Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is MRYA the same as YHWH?
shlom lokh oH Jerry,

"moro" is the Singular Emphatic, that's a fact. Have a look at my earlier post on this.

As for Matthew, have a look again at my other earlier post.

Also read the Hebrew of Psalm 110 and see which word is used for "moryo" in there.

push bashlomo,
???????? ???? ????????
???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ??????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? ?????????? ??????????????????????????
Greetings abudar2000,

The Hebrew for Psalm 110:1 is (n`um - YHWH - la`doniy) "declares YHWH to-my-lord". Not my contention that (mor:yo`) is not used to represent YHWH, only that the Syriac NT does so in a fairly loose grammatical form.

My case for (moro`) as the "singular absolute" is not strong because it is workable as both "the-lord" and "lord". But what tilts the scale for me is that a specific construct designate for YHWH, such as (Mar-Ya), doesn't seem to work in Matay 22. It is not like I am 100% sure or anything, but in order to synthesize everything, it seems necessary to treat (mor:yo`) as singular emphatic, "the-lord" or "a-lord" by context.

Admittedly, I have swayed back and forth a bit on this topic, and am still working through the process. For what its worth, this is how I am leaning on the designates, which I know is different from you and many others.

m sing abs - (moro`) - "lord"
m sing con - (more`) - "lord-of"
m sing emp - (mor:yo`) - "the-lord" or "a-lord" by context

m plur abs - (morawon) - "lords"
m plur con - (moray) - "lords-of"
m plur emp - (morayo`) - "the-lords"

f sing emp - (moruw:tho`) - "the-lordship" (lexicon lists "dominion", lordship can mean "domain of a lord")
f plur emp - (morawotho`) - "the-lordships" (plural of "dominion")
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,

Hello keefa, what font type are you using? I have some Aramaic fonts installed but yours message is not coming through for me.

The forum database used to be configured for utf-8, but this is no longer the case, so old posts containing utf-8 (Aramaic characters, etc.) will no longer display correctly.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)