2001 Translation

Book   Chapter : Verse

Chapters

Select a book first.

Verses

Select a chapter first.

Display Mode

Typeface

CamelCase names

e.g. DaniEl instead of Daniel. Learn more.

Text Subheadings

Illustrations

God’s Name Circumlocutions

Learn more.

Name of God’s Son

The Aramaic MarYah and Jesus

In the Aramaic version of the New Testament books, there are a few occasions where Jesus seems to be called MarYah. Each one is listed and described below on this page.

Some translators of Aramaic see MarYah being occasionally applied to Jesus as support for the Trinity doctrine. Some translations of the Aramaic Peshitta use this reasoning to display instances of MarYah as ‘Jehovah-Jesus’.

However, as you will see on this page, we believe this position has serious difficulties, and it would even make some verses ‘heretical’ from a trinitarian standpoint.

All places where Jesus is referred to as MarYah are outlined below; the list is quite short.

  • Zero use MarYah as a proper noun (a name) for Jesus.
  • The context shows that they are titles describing him and his role.
  • Many are later corruptions or the opinions of the translator.

Remember, MarYah is not just a circumlocution for YHWH; it is also the full spelling of Lord (rather than the more common shorter spellings). If the full spelling was considered more formal and respectful at the time, it could be translated as ‘Highest Lord,’ and this is very fitting for Jesus.

It’s also possible that one or more could be copyist errors, as the only difference between MarYah (highest lord) and Marah (a more common lord) is one tiny letter:

  • ܡܪܝܐ = MarYah
  • ܡܪܐ = Marah

Of course, this could work both ways.

The New Testament writers may have been aware that it was confusing to have two people referred to by different versions of ‘Lord,’ so it’s interesting to note the following:

  • The expression ‘Lord God’ only refers to the Father and never to Jesus.
  • The term ‘Lord Jesus’ is only used to describe Jesus, and never the Father.

Exhaustive details appear below.

Articles in this series

Index

Verses where MarYah refers to Jesus

Matthew 22:43, 22:45

Decision: Likely corruptions

These instances of MarYah could well be later corruptions since the parallel accounts in Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-42 do not quote Jesus as referring to himself as MarYah at all. Indeed, our research shows that Matthew has more corruptions and later insertions than any other Bible book. These seem to be just two more.

Luke 2:11

Decision: Not a proper noun; Possible mistranslation

First, we note that Jesus is called the ‘Lord (MarYah) Messiah’ here, not Lord God, and there is no such expressian as ‘Jehovah Messiah’.

Also, if Luke was originally written in Greek (and we suspect it was), then the Greek source only says kyrios, with no implication that it is a circumlocution for YHWH at all. This means that the Aramaic translator of Luke decided to put MarYah here off his own back, and translation choices are not inspired. We don’t know when this translation was made, so it could be a later trinitarian mistranslation or even a copyist error.

The simplest explanation is that the translator was just trying to be respectful by using the full spelling of Lord. Otherwise, he would have been coining a new term, ‘YHWH Messiah’, which seems unlikely. The same issue arises in Acts 2:36.

John 8:11

Decision: Spurious text

This reference to Jesus as MarYah is within the spurious account of the woman caught in adultery. This was added years after John wrote his Gospel and is not genuine.

Acts 2:36

Decision: Not a proper noun; Possible mistranslation

See our note for Luke 2:11.

Acts 2:38

Decision: Spurious addition

Jesus is called ‘Lord (MarYah) Jesus’ here in the Aramaic. However, in (what is likely to be) the original Greek, there is no mention of ‘Lord’ here at all.

So this MarYah could be a spurious addition by the Aramaic translator. It is also likely not intended to be a circumlocution for YHWH since ‘get baptized in the name of Jehovah-Jesus the Anointed One’ not only makes no sense but also contradicts other verses only using the name Jesus in baptisms.

Acts 9:10

Decision: Possible mistranslation

The context shows that the Lord here is Jesus, and the Aramaic text says MarYah. However, this book was written in Greek and then translated into Aramaic, so MarYah was merely a translator’s choice.

The original Greek shows no implication that this was a circumlocution for YHWH as there is no Greek ‘grammar error’ nor any other indication. The Greek just says ο κύριος (the Lord) and κύριε (o, Lord), so they ought to have been translated as variants of Mara, not MarYah, unless the Aramaic translator was just wishing to use the full spelling of Lord to be respectful, which is perfectly fine.

Acts 9:27

Decision: Not a proper noun

This book was originally in Greek, and the use of MarYah in Aramaic is the translator’s choice.

Also, the Greek does not have the ‘grammar error,’ so this was probably originally meant to just say Lord, and is not a circumlocution for YHWH.

Acts 18:25

Decision: Possible mistranslation

Here, the reference to Lord is likely to Jesus, based on the context. Also, the Greek has the article (‘the’) beforehand. Therefore, this is not a circumlocution for YHWH.

However, Acts was likely originally written in Greek, so using MarYah here was the choice (or misunderstanding) of the translator and is not inspired.

It’s also interesting to note that the next verse, Acts 18:26, appears to be mistranslated in the Aramaic.

Romans 14:9

Decision: Not a proper noun

Jesus is described as the Lord (MarYah) of both the living and the dead.

The use of MarYah does not appear to be a circumlocution for YHWH, as the word is not actually naming him but describing his role. Therefore, it should be translated into English as Lord.

The use of MarYah is appropriate since he has total authority. The word was likely chosen because it is the full version of Lord.

Romans 14:14

Decision: Not a proper noun

The verse says ‘Lord Jesus’ so this is not a circumlocution for a proper noun.

1 Corinthians 8:6

Decision: Not a proper noun; Clearly separated from the Father

Jesus is described as the ‘one Lord (MarYah).’ However, this is not a circumlocution for YHWH because it is not a noun here; MarYah is being used as a description. Using the full spelling of Lord would be appropriate because he has the highest authority.

Note also that the Apostle goes to pains to separate the Father and Son here by describing the two as ‘one God, the Father,’ and ‘one Lord, Jesus.’ ‘We’ are described as being in the Father, but through Jesus, just like we go through a passageway to go into a room.

1 Corinthians 11:27

Decision: Not a proper noun

Jesus is called Lord, or MarYah here, twice.

However, it does not appear to be a circumlocution for YHWH since the Greek translation has the article (‘the’) before both instances, implying that it was understood to mean Lord as a title, and it is not where a proper noun would go.

The writer may have used the full spelling of Lord to stress Jesus’ authority – especially considering that the previous verse calls Jesus Mara, not MarYah (in the spelling d’Maran).

1 Corinthians 11:29

Decision: Not a proper noun

Jesus’ body is called the body of MarYah here.

However, it does not appear to be a circumlocution for YHWH since the Greek translation has the article (‘the’) before it, implying that it was understood as a title, not as a proper noun.

It therefore appears to be merely the full spelling of Lord rather than a circumlocution. Note that earlier in verse 26 it calls Jesus Mara, not MarYah (in the spelling d’Maran).

1 Corinthians 12:3

Decision: Not a proper noun

Jesus is called Lord, or MarYah. This is describing his role as Highest Lord with complete authority rather than naming him. Therefore, it’s not a circumlocution for YHWH.

Ephesians 4:5

Decision: Not a proper noun

Here MarYah is not a circumlocution for YHWH as there is nobody claiming that there is more than one YHWH. However, different ones may claim that there are different Lords to follow.

So here Jesus is described as a Lord using the full spelling MarYah.

Philippians 2:11

Decision: Not a proper noun

Jesus is called MarYah (as d’MarYah) as a title meaning Lord, and this is not a circumlocution for YHWH.

James 5:7

Decision: Not a proper noun

This cannot be a circumlocution for YHWH because Jehovah/Yahweh is not expected to come/arrive except via his Son, Jesus. The Greek version does not have the ‘grammar error’ that we would expect to be a circumlocution for YHWH, saying ‘the Lord’, meaning it was not understood as a reference to YHWH at the time.

Also, in the next verse, it says that the MarYah will make an appearance, and the Bible says that no man can see God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). Therefore, MarYah must just be the full spelling of Lord and cannot be a circumlocution.

We should also note that James was not widely accepted as an inspired book by Aramaic speakers until much later, so it is possible that the Aramaic translator was a trinitarian.

James 5:8

Decision: Not a proper noun

The Aramaic says ‘our Lord’ (our MarYah). Therefore, this is a title, not a proper noun, and not a circumlocution for YHWH. It is likely the full spelling of Lord.

Further, the Greek version does not have the ‘grammar error’ that we would expect to be a circumlocution for YHWH, saying ‘the Lord’, meaning it was not understood as a reference to YHWH at the time.

1 Peter 2:3

Decision: Not a proper noun

Here, MarYah could refer to Jesus, as the next verse describes approaching him. The Greek translation uses the article and says ‘the Lord,’ indicating that it was not understood to be a circumlocution for a proper noun. Therefore, here MarYah appears to be just the full spelling of Lord.

1 Peter 3:15

Decision: Not a proper noun

Here, the Aramaic text differs from the Greek text quite wildly. The Greek refers to the ‘Lord God’, while in Aramaic, it says ‘Lord (MarYah) Anointed One’ or ‘Lord Christ/Messiah’.

We generally choose to defer to the Aramaic text since it may preserve older, more original readings, so we accept the Aramaic version here. However, here MarYah is not used as a circumlocution for a proper noun but reads as merely a full title applying to Jesus.

Revelation 22:20

Decision: Not a proper noun

Since it’s used in the phrase ‘Lord Jesus’ here, MarYah is likely not a circumlocution for God’s Name, but is just the full version of Lord, showing respect for his full authority. Note that Jesus is referred to as Maran in the next verse.

Articles in this series