Yes, I supposed that Kevin's question somehow traced to Lamsa's
translation of the Aramaic NT. Nevertheless, the replacement of "elephant" for
"camel" in a similar expression in the Babylonian Talmud, as mentioned in a recent
post, tends to indicate the following: that such expressions were used for
purposes of hyperbole, and that the very point of the expression lies in the
absolutely humanly impossible nature of the action described.
Of course, Lamsa's thesis, as I understand it is that the Aramaic NT has a
greater claim to acuracy and to preserving the original readings than does the
Greek (at least in the Gospels) since all the dialog recorded was originally
spoken in Aramaic. He also postulates an Aramaic original for the majority of the
Gospel tradition, does he not?
In terms of the attestation for KAMHLOS in the Greek text, one couldn't
really say that there is any problem. The only MSS, besides the Armenian
tradition, that are listed in Nestle 27th ed. for the variant KAMILOS are
third-category miniscules. Metzger's _Textual Commentary_ also cites MS 59, which
is also a miniscule, lectionary 183, and the Georgian. The Peshitta isn't
mentioned in any of these, but if Lamsa's translation reflects the standard
Pessitta rendering, that would have to be included. Such testimony, even when
taken together would be seen as negligible by most textual critics in comparison
to the 4th-Century uncial MSS Aleph and B, coroborated by the 5th-Century MSS C
and D along with many other uncials. Only pleading a special status for the
Aramaic tradition might tip the balance the other way, but that doesn't seem to be
warranted.
-- David L. Moore Director Miami, Florida, USA Department of Education dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com Southeastern Spanish District http://www.netcom.com/~dvdmoore of the Assemblies of God