Peshitta Forum - What's up with Luke 7:35??

I know this road has been traveled before by most of you but I just used Luke 7:35 (Jesus says, ". . . wisdom is justified by works/her works.") as a Peshitta Primacy proof at another discussion board. According to my brief research the correct rendering of the Aramaic Peshitta is ". . . but wisdom is jusdified by [her]? works." THIS IS a varient word in the Greek manuscripts. Most of the Greek manuscripts have it as ". . . wisdom is justified by HER WORKS." But there are a handfull of Greek manuscripts that render this word as ". . . but wisdom is justifed by HER CHILDREN. Given that the Aramaic is the original - the "Greek copyist" made a mistake here due to the ending of this Aramaic word. The mistake was by one letter only (the last letter of the word) and the copyist mistook this as a possessive but it is really not, hence the 2 DIFFERENT words in the Greek.

But I am confused because Paul Younan's interlinear renders this word as "works" or "her works." But at the Dukhrana where the breakdown of this verse is found the word is rendered as "sons" or be it as "children." Not only that but both Etheridge and Murdock render this word into "children."

Can someone help me here?? What is going on with this word in this verse (Luke 7:35)??

Can this be used as an NT Aramaic Primacy proof or no?? Also, is this word whether "works" or "sons"/"children" rendered in the possessive or just as "works."

And, have I made myself look dumb at this discussion board?? And I did get almost all of my backround information from Rapheal Lancaster's "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?" page.

Cordially,

Mike Karoules

Off the bat: Etheridge and Murdock are western-influenced translators, so if they see something that apparently agrees with the Greek, no further investigation will be done, and the common meaning will be found in their translations.

To clarify: If we understand the term to be 'works,' it would be, according to English 'its works,' but literally read as 'her...' since 'wisdom' is feminine in both Aramaic and Greek.

The claim to primacy here has nothing to do with how people translate the word from Aramaic: it has only to do with a variant reading in the Greek texts which can be summarized by a single Aramaic word. Even if there were no access to an Aramaic witness, one trained in a Semitic language might relate these two very different Greek readings with the root beth-nun-alef.

Aaron S Wrote:Off the bat: Etheridge and Murdock are western-influenced translators, so if they see something that apparently agrees with the Greek, no further investigation will be done, and the common meaning will be found in their translations.

To clarify: If we understand the term to be 'works,' it would be, according to English 'its works,' but literally read as 'her...' since 'wisdom' is feminine in both Aramaic and Greek.

The claim to primacy here has nothing to do with how people translate the word from Aramaic: it has only to do with a variant reading in the Greek texts which can be summarized by a single Aramaic word. Even if there were no access to an Aramaic witness, one trained in a Semitic language might relate these two very different Greek readings with the root beth-nun-alef.

Great explanation, very well done Aaron thank you.

+Shamasha

AARON. , thank you for your time and input.

Mike