01-14-2015, 05:46 AM
Shlama akhi Steve,
Thank you for the response. Please, however, double-check this assertion:
Luke 11:48 reads "You bear witness therefore and approve the works (aibdeh) of your fathers because they killed them, and you build (banayen) their graves!"
While "bnaye" is in that passage, it only applies to "build" and not to "works." As stated in my post above, I see no evidence of the root "b-n-a" ever being translated, or even coming close to the context of "works / deeds" in the Apostolic Writings ("NT"). Instead, it appears not only in the dictionaries / lexicons, but also in the Aramaic-English translations as "build / edify"--almost unanimously.
What I suspect happened in this attempted primacy proof was that someone was a bit zealous for the reader to infer the idea that build / edify could be considered a "work / deed." This might work in modern English vernacular as an inference, but by no means would justify the translation of "works/ deeds" in Luke 7:35--at least not in my humble opinion.
Let's just be honest. Unless there is some verifiable evidence, it smacks of eisegesis to me--a translator inputting their own values, beliefs, or understanding into the text to make it say what they want. And yes, I'm aware that translator input is a reality, but the issue here is not with the mere rendering of a text, it is with the Aramaic primacy claim being wielded by the translator, IMHO.
Next,the initial primacy claim regarding "works / deeds" in Luke 7:35 argued from the standpoint that the parallel passage in Matthew 11:19 reads "wisdom is justified by its works (aibdeh)). Of course, it goes without saying that Matthew used a totally different word (aibdeh)--one that truly means "works / deeds." But the problem with using parallel passages to assert a reading in another passage is that parallel passages aren't always identical; and the same flawed logic led to another embarassing display for Aramaic primacy (below):
[quote]Lamsa apparently did the same thing when he claimed that Luke 19:17 should read "ten talents" instead of "cities." Sounds great contextually, and even harmonizes with the parallel passage in Matthew 25:16, but the problem is that Lamsa apparently had the wrong word to begin with, because Luke 19:17 clearly says karkey (cities) and not kakrey (talents)...
In fact, the word karkey (cities) appears twice--not just once (see Luke 19:17, Luke 19:19), so it can't be argued that it was a scribal error on the part of the Aramaic scribe. Truly, Luke said karkey (cities) while Matthew said kakrey (talents), and if one reads the parables closely, there is other unique language that separate Matthew's account from Luke's. There are similarities, but they truly are different; and therefore trying to leverage one reading based on another one is totally erroneous.
While it would be nice for Luke 7:35 to harmonize with Matthew 11:19, it just can't happen--unless someone can produce real evidence that "b-n-a" can mean "deeds / works," and I don't think any exists. Honestly, Greek primacists don't have any problem with Luke saying "wisdom is justified by her children," and why would they. One's children reveal what type of person the parent is. It makes for a perfect metaphor, and isn't confusing at all.
Thomas
Thank you for the response. Please, however, double-check this assertion:
Quote: B'nayn can mean children/sons or deeds. In Matthew 27:25 it means children/sons. In Luke 11:48 it means works/deeds.
Luke 11:48 reads "You bear witness therefore and approve the works (aibdeh) of your fathers because they killed them, and you build (banayen) their graves!"
While "bnaye" is in that passage, it only applies to "build" and not to "works." As stated in my post above, I see no evidence of the root "b-n-a" ever being translated, or even coming close to the context of "works / deeds" in the Apostolic Writings ("NT"). Instead, it appears not only in the dictionaries / lexicons, but also in the Aramaic-English translations as "build / edify"--almost unanimously.
What I suspect happened in this attempted primacy proof was that someone was a bit zealous for the reader to infer the idea that build / edify could be considered a "work / deed." This might work in modern English vernacular as an inference, but by no means would justify the translation of "works/ deeds" in Luke 7:35--at least not in my humble opinion.
Let's just be honest. Unless there is some verifiable evidence, it smacks of eisegesis to me--a translator inputting their own values, beliefs, or understanding into the text to make it say what they want. And yes, I'm aware that translator input is a reality, but the issue here is not with the mere rendering of a text, it is with the Aramaic primacy claim being wielded by the translator, IMHO.
Next,the initial primacy claim regarding "works / deeds" in Luke 7:35 argued from the standpoint that the parallel passage in Matthew 11:19 reads "wisdom is justified by its works (aibdeh)). Of course, it goes without saying that Matthew used a totally different word (aibdeh)--one that truly means "works / deeds." But the problem with using parallel passages to assert a reading in another passage is that parallel passages aren't always identical; and the same flawed logic led to another embarassing display for Aramaic primacy (below):
[quote]Lamsa apparently did the same thing when he claimed that Luke 19:17 should read "ten talents" instead of "cities." Sounds great contextually, and even harmonizes with the parallel passage in Matthew 25:16, but the problem is that Lamsa apparently had the wrong word to begin with, because Luke 19:17 clearly says karkey (cities) and not kakrey (talents)...
In fact, the word karkey (cities) appears twice--not just once (see Luke 19:17, Luke 19:19), so it can't be argued that it was a scribal error on the part of the Aramaic scribe. Truly, Luke said karkey (cities) while Matthew said kakrey (talents), and if one reads the parables closely, there is other unique language that separate Matthew's account from Luke's. There are similarities, but they truly are different; and therefore trying to leverage one reading based on another one is totally erroneous.
While it would be nice for Luke 7:35 to harmonize with Matthew 11:19, it just can't happen--unless someone can produce real evidence that "b-n-a" can mean "deeds / works," and I don't think any exists. Honestly, Greek primacists don't have any problem with Luke saying "wisdom is justified by her children," and why would they. One's children reveal what type of person the parent is. It makes for a perfect metaphor, and isn't confusing at all.
Thomas