07-10-2011, 07:28 AM
abudar2000 Wrote:shlomo Judge,
judge Wrote:The more I think about this the more I think that a simple solution is that Matti was quoting a different version of this psalm, or possibly even inventing his own in order to clear up what had been a misunderstanding thAT HAD CREPT IN DUE TO THE Hebrew?Aramaic of psalm 110 becoming corrupt.
1. We know from the DSS that slightly differing verions of the Hebrew scriptures existed when the NT was penned.
2. IIUC psalm 110 was a psalm that had been revised around this very point (I am happy to be corrected here).
Why would we assume that Matti would always be familiar with or use the same version as Luqa or Marqus?
If you look at what I quoted in the earlier post, you'll see that the relevant part of the Psalm is the same for the three gospels:
Mat 22:44: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Mar 12:36: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Luk 20:42: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Acts 2:34: ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????????????????
Ps 110:1: ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ?????? ???????? ????????????????
push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Hello keefa, what font type are you using? I have some Aramaic fonts installed but yours message is not coming through for me.
Thanks.