A GREEK KAM-I-LON ... in the Peshitta ?



"Can't you see I am a kam-A-lon-- a camel--,
not a kam-I-lon  -- a rope-- ? " 
photo by pocketculture.com


~ or ~

Why 
must we resort to GREEK sources
instead of Aramaic 

to find that CAMEL means ROPE... 

since the Aramaic translations
seem to be 
the ONLY ones
currently transforming 
a CAMEL into a ROPE ?

?  ?  ? ??????????? ?  ? 

 In the Nestle-Aland  Greek New Testament (1979, 12th printing, 1991 edition) are 7 New Covenant Greek manuscripts that have this kam-I-lon variant ...

...yes, 7...
( out of hundreds, at least )

that have appeared in some of the Aramaic English translations
which prefer ROPE
rather than
the bona fide CAMEL ! 

Let us recall some facts: ( all verifiable if the reader should choose to do so. But let me warn you: it takes a LOT of time.)

The texts online at Dukhrana's fine collection have oftentimes NO vowel pointings for the Aramaic word for "camel," GaMLa, as in Mr. Steven Silver's Khabouris T manuscript and Mr. Paul Younan's manuscript.  

The Aramaic texts online at Dukhrana which DO retain vowel pointings, as in the "G, B, and H" Netzarim volume, have the normal vowel pointings which marks GaMLa as "camel."

The vowel pointings ARE marked as GaMLa, (which is correctly translated as "CAMEL")  in the Dukhrana Aramaic texts of :

· Khabouris C

· Peshitta New Testament, New York, 1886 Mingana Manuscript

· Syriac Manuscript 148-38a

... And this is TRUE for all 3 mis-translated verses in question:

• Matthew 19:24,
• Mark 10:25, and
• Luke 18:25.

Yes, all three verses of YESHUA+ HA MASHIYACH+ 'S  very words have the  mis-translation of "rope," in the "golden, best, and historic" Netzarim volume,  according to the existing VOWEL POINTS of GaMLA found in the Eastern texts listed above. 

They were changed into "ROPE" in the English translations of Mr. Younan and Mr. Lamsa... and the "Golden, Best, and Historic" Bible translation published by the Netzarim Publishing House... with apparently no vowel pointings able to be found to substantiate the change... if vowel pointings are indeed the crucial difference, as written in the GB & H volume !  

Now, do keep in mind that the Netzarim "Golden, Best, and Historic" version says that GaMLa (camel)  is actually a ROPE... due to it being a GaMaLa.   ( page 56 of the Mis-Pag. Edition, footnote 182, for Matthew 19:24).

NOW... LET US LOOK

AT THE GREEK RESOUCES....

Since there are none in the Aramaic. 

MATTHEW 19:24  

And again I+ say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of GOD.

(The young, TORAH-observant man with great possessions went away sorrowful. )

Nestle-Aland Greek Text lists in a bottom footnote the manuscript variant  for "camel" as being  kam-I-lon (rope) here... so few ( i.e., "p c" ) that N-A does not even mention or record the actual manuscripts. 

The fine Byzantine Greek Textform  work of Robinson-Pierpont have NO mention of any variant. 

MARK 10:25

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of GOD.

( The rich, TORAH-observant man went away sad.)  

The Nestle-Aland manuscript variants listing kam-I-lon  (rope) instead of "camel" are two:

manuscript 13 and manuscript 28 pc of the miniscules.  No variants are listed at all by Robinson and Pierpont's Byzantine Textform. 

LUKE 18:25 

For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of GOD!

(The rich, Torah-observant ruler went away sorrowful here, too.) 

The Nestle-Aland Greek text lists these manuscripts with ROPE ( kam-I-lon) instead of camel in its footnotes here. They are variants found in:

S, f13 manuscripts, 1010 manuscript, and 1424 al ( Latin for "others"), but the "others" are not significant enough to be listed.

No variants are listed by Robinson and Pierpont.

HERE is a TIMELY FACT to consider as well...

Although the GREEK manuscripts do have a few... a VERY FEW... places where ROPE is written in the Greek instead  of CAMEL, the TIME-FRAME of those few manuscripts is of utmost importance to this discussion. 

WHY ? 

The earliest manuscript

which contains such a variant

is dated at the 9th Century !

• p c ... un-datable
• Greek manuscript 13 .... 13th century
• Greek manuscript 28 ... 11th century
• Greek S uncial , dated 949 ... 10th century 
• f13 .... 10th century
• Greek manuscript 1010 ... 12th century
• Greek manuscripts 1424al...9 &10th century

So... how did Mr. Lamsa of Peshitta translation fame and the others who followed his translation,  find ROPE to put it into their translation of the ancient Aramaic text ? 

Futhermore... where did Mr. Lamsa find ROPE ... since it is not found in the Aramaic itself ... but only in these isolated, late GREEK manuscripts ?

Any theories, anyone ?

( I have a few,

based on this surprising 

GREEK text information. )

Coming soon: Elucidation on these Scripture verses by Pre-Nicene, historical Christian writers: Clement of Alexandria ( circa 153-217)  and Origen ( circa 185- 254) ... just in case readers adhere to Prosperity Theology, in either the Greek OR Aramaic camps ! / Sr. Judith Hannah  + + +