camel & rope (Was Re: Fw: Grounds for disbelief)

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 15:47:27 EDT

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: The forgotten verses"

    Apropos the info from Dave & Don below:

            The mss Dave notes as containing _kamilon_ are of Mt.19.24 and Lk.18:25. There
    appear to be no mss of Mk which have this reading at 10:25. Since Mk is likely the
    source for Mt & Lk here, this suggests later emendation independently of other
    considerations. In any case the evidence for _kamilon_ is, as Dave says, weak: The
    more limited UBS apparatus - which I based my earlier remarks on - doesn't note these
    readings.

            I was able to look at a a somewhat (!) more recent ed. of Liddell-Scott, that of
    1996. Under _kamilos_ it says:

            "rope. Sch. Ar. V 1030, Suid. (Perh. coined as an emendation of the phrase
    [Quotes Mt.19:24 in Greek] but cf. Arab /jummal/ 'ships's cable.')

    So there hasn't been a great deal of change in 150 years.

                                                            Shalom,
                                                            George

                                                    

    D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
    >
    > As far as the text is concerned, Nestle 16th ed., 1936, says that
    > _kamilos_ occurs in one minuscule (59) and a few other unimportant
    > minuscules and the Armenian version. The earliest minuscule noted is 6th
    > century, most 8th and 9th, but 59 is not dated in the "Explanations."
    > Apparently the Armenian version, not dated in Nestle, dates to the 5th
    > century. Since it is not found in the ancient uncials, it is surely
    > someone's emendation. I may note that, at least in modern Greek, iota and
    > eta are pronounced identically, but I don't know how far back itacism
    > goes.
    > Dave
    >
    > On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 01:38:56 -0700 "Don Winterstein"
    > <dfwinterstein@msn.com> writes:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > A closer look at Joseph H. Thayer's Lexicon and kamilos:
    > >
    > > First, Thayer's preface indicates that his work dates from 1889--not
    > > much
    > > later than Liddell and Scott. (Furthermore, the Publisher's
    > > Introduction
    > > says he was a Unitarian and that some of his definitions reflect
    > > Unitarian
    > > teaching (e.g., Christ was a mere man).)
    > >
    > > With respect to kamilos, Thayer refers to Liddell and Scott
    > > (1883-7th ed.)
    > > and Franz Passow (1857); so proof that the word was not invented
    > > seems to
    > > depend crucially on whether Thayer's "Schol. on Arstph. vesp.
    > > [1030]" (see
    > > below) refers to a pre-NT manuscript or not. (For contemporary
    > > readers it
    > > would be nice if Thayer had a more complete list of his
    > > abbreviations!)
    > >
    > > Evidence that Thayer's "Schol. on Arstph. vesp. [1030]" in fact does
    > > _not_
    > > refer to such pre-NT manuscript is in an appendix, where Thayer
    > > lists
    > > kamilos as a possible "New Testament Greek" word. By this I assume
    > > he means
    > > the word possibly originated as koine.
    > >
    > > Conclusion: George is right, we need a modern reference. All along
    > > I'd
    > > assumed Thayer was one, but he's not.
    > >
    > > Don
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > George Murphy wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > If I may quibble: An expert on textual criticism may correct me
    > > but
    > > there
    > > > is no
    > > > > "reading" /kamilon/ = "rope" rather than /kamelos/ = "camel".
    > > It is
    > > > instead a "textual
    > > > > emendation" - i.e., a guess at what the text might originally
    > > have been.
    > > > That is a
    > > > > legitimate procedure when the text we have is in such disarray
    > > that it
    > > > doesn't make any
    > > > > sense - as is the case in some places in the OT, like parts of
    > > Job. But
    > > > otherwise it's
    > > > > not appropriate.
    > > > >
    > > > > & here's something I hadn't noticed before. On looking up
    > > /kamilos/ in
    > > my
    > > > > antique (1843!) Liddell-Scott, I find this note:
    > > > >
    > > > > "/a rope/: but probably invented merely to explain away the
    > > well-known
    > > > passage
    > > > > in the N.T., /for a camel to go through the eye of a needle/,
    > > etc.,
    > > where
    > > > a rope might
    > > > > seem to us a more prob. image: but the Arabs have a proverb,
    > > /like an
    > > > elephant going
    > > > > through a needle's eye/; and /to swallow a camel/ occurs in
    > > N.T.; so
    > > that
    > > > this is
    > > > > needless."
    > > > >
    > > > > But this was written before the discovery of a lot of the koine
    > > documents
    > > > so
    > > > > don't rely on it without checking some newer reference.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (copyright
    > > 1977) says,
    > > > in part:
    > > >
    > > > "kamilos, ou, ho, a cable; the reading of certain Mss. in Mt. xix.
    > > 24 and
    > > > Lk. xvii. 25..... The word is found only in Suidas [1967c.] and
    > > the
    > > Schol.
    > > > on Arstph. vesp. [1030].... "
    > > >
    > > > I don't comprehend all of Thayer's abbreviations and annotations,
    > > but to
    > > me
    > > > this means that, apart from some NT manuscripts, the word is found
    > > in only
    > > > two other ancient manuscripts, one from around 1100 A.D. (Suidas)
    > > and the
    > > > other (possibly) from ancient Greece (Aristophanes?). So
    > > apparently it
    > > > wasn't "merely invented" but was very rarely used.
    > > >
    > > > Don
    > > >
    > >
    > >

    -- 
    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 15:48:57 EDT