Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luke 7:35 - "Justified by her ???"
#1
Hello again,

Can someone please show me one single dictionary / lexicon entry, OR one single scriptural cross-reference, OR one single place in ancient Aramaic literature where the word "bnaye" (Luke 7:35) can mean "works / deeds" versus "children" (which I'm starting to believe it really should read in Luke 7:35).

Someone wrote: ""Bna" - As a Verbal root it means To build, To work, as a noun (i.e. Binyan, Bnaya, etc.) it means Building, Work, etc." (with emphasis mine)

I'm a bit peeved to say that this is yet another example of me staying up until 4:00AM trying to verify a single Aramaic primacy claim. Why? Because it's either like a Sherlock Holmes investigation to try and find any citation or documentation to back the claim, or the claim is an outright fabrication (as I've concluded many of these primacy "proofs" to be).

I've just been through Payne Smith, Jennings, CAL, JPM (Margiolouth), Jastrow, and not a single one gives a secondary meaning of work / deeds. They all, with one accord, say that "bna" means "build, edify, building, etc." I've also cross-referenced Scripture itself and found that "works / deeds" is always aibdeh and NEVER bnaye. Someone care to prove me wrong?

Thanks,
Thomas
Reply
#2
Shlama Thomas:
Check out Lexicon word #3225. B'nayn can mean children/sons or deeds. In Matthew 27:25 it means children/sons. In Luke 11:48 it means works/deeds. Lexicon word #23860 means build and it's spelled precisely the same. If you look at #23860, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 you will get the picture just how many different ways this word "b'nay, b'nayn is used.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#3
Shlama akhi Steve,

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
Reply
#4
Thomas:
Of course you are right. The word "b'nay doesn't mean "work/deed" except by extension to mean "build". The word "build" is a synonym of work/deed, just as "eved", by extension is a synonym of "b'nay". Nevertheless, there are many other aspects which point to Aramaic Primacy, don't you think? I won't belabour the point but you have seen the four lists of the Apostles. The Greek doesn't do justice by invoking Simon the Canaanite where Shimon HaQananya is written. In Matthew 10:5, Mark 3:19. "Qananya" [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0ynnq[/font] is Hebrew and "Tanana" [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0nn=[/font] as in Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13 is Aramaic. They are synonyms which both mean Zealot. Only in the Peshitta, 'cause Zorba is clueless.


Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#5
Greetings Stephen,

I'm now looking at your apostles' list example. It appears that CAL has two different entries for the word, and it seems to affirm that the Matthew account should read "Simon the Canaanite" instead of "zealous."

Quote:qnny adj. Canaanite

1 Canaanite CPA, Syr. P Mt10:4 : Simeon the Cananean.

Do you have any idea why CAL would uphold the reading of "Simon the Canaanite" (with no secondary meanings for "zealous")? Thanks so much.

Thomas
Reply
#6
Thomas Wrote:Greetings Stephen,

I'm now looking at your apostles' list example. It appears that CAL has two different entries for the word, and it seems to affirm that the Matthew account should read "Simon the Canaanite" instead of "zealous."

Quote:qnny adj. Canaanite

1 Canaanite CPA, Syr. P Mt10:4 : Simeon the Cananean.

Do you have any idea why CAL would uphold the reading of "Simon the Canaanite" (with no secondary meanings for "zealous")? Thanks so much.

Thomas

Shlama Akhi Thomas:
That's simple. CAL (Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon) is an Aramaic Dictionary. Look up "zealot" in any Hebrew Lexicon.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.doitinhebrew.com/Translate/default.aspx?kb=US+US&l1=en&l2=iw">http://www.doitinhebrew.com/Translate/d ... 1=en&l2=iw</a><!-- m -->

BTW Codex Ambrosiano (Aramaic Peshitta AN'K) uses the word "tanana" in Zechariah 8:2 as the translation of "qin'a". Please take the time to go back and re-read my original post under "Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting)" on "the four lists of the Apostles".

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)