Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 - big split word article part 4
#1
Another awesome split word by Paul has been re-mixed for 2003. Paul is a tool... of the LORD <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

---

4. Her children or her deeds? ??? Matthew 11:19 / Luke 7:35

This split word is quite amazing (and quite lengthy), as it not only points to an Aramaic original through Aramaic origins of Greek variants, but it also provides an Aramaic solution for apologists working on these verses, as well as exposing much corruption in the Greek texts. This is further complicated by the oddity that the variant is found in the wrong verse! Double split word also?!?!?!?!

The KJV says:
Matthew 11:19
???The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.???
Luke 7:35
???But wisdom is justified of all her children.???

The NASB says:
Matthew 11:19
???"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."???
Luke 7:35
???"Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children."???

Versions that say children (Greek = ???Teknon???), followers, sons or variations thereof, in Matthew 11:19: DARBY, Douay-Rheims, Geneva, ISV, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, NKJV, Webster, Wycliffe, YLT.

Versions that say deeds (Greek = ???Ergon???), works, actions or a variation thereof, in Matthew 11:19: ALT, ASV, BBE, CEV, ESV, GodsWord, Holman, NASB, NIV, NIV-UK, NLT, Rotherham, RSV, TEV, WE, Weymouth.

Versions that say children, followers, sons or variations thereof, in Luke 7:35: ALT, ASV, BBE, CEV, DARBY, Douay-Rheims, ESV, Geneva, Holman, ISV, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, NASB, NIV, NIV-UK, NKJV, NLT, Rotherham, RSV, TEV, Webster, Weymouth, Wycliffe, YLT.

Versions that say deeds, works, actions or a variation thereof, in Luke 7:35: GodsWord, WE.

???In the Aramaic of the Peshitta version of Luke, the word used is [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hynb[/font] (#3234 - NOTE: The Lexical Concordance is incorrect, it erroneously lists the root as [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rb[/font] when in reality, it is [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0nb[/font] (# 23860 "to build".)
What is the significance of this root, [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0nb[/font] ('to build, works, etc.') ????
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hynb[/font] was confused by the Greek translators of Luke for [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Ynb[/font] (#3231) which means 'son, children, offspring!" They thought the ending 'Heh' [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]h[/font] indicated possession (see Table 1 Grammar section "Possessive Pronouns"), and that the root was [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Ynb[/font], when in reality the root is [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0n[/font]b with the ending 'Alaph' [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0[/font] dropped and the "Yodh-Heh" hy ending indicating possession (see Table 2 in Grammer section "Posessive Pronouns".)
There you have it! A simple mistake that every beginner makes in Aramaic has caused this variant reading!
So the reading should not be "Wisdom is vindicated by her children" but "Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."
Proof, you ask?
Check out Matthew 11:19 - the parallel passage, where Matthew used the more specific Aramaic word for "deeds" - hydb9 (#15080).
So the Greek translator(s) of Aramaic Luke mistranslated hynb as "children", when it should have been "deeds."
Don't be fooled into thinking that Luke himself made this mistake. It's easy to tell that Luke himself wrote in Aramaic and it was initially correct. How can we know this?
Because the Greek manuscripts themselves disagree concerning this reading! It is a mark of translation.
The following Greek versions contain the correct reading - S, B, W, and f13, while the erroneous reading is contained in - B2 C D K L X Delta Theta Pi f1 28 33 565 700 892 1010 and, not surprisingly, BOTH of the so-called "Old-Syriac" manuscripts (Cureton & Sinaitic.)??? ??? Paul Younan

???Let me explain a little more fully:
Let's start off with the two roots in question:

??? [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0nb[/font] "Bna" - As a Verbal root it means To build, To work, as a noun (i.e., Binyan, Bnaya, etc.) it means Building, Work, etc.
??? [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Ynb[/font] "Bnay" - means Offspring
Root 1
Using root 1, [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0nb[/font] , if you wanted to say 'Her work, her build(ing), etc.' - following the rules of Table 2 in the Possessive Pronoun section of the Grammar - the ending [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0[/font] is dropped and a 3rd-person feminine suffix of [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hy[/font] is appended.
You now have [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hynb[/font] - "Her works, deeds, build(ing), etc."
Root 2
Using root 2, [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Ynb[/font] , if you wanted to say 'Her offspring' - following the rules of Table 1 in the Possessive Pronoun section of the Grammar - a 3rd-person feminine suffix of [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]h[/font] is appended.
You now have [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hynb[/font] - "Her offspring."
Conclusion.
BOTH words just happen to be spelled the same way by chance!
This is the problem the translators of Luke had!
This word can mean either one, but I think it is clear from Matthew that the real reading is "deeds" (see Payne Smith, a Compendious Syriac Dictionary, and also compare the translation by Dr. George Lamsa.)??? ??? Paul Younan

So, to begin with, now the verses in the Peshitta agree. Both verses should read ???deeds???. But not only is this yet another contradiction solved by the Peshitta, it is also a split word. In fact, since much of the variants in the Greek are caused by a false interpretation of Luke in the first place, it may be regarded as a ???double split word???!

The NU United Bible Society's Greek text reads ???ergon??? meaning works while the Byzantine which reads ???teknon???, meaning children. The ???double split word??? comes in as most of the Greek-based versions read ???children??? in Luke. The Alexandrian based versions then tend to read ???deeds??? in Matthew, while the LATER Byzantine-versions (while the usual Alexandrian versions are more recent than famous Byzantine versions like the KJV and Geneva, the Alexandrian texts are older) read ???children??? in Matthew. This is clearly a case of tampering with the text, in order to harmonize the readings in Matthew and Luke. Unfortunately for the ???Byzantine Greek primacists???, the wrong verse was edited! They should have not brought the Matthew reading in line with the corrupted Luke reading, but should have made the Luke read ???deeds??? or ???works???!

It is also interesting to note that the ???Old Syriac??? (an Aramaic version of the New Testament, which was mainly translated from the Greek, which itself was translated from the Peshitta) contains the same error as the Greek, which lends more weight to the superiority of the Peshitta, the original Aramaic.

This is powerful proof that not only is the Aramaic Peshitta superior to the Greek mss, but also that both the Alexandrian and Byzantine families of Greek mss, were translated from the Peshitta.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Paul Younan for this amazing split word, which does so much more...

In terms of the Alexandrian vs. Byzantine battle, played out among these split words, neither side wins, as both were rife with errors. The Alexandrians ???played more sportsmanlike??? while the Byzantines ???played dirty??? by editing Matthew to agree with Luke, but the score remains at 2-1 to Alexandria.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)