.

.
Reply
#10
Shlama all,

I give an excerpt from The Original Aramaic New Testament at Matthew 22: 44 & 45 in Plain English:

44 ?THE LORD JEHOVAH said to my Lord, ?sit at my right hand until I place your enemies
under your feet??
See Psalm 110:1-5. In Hebrew and in The Peshitta text, the
original of verse 5 has Yahweh at Yahweh?s right hand! The
Massoretes changed the reading to Adonai (Lord) but made a
note of it in the Massorah.

45 ?If therefore David called him THE LORD
JEHOVAH, how is he his son??
If one were to read The Massoretic notes of the
Hebrew text of Psalm 110, one would find that the
Massorete scribes changed the Name of ?Yahweh?(Jehovah)
in 110:5 to ?Adonai?(The Lord) ; this they did in 133 other
places as well. But Ps. 110, verse five would read :
?Jehovah at your right hand will strike through Kings in the day of His
wrath??. The Peshitta OT has the same reading. Our
Lord?s quotation of verse one suggests the whole
Psalm of seven verses. If Jehovah is at God?s right
hand in verse 5, then He must be the very same
Jehovah at His right hand in verse 1! No Greek ms.
indicates this Divine Tetragrammaton Name (Yahweh)
in verses 43-45. The Peshitta has it three times !
It also names ?Yeshua? as ?Yahweh? 32 times in the NT !


David Ginsberg's Massorah volumes have the 134 references of YHWH>Adonai changes noted above.
Bullinger's Companion Bible contains these also, and makes the changes in the KJV English text in every place, along with many other changes
from the Massorahs of the Hebrew mss.

Dave Bauscher
Reply
#11
Thirdwoe Wrote:After reading each of the passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke where Yeshua is telling who He/Messiah truly is...it is clear, that Yeshua had adressed this subject 2 times that day.

Once to the "Pharisee" group (including some Scribes) that had gathered to Him,...and once to the "whole Crowd" who had gathered to Him, BUT AFTER he had silenced all the Saducees, Pharisees, and the Scribes, who had come to Him to try to trip Him up in His words...and this was on the same day at the Temple, when He was teaching in those final days before His passion.

Read all the accounts carefully in their full context...and then notice the progression...as recorded in each account.

Matthew 22:41-45
41 But as the Pharisees were assembled, Yeshua asked them, 42 And He said, ?What are you saying about The Messiah? Whose Son is He?? They were saying to Him, ?The Son of David.? 43 He said to them, ?And how did David by The Spirit call Him Marya, for he said:?

44 'Marya said to my Mari, 'sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet'?

45?If therefore David called Him Marya, how is He his son?? 46 And no man could give Him an answer, and no man (i.e The Saducees, Pharisees, and the Scribes) dared again from that day to question Him.


Mark 12:34b-37
34...And no man (i.e The Saducees, Pharisees, and the Scribes) again dared to question Him.

35 And Yeshua answered and said as He taught in The Temple, ?How are the Scribes saying that The Messiah is the son of David??

36 ?For David himself said in The Spirit of Holiness: 'Marya said to my Mari, ?Sit at my right until I shall constitute your enemies as a footstool under your feet.'?

37 ?David therefore called Him, 'my Mari'', and how is He his son?? And THE WHOLE CROWD was listening to Him with pleasure.



Luke 20:40-47
40 And they (i.e The Saducees, Pharisees, and the Scribes) dared not ask him about anything again.

41 He said to them, ?How do the Scribes say about The Messiah that He is the son of David?

42 And David said in the book of Psalms, 'Marya said to my Mari, ?Seat yourself at my right hand,

43 Until I put your enemies under your feet.' 44 If, therefore, David called Him, 'my Mari', how is He his son??

45 And while ALL THE PEOPLE heard, He said to His disciples: 46 ?Beware the Scribes who like to walk in robes and love greetings in the markets and first class seats in the synagogues and first class rooms at banquets. 47 They who consume widows houses for an offering of prolonging their prayers; those shall receive an extreme judgment.?


Both Mark and Luke...give the 2nd time Yeshua made mention of this subject...in response to what the religious leaders had said about the Messiah being the Son of David, after Yeshua had asked them who the Messiah was. Only Matthew gives the former time, when Yeshua originally asked them the question. Where Mark and Luke, give the follow up of the matter, when Yeshua is adressing the Crowd...AFTER the religious leaders were silenced.

So...Yeshua said it two ways, one way to the Pharisees, and the other way to the people later, and the nuance is only to be seen in the Aramaic text. And if there is no scribal error in Matthew's account...then it may be something like Jeremy has proposed above, as to why the change in wording.

Very interesting.

.


Shlama akhi,


yeah, once you see the subtle differences of the entire picture, it only makes the best sense that He was addressing the two groups slightly differently. makes sense to me! still open to a better clarification, but otherwise, i'm good with the explanation at hand.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#12
gbausc Wrote:Shlama all,

I give an excerpt from The Original Aramaic New Testament at Matthew 22: 44 & 45 in Plain English:

44 ?THE LORD JEHOVAH said to my Lord, ?sit at my right hand until I place your enemies
under your feet??
See Psalm 110:1-5. In Hebrew and in The Peshitta text, the
original of verse 5 has Yahweh at Yahweh?s right hand! The
Massoretes changed the reading to Adonai (Lord) but made a
note of it in the Massorah.

45 ?If therefore David called him THE LORD
JEHOVAH, how is he his son??
If one were to read The Massoretic notes of the
Hebrew text of Psalm 110, one would find that the
Massorete scribes changed the Name of ?Yahweh?(Jehovah)
in 110:5 to ?Adonai?(The Lord) ; this they did in 133 other
places as well. But Ps. 110, verse five would read :
?Jehovah at your right hand will strike through Kings in the day of His
wrath??. The Peshitta OT has the same reading. Our
Lord?s quotation of verse one suggests the whole
Psalm of seven verses. If Jehovah is at God?s right
hand in verse 5, then He must be the very same
Jehovah at His right hand in verse 1! No Greek ms.
indicates this Divine Tetragrammaton Name (Yahweh)
in verses 43-45. The Peshitta has it three times !
It also names ?Yeshua? as ?Yahweh? 32 times in the NT !


David Ginsberg's Massorah volumes have the 134 references of YHWH>Adonai changes noted above.
Bullinger's Companion Bible contains these also, and makes the changes in the KJV English text in every place, along with many other changes
from the Massorahs of the Hebrew mss.

Dave Bauscher


Shlama,


another English version that restores the scribal emendations concerning the Name is The Scriptures from The Institute For Scripture Research, for what it is worth. the NT is a Greek-based translation, but the OT is by far the best English translation i've seen so far that catches the nuances of the language.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#13
Thanks for that info Dave...I'll look into getting a copy of Bullinger's Companion Bible, as I am curios about all those places to see if any other instances are as dramatic as this one in Psalm 5. Maybe you know already.

And Jeremy...I have the large print leather edition of The Scriptures, which you speak of...and I just checked it and it has "YHWH" in vs 5 of Pslam 110 rather than Adonai.

Blessings
Reply
#14
Would someone please explain to me why He said in the first occasion Marya and in the second Mari?
and what does Mari mean?
Thanks
Reply
#15
Hi,

Mari means 'my lord' just as Eli means my God. (El-i).
Marya, means YHVH, it's used only for the 6800 ocurrances of YHVH in the Old Hebrew testament and the POT (Syriac Old Testament) uses MarYa only for YHVH.
According to lexicons, MarYa means 'The Lord' and it contains or implies the shortened form of Jahweh, ie. 'Jah'.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)