Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Shlama Akhi,

Quote:Also it doesn't matter to me that three or ten or one hundred extant Greek manuscripts use "beam, cord, rope, cable or camel". A translation must choose a synonym. No two extant Greek manuscripts agree more than 80%.

It's not a matter of the number of Greek mss.; it's a matter of three Gospels in all Greek mss. having the same reading -"camel". To say that doesn't matter is to say "every word shall be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses" doesn't matter.
De 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
De 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.Mt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses??? law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Can you prove that Greek Matthew, Mark and Luke were written by the same man? If not, then their testimony should settle the matter, not to mention The Arabic Diatesserron.

No opinion about it. Its a matter of testimony, as well as a matter of grammar, which you also failed to address. Facts, my brother; not opinion.

Blessings,

Dave
BTW, Stephen, the possible meanings of the consonantal [font="estrangelo (v1.1)"]0lmg[/font] are :

1. "Doing good or evil"
2. "Camel driver"
3. "Camelopard"
4. "Ass driver"
5. "One walking forward and backward"
6. "Bestowment"
7. "Dromedary"
8. "a couple"
9. "Teaming arrangement"
10. " A small bridge"
11. "Crossboard"
12. "A large thing"
13. "Gamala in Galilee"
14. "Gamaliel" (abbrev.)
15. "Camel"
16. "A beam"
17. large ant Syr.
18.n.m. "portion of leg"

Are all these acceptable as the meaning of our Lord's "elegant simplicity" for one word- [font="estrangelo (v1.1)"]0lmg[/font] in His analogy about the kingdom of God?

Dave
gbausc Wrote:BTW, Stephen, the possible meanings of the consonantal [font="estrangelo (v1.1)"]0lmg[/font] are :

1. "Doing good or evil"
2. "Camel driver"
3. "Camelopard"
4. "Ass driver"
5. "One walking forward and backward"
6. "Bestowment"
7. "Dromedary"
8. "a couple"
9. "Teaming arrangement"
10. " A small bridge"
11. "Crossboard"
12. "A large thing"
13. "Gamala in Galilee"
14. "Gamaliel" (abbrev.)
15. "Camel"
16. "A beam"
17. large ant Syr.
18.n.m. "portion of leg"

Are all these acceptable as the meaning of our Lord's "elegant simplicity" for one word- [font="estrangelo (v1.1)"]0lmg[/font] in His analogy about the kingdom of God?

Dave

Shlama Akhi David:
That's a junk list. And no, I'm referring to the elegant, "simplicity of Christ" (II Corinthians 11:3 and 1:12). Also, I was obviously only referring to the acceptable Lexicon meanings of "camel, which could be a dromedary" and "beam" in the only places in the Peshitta New Testament where they are used, namely, Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25.
It's obvious that your list includes non-contextual, obscure and questionable meanings and they would not be appropriately used in the text of Matthew 19:24. As we all can see the use of "gamal" in Matthew 19:24 must be contextual. By including Gamaliel and Gamala as well as many obscure meanings the whole exercise becomes meaningless, Akhi David. I'm finished with this thread.

Shlama,
Stephen P. Silver
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

That is not a junk list. Most are entries from Jastrow's Targum Lexicon and a couple from Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, along with Smith's Compendious Syriac Dictionary.

You should have a look at those sources before you utter your pontifications about the meaning of a word.
As usual, you are "finished with this thread" because you cannot deal with the facts of the matter. I will take that as a concession of the point that [font="estrangelo (v1.1)"]0lmg[/font] cannot mean whatever you want it to mean; certainly not every meaning in the book.

Quote:Also, I was obviously only referring to the acceptable Lexicon meanings of "camel, which could be a dromedary" and "beam" in the only places in the Peshitta New Testament where they are used, namely, Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25.

Wrong again, Stephen. Here are all the places where [font="estrangelo (v1.1)"]0lmg[/font] occurs:

arbd asbdw aumq htlwkamw yhwux le aksmd aux roaw almgd areod hswbl awh yhwtya Nnxwy Nyd wh Mt 3:4
Mt 3:4 And as to this John, his raiment was of camel???s hair, and a girdle of skin was upon his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey.

ahlad atwklml lwend aryte wa ajxmd arwrxb leml almgl wh lyldd Nwkl anrma Nyd bwtMt 19:24
Mt 19:24 And again, I say to you: It is easier for a camel to enter the aperture of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God

almg Nyelbw aqb Nyllumd aymo adwgn Mt 23:24
Mt 23:24 Ye blind guides, who strain out gnats, and swallow down camels.

arbd asbdw aumq twh hytya htlwkamw yhwuxb aksmd atqre awh ryoaw almgd areod aswbl awh sybl Nnxwy Nyd wh Mr 1:6
Mr 1:6 And this John was clad in raiment of camels??? hair; and was girded with a cincture of skin about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey.

leml ahlad htwklml aryte wa ajxmd arwrxb lwend almgl wh qyspMr 10:25
Mr 10:25 It is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

ahlad htwklml aryte wa lwen ajxmd arwrxbd almgl yh alyld Lu 18:25
Lu 18:25 It is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle, than a rich man the kingdom of God.

Six places, not three; and all of the other 3 occurrences of "gmla" mean "camel", not "beam" or any of the other 18 possible definitions.
Perhaps I misunderstand your above statement, but it certainly sounds like you mean "gmla" only occurs in 3 verses in The Peshitta.

And that is to ignore the grammatical problem of an inanimate "beam" performing any action whatsoever, which is nonsense.

You are strong in the opinion department, but your fact department is not well stocked.

Blessings,

Dave
Shlama Akhi David:

All of these quoted statements are your personal slurs against me. You are being unnecessarily hostile and mean-spirited.

Quote:before you utter your pontifications
you are "finished with this thread" because you cannot deal with the facts of the matter
Wrong again, Stephen
You are strong in the opinion department, but your fact department is not well stocked

No, I have a teachable spirit but I'm finished with this thread because you are posting hostile and mean-spirited slurs to belittle me. These forums should be open for all people interested in Aramaic Primacy from all levels of learning. Even trivial pursuit should be fun. <!-- sConfusedigh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sigh.gif" alt="Confusedigh:" title="Sigh" /><!-- sConfusedigh: -->

Stephen,
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Shlama Akhi,

Sounds teachable to me!

Trivial pursuit? I know I come across as serious about these things. That's because I am.
Please don't take it as an attack on you. There is a difference between a position and argument and the person making it. When I say your fact department is not well stocked,
I am talking about your arguments in this particular matter of Matthew 19:24, that's all. You have stated your position well; you just have not backed it up with facts which support your position.

Then you said I was supplying a junk list. That simply is false and you know it.I do not supply junk lists and I'm not about to start.

You have ignored the "2 or 3 witnesses" principle with regard to the 3 Gospels in Greek having "camel". You have ignored the grammatical argument I repeated at least twice. You call my list of Dictionary-Lexical entries a "junk list" without any evidence to prove the charge; so "where's the beef?"

I have supplied the beef. You are playing Trivial Pursuit, it seems.

And get over the thin skin routine.If I recall correctly, You are older than I am, and I am 56, for God's sake!

Blessings,

Dave
Quote:You have ignored the "2 or 3 witnesses" principle with regard to the 3 Gospels in Greek having "camel". You have ignored the grammatical argument I repeated at least twice.
Dave

David Bauscher's compiled JUNK LIST for "gamal"
1. "Doing good or evil"
2. "Camel driver"
3. "Camelopard"
4. "Ass driver"
5. "One walking forward and backward"
6. "Bestowment"
7. "Dromedary"
8. "a couple"
9. "Teaming arrangement"
10. " A small bridge"
11. "Crossboard"
12. "A large thing"
13. "Gamala in Galilee"
14. "Gamaliel" (abbrev.)
15. "Camel"
16. "A beam"
17. large ant Syr.
18.n.m. "portion of leg"


Shlama Akhi David:
You seem to vascilate between Greek primacy and Aramaic primacy. Three mentions of "gamal" in three Gospels of the Peshitta New Testament shows the consistency of the use of "gamal". "Gamal" can mean "camel" or "beam" contextually. That's the short list, David. Who cares if the Greek New Testament translates "gamal" as "camel". I'm repeating myself, David. Either you stand by your "junk" list or you don't. Is it "Gamaliel" or "Gamla/Zealot fortress" or "ass-driver"? Why not just say, "anything goes"? Not every word from your compiled list is valid in this illustration of "gamal" and "the eye of a needle". Your argument is hollow, being either "definitive" and choosing "one specific meaning" or "choosing all possible meanings". The context must not conflict with any other precept of the scriptures. I ignore your grammatical analysis because most of your arguments are isogetic/circular and thus grammatically irrelevant. If you have erred in the obvious, just quit. If and when you hit the mark, Akhi David and it rings true, I'm sure that you will receive many kudos, but not for your errors here.
Now, if you want to open another topic about "the "camel-hair garment" worn by John, I'll be in agreement with you. However, in these three passages about what passes through the eye of a needle I'm going to allow either "camel" or "beam". I have noticed that your list doesn't include "rope" or "cord" or "cable". It's interesting that you mentioned a Greek Uncial that translates "gamal" as "cable". The Uncial text type is 4th Century as the Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. So, even though it's 10th century it could be a copy of an extant fourth century manuscript. Is this credible? I don't know.

Quote:Every synoptic Greek Gospel has "Camel" for this saying; only one Greek Uncial ms. (10th cent.) has "kamilov" -"cable" in Luke 18:25.

<!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

I see you wish to continue on this, so I am glad to.

Why do you insist on calling Jastrow's Targum Dictionary a junk list?

You are the one who said
Quote:I slightly revised my previous post. Either "camel", "beam" or "rope/cable/cord" are correct. There are interesting things that happen when one word has multiple meanings.camel,beam,rope,

I have merely pointed out that the list of Dictionary entries is longer than you seem to think.

"Camel" is the only meaning that makes sense in my view. Listing 3 Greek Gospels as witnesses for "Camel" does not make me a Greek primacist. That is sheer sophistry on your part. What it does is demonstrate that 3 different translators in the 1st century saw "gamla" as "kamelon"- "Camel" . How could 3 different men fluent in both Aramaic and Greek mistake the word in the same way? The "2 or 3 witnesses" principle certainly would be applicable here. "Camel" should be accepted as the correct meaning.

Yet you say:
Quote:That's the short list, David. Who cares if the Greek New Testament translates "gamal" as "camel"
So we throw out evidence if it is convenient to trash it for our position's sake? The Greek is a translation, but a good one and the earliest we know of, and there are 3 synoptic Gospels here to compare.
"Who cares?" Anyone who cares to know the truth, that's who cares.

Again, you wrote:
Quote:Either you stand by your "junk" list or you don't. Is it "Gamaliel" or "Gamla/Zealot fortress" or "ass-driver"? Why not just say, "anything goes"? Not every word from your compiled list is valid in this illustration of "gamal" and "the eye of a needle".

What junk list? Those are valid lexical entries from respected Aramaic dictionaries which you use, one of which you apparently do not have, however CAL uses it (Jastrow's) in its compiled "junk lists" as well. You are the one who seemed to think that all the meanings you have found are valid possiblities, giving
Quote:Either "camel", "beam" or "rope/cable/cord" are correct
. You also wrote:
Quote:In my honest opinion it doesn't matter which English word is used in this passage.
and
Quote:There are interesting things that happen when one word has multiple meanings.

If "it doesn't matter which English word is used", I have simply added to the list of English words "it doesn't matter" which could be used. There are 18 possible meanings. Just because you have considered "beam" and "camel" as your short list does not mean there are not other possibilities, by your method of discernment (whatever that is, I cannot tell).
As to the grammatical point and analogy between camel and rich man, I wrote:
Quote:A camel is a living being, analogous to the rich man, a living being; Both are pictured as attempting to go through an opening. Both are the subject of the same verb "al" -"to enter". A subject performs the action of a sentence. A rope cannot perform action; a beam cannot perform action; certainly neither can "enter" anything. A camel can perform action; it can move on its own power.

Please point out the circularity of my argument, which you assert above:
Quote:I ignore your grammatical analysis because most of your arguments are isogetic/circular and thus grammatically irrelevant.

So, my brother,
Quote: If you have erred in the obvious, just quit".

Blessings,

Dave
July 26, 2008

In Bible interpretation the most important factor is context.

In this case the context is "rope".

For that reason both Lamsa and Younan chose "rope".

Otto
ograabe Wrote:July 26, 2008

In Bible interpretation the most important factor is context.

In this case the context is "rope".

For that reason both Lamsa and Younan chose "rope".

Otto

Shlama Akhi Otto:
We are in agreement on the importance of context in Biblical exogesis. For clarity's sake, what lexical source are you using when equating [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]fmg[/font]
"gamal" with "rope/cord/cable"? There is no dispute that [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]fmg[/font] means "camel" or "beam".

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
This brings us back to my first post. I trust George Lamsa's native understanding of the word.

Otto
Shlama Akhay,

Context demands a living creature for the analogy : A rich man enering the kingdom of God is likened to a camel entering a needle's eye . That's the context. It also needs to be "impossible with men", according to our Lord, which a rope is not, as the needle could be a very large one; that's context.
A rope or a beam are not in any way like a man; neither can they perform action of any kind; they certainly cannot enter anything, and the verb is active (enter), not passive, as "to be pushed" or "be pulled" into something. This is context and grammar.
Sorry gents, the only meaning that works here is "camel".

And "rope" is not found in any Dictionary or Lexicon that I have seen, Lamsa's translation notwithstanding. He cannot singlehandedly outweigh every Aramaean authority compiled over the past 2000 years. The word may have come to mean "rope" since the 10th century in some places, but there is no record of it being so used before that, certainly not in the 1st century, at least that I can find. Please, if anyone can cite the reference to show otherwise, I will gladly retract that statement.

I will not bow to one man's opinion in this, no matter how fluent he is in Aramaic; neither should anyone else. Any number of opinions do not constitute authority. The meaning of scripture cannot be determined by opinion. We must have facts, and in this case, we do. They far outweigh Lamsa and Younan, and you and me, and all the opinion in the world.

Blessings,

Dave
Quote:I will not bow to one man's opinion in this, no matter how fluent he is in Aramaic; neither should anyone else.

Shlama Akhi David:
Live and let live. Everyone has an opinion, Akhi David, even you. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Shlama and hearty blessings,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Shlama Akhay,

Stephen Silver Wrote:We are in agreement on the importance of context in Biblical exogesis. For clarity's sake, what lexical source are you using when equating fmg "gamal" with "rope/cord/cable"? There is no dispute that fmg means "camel" or "beam".

Lexicon Syriacum, (Voces syriacas graecaque cum Glossis syriacis et arabicis complectens.), E pluribus codd. ed. et notulis instr. R. Duval. 2 en 2 vols. Paris 1888-1901), al-Hassan Bar-Barhlul, 10th century, where he says under the entry for "Gamla":

"Gamla is a thick rope which is used to bind ships."

See: http://www.medievaltextiles.org/reprintNMMcamelin.pdf

gbausc Wrote:And "rope" is not found in any Dictionary or Lexicon that I have seen

You haven't read bar-Bahlul's Aramaic~Arabic Lexicon.

The only translation that makes sense in the context is rope....not a beam and certainly not a camel, bird or alligator. It is a needle we are talking about here.

+Shamasha Paul
Akhay, let's put this old argument to rest. Here's the cover page from the 1st volume of bar-Bahlul's Lexicon (Alap-Lamed):

[Image: bar-bahlul-cover.jpg]

Here is the relevant entry under "Gamla":

[Image: bar-bahlul-gamla.jpg]

Did you read that Akhan Dave:

"Gamla is a thick rope (Aramaic "Khawla", Hebrew "Khevel") which is used to bind ships.", and he is quoting from previous lexicographers (such as Moshe bar-Kepha) who also explain how this very same thick rope was also used to tie heavy beams together. bar-Bahlul in the same entry goes on to explain that the rope that ties the beams and sides of wooden bridges is also called "Gamla."

For those who are unaware, bar-Bahlul's Lexicon is the standard Lexicon and an immense work by, arguably, history's greatest Aramaic scholar. Much of what we know about Aramaic is attributed to his work, which is quoted by nearly every book on the topic, and in the most eminent peer-reviewed journals.

bar-Bahlul was a Church of the East bishop. He entered eternal rest in 963 A.D.

ograabe Wrote:The repetition of some Aramaic words in widely different contexts is largely due to a limited vocabulary.

Actually in this case there was a reason for the dual usage, since the undercoat of camels was fashioned into rope after they shed their winter coats.

See:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.medievaltextiles.org/reprintNMMcamelin.pdf">http://www.medievaltextiles.org/reprintNMMcamelin.pdf</a><!-- m -->

+Shamasha Paul
Pages: 1 2 3 4