07-27-2008, 06:33 PM
Shlama Akhi Dave,
The very fact that some Greek manuscripts of Mark contain the "rope" meaning, should be enough to tell you that "Gamla" meant the same thing in Meshikha's time that in did in Moshe bar-Kepha's time.
bar-Bahlul, bishop of the Church of the East, live in the 9th-10 centuries. He quoted Moshe bar-Kepha, who lived in the 8th-9th centuries. If Moshe bar-Kepha gave this definition in his lexical work (now extant), during the 9th century, it must have been an established meaning for many centuries before he was around. Moshe bar-Kepha didn't make up the meaning.
What you're failing to realize, Akhi, is that Lamsa did not make a miraculous discovery here. Anyone familiar with Aramaic as an everyday spoken language knows the meaning of this word and uses it in a variety of ways. You keep bringing up Lamsa, I say big deal. It wasn't Lamsa's. Bar-Bahlul's lexicon was written a thousand years before Lamsa was born.
Back to your question: how do we know what any Aramaic word meant at the time of Jesus? A large body of evidence are primary texts such as the NT in its various forms and translations. Another way we know is secondary sources like lexicons written before or after the fact. A third way is by the testimony of a living, breathing community that continues to use this language as an everyday vernacular within homes, churches, synagogues and organizations (print media, television, internet), etc.
You seem to me to be narrowing the criteria that will satisfy you to only those witnesses directly related to the primary sources. That, in my opinion, is a rather dangerous approach to lexical study. There are many words the are only used once in the NT. If we were to rely on the NT alone, we would not know what that word meant.
Yes, Khawla is used in the NT to mean "rope." It is also used in Acts, where the Greek translator misread and translated it as "pains." Much in the same way most Greek translators misread Gamla and translated "camel" instead of "rope". You are willing to convict the former and forgive the latter, based on what seems to me to be your own preference for contextual meaning.
Does "camel" work in the passage? Sure, as would "elephant" or even "pig". But why on earth would we prefer "camel" to "rope" when referring to a needle?
Both meanings are equally impossible through a needle. I've never seen a needle eye that you could thread a rope used to bind bridges and ships. That's one hell of a needle. I don't know how you consider that a possibility. You could grind up camel flesh into patties and push them through that way, about as easily as you could do the thick rope thread-by-thread.
But alas, it appears your mind is made up and it's really not that important of a topic, except for the fact that in either case, it proves the NT was written in Aramaic and not Greek, otherwise you wouldn't have some manuscripts of Greek Mark containing the "rope" meaning.
+Shamasha Paul
gbausc Wrote:Please excuse me for seeming obtuse, but do we know that BAR BAHLULE is giving a meaning that was current in Yeshua's time?
The very fact that some Greek manuscripts of Mark contain the "rope" meaning, should be enough to tell you that "Gamla" meant the same thing in Meshikha's time that in did in Moshe bar-Kepha's time.
bar-Bahlul, bishop of the Church of the East, live in the 9th-10 centuries. He quoted Moshe bar-Kepha, who lived in the 8th-9th centuries. If Moshe bar-Kepha gave this definition in his lexical work (now extant), during the 9th century, it must have been an established meaning for many centuries before he was around. Moshe bar-Kepha didn't make up the meaning.
What you're failing to realize, Akhi, is that Lamsa did not make a miraculous discovery here. Anyone familiar with Aramaic as an everyday spoken language knows the meaning of this word and uses it in a variety of ways. You keep bringing up Lamsa, I say big deal. It wasn't Lamsa's. Bar-Bahlul's lexicon was written a thousand years before Lamsa was born.
Back to your question: how do we know what any Aramaic word meant at the time of Jesus? A large body of evidence are primary texts such as the NT in its various forms and translations. Another way we know is secondary sources like lexicons written before or after the fact. A third way is by the testimony of a living, breathing community that continues to use this language as an everyday vernacular within homes, churches, synagogues and organizations (print media, television, internet), etc.
You seem to me to be narrowing the criteria that will satisfy you to only those witnesses directly related to the primary sources. That, in my opinion, is a rather dangerous approach to lexical study. There are many words the are only used once in the NT. If we were to rely on the NT alone, we would not know what that word meant.
Yes, Khawla is used in the NT to mean "rope." It is also used in Acts, where the Greek translator misread and translated it as "pains." Much in the same way most Greek translators misread Gamla and translated "camel" instead of "rope". You are willing to convict the former and forgive the latter, based on what seems to me to be your own preference for contextual meaning.
Does "camel" work in the passage? Sure, as would "elephant" or even "pig". But why on earth would we prefer "camel" to "rope" when referring to a needle?
Both meanings are equally impossible through a needle. I've never seen a needle eye that you could thread a rope used to bind bridges and ships. That's one hell of a needle. I don't know how you consider that a possibility. You could grind up camel flesh into patties and push them through that way, about as easily as you could do the thick rope thread-by-thread.
But alas, it appears your mind is made up and it's really not that important of a topic, except for the fact that in either case, it proves the NT was written in Aramaic and not Greek, otherwise you wouldn't have some manuscripts of Greek Mark containing the "rope" meaning.
+Shamasha Paul