40 ms·
The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye
- 082349872349872 3y agoPace Aristippus (and the lentils), telling rich people what they want to hear is not a bad way to arrange for a stream of invites to fancy dinners.
- hprotagonist 3y agoTelling them what they need to hear tends to get you nailed to stuff, though.
- labster 3y agoThat’s why Martin Luther was smart and got the nailing part out of the way at the beginning.
- jowea 3y agoMartin Luther had a lot of support and allied with the politically powerful. The later Radical Reformation was something else.
- labster 3y agoI don’t think that support was guaranteed at the beginning, though. Certainly Jan Hus suffered a worse fate, being too early, but Luther could have imagined meeting the same end (before meeting God obvs). The political situation mattered a lot, as did the printing press.
- SilasX 3y agoI’m still scratching my head at that attribution of motive though. “No, rich guys, what He meant to say is that it’s at least as hard as threading a rope through the eye of a needle. So rich guys like you just have to do that simple thing to get into heaven, easy peasy!” ‘Um, that … also seems really hard?’ “Yeah but not nearly as hard as a camel. Like whoaaa those things are bulky and not even the some domain as tailoring!” ‘Okay but it doesn’t seem all that meaningful to compare one impossibility to another. Like, is dividing 1 by 0 harder than dividing 0 by 0?’ “Look, I’m trying to shill for y’all, can I please just get the invites?”
- readthenotes1 3y agoIf you are rich, you can afford a bigger needle
- 082349872349872 3y agoOr smaller camels? https://su-ami.com/products/miniature-camels-8934 https://su-ami.com/products/miniature-camels-8934 When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed / With a word she can get what she came for…
- bell-cot 3y agoMeh. You don't get (or stay) rich by being all that concerned about your fate in the hereafter. I'd say that the seriously rich (and serious wanna-bes) are far more interested in Matthew 4:8-9. And in doing whatever it takes, to hopefully receive such an offer themselves.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hprotagonist 3y agoMammon is an easy idolatry.
- Zancarius 3y agoI like this. I literally just caught that word in a commentary I was reading on Sunday. Sadly, English translations sometimes don't convey the force or cultural context of the passage.
- hprotagonist 3y agoYou might like William Stringfellow's "Impostors of God:Inquiries into Favorite Idols". It's part of a long intellectual tradition that is absolutely wrenching.
- Zancarius 3y agoPresently reading through a review—looks like a great recommendation! The charges he levies against modernity are pretty damning but not at all untrue. We're not all that dissimilar from the Israelites who were repeatedly condemned to the status of remnant, to be ruled by unjust kings, conquered and displaced by other nations, yet forever snubbing the will of the Most High. We've just swapped more obvious idols (on occasion) for ones less so (except money). Thanks!
- hprotagonist 3y ago
- moolcool 3y agoI always find the "eye of the needle gate" deflection funny, because why would anyone use metaphor that to make such a general point?
- kragen 3y agothe gospels are uncontroversially full of metaphors and similes being used to make general points, generally attributed to jesus as in this case
- readthenotes1 3y agoIs "full" metaphorical there? Would "composed of" be more literal?
- xp84 3y agoSame. “It’s easier to close all your browser tabs in just 10 seconds, than it is for a rich person to get into heaven.” “It’s easier to grill a steak just right without checking it, than…” People are really desperate to believe this particular figure would like them…
- booleandilemma 3y agoYou're asking why Jesus, the guy who speaks in parables, would use a metaphor to make a point?
- Jedd 3y agoMore accurately, the question is why the unknown author of the book of Mark, who never claimed to have first or even second hand accounts of Jesus, used that metaphor in his story. The subsequent two usages by the anonymous authors of books Luke or Matthew clearly lifted that story from the earlier work - I don't think that's in dispute here.
- anonymous_sorry 3y agoThe point is it doesn't make sense. "It's easier for a rich man to enter heaven than to park their Range Rover in a smallish garage". So... slightly tricky but perfectly doable? It's not an interesting enough thing to record/claim Jesus to have said. And why then are the disciples said to be so shocked and confused by the metaphor? "Woah there Jesus, you're saying it'll take a rich man a good 5 minutes of manoeuvring to get into heaven? Say it ain't so, son of Joe!"
- hprotagonist 3y agoI know that the most recent biologists have been chiefly anxious to discover a very small camel. But if we diminish the camel to his smallest, or open the eye of the needle to its largest—if, in short, we assume the words of Christ to have meant the very least that they could mean, His words must at the very least mean this— that rich men are not very likely to be morally trustworthy. Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rags. The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world. For the whole modern world is absolutely based on the assumption, not that the rich are necessary (which is tenable), but that the rich are trustworthy, which (for a Christian) is not tenable. You will hear everlastingly, in all discussions about newspapers, companies, aristocracies, or party politics, this argument that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man. The whole case for Christianity is that a man who is dependent upon the luxuries of this life is a corrupt man, spiritually corrupt, politically corrupt, financially corrupt. There is one thing that Christ and all the Christian saints have said with a sort of savage monotony. They have said simply that to be rich is to be in peculiar danger of moral wreck. Chesterton, 1908 ("Orthodoxy")
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lynguist 3y agoThanks for sharing. I did not know that and I did not grow up with much Christian influence (or any), but what this man writes is how I felt like for a long time deep inside. It resonates with me very much.
- brink 3y agoHe's written some fantastic books. Worth a read, imo. He's my favorite author.
- deebosong 3y agoWhile I was wrestling with personal greed with the crypto mania as a laymen (and I try not to write the whole thing off as bad), his writings were very helpful to get me to see what was drawing me in and what also wasn't sitting well with me about the mass hysteria around it.
- OscarCunningham 3y agoI've never really understood the sentences following this quote. > '[…] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.' They were greatly astounded and said to one another, 'Then who can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.' Why do the apostles seem to think that Jesus's words would make it difficult for anyone to be saved? Surely from what he's said it's obvious that poor people can be saved. And when Jesus says 'for God all things are possible', isn't he implying that some rich people might get into heaven? So why do people interpret the passage as Jesus saying this is impossible?
- tines 3y agoBecause it was thought that being rich meant you were close to God. If the people they thought were closest to God could scarcely be saved, then how could anyone else be? So the thinking goes. It's an argument a fortiori. Of course Jesus' point was that the poor and sinners are much closer to the kingdom of God than the rich, hence their astonishment.
- 542458 3y agoYes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. This is illustrated in John 9, where the disciples ask Jesus about a blind man: His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” This is why Jesus going around healing the blind and lepers was significant and a bit shocking: those were supposed to be the bad people, and if their state was punishment for their evil why would you go and help them? But the gospel message is that we all do bad things, and judged on our own merits we all fall short of goodness. But there is grace, and by grace the bad things we do can be put away.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago> Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. And yet, here we are again. The prosperity gospel which a large chunk of not only American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. This is one explanation for why the previous president had so much support among evangelicals: He's rich and so it must mean God likes him. This is also (as the article suggests) why there has been a long and concerted effort to suggest that Jesus wasn't suggesting something entirely impossible (like the debunked city gate explanation)
- argsv 3y agoWell apparently the same analogy is used in the Quran as well. https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=7&verse=40 https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=7&verse=40
- timbit42 3y agoYes, some aspects of Islam seem to be based on the views of the Ebionites, an early Christian sect who used a Hebrew version of Matthew (instead of Greek) and whose beliefs about Jesus (not God, didn't actually die, etc.) ended up in Islam.
- lynguist 3y agoWe say now “some sect”, but today’s mainstream Trinitarians were also considered “just some sect” in Early Christianity. It has turned out to become the mainstream view, but really trinitarianism and antitrinitarianism are both valid views of Christianity and Islam stems from the “back to the basics” antitrinitarian view. While we’re at it, Judaism was also developed contemporarily with Christianity and not before (as is the mainstream view), because Judaism includes the teachings of the Rabbis. The root is Middle Eastern monotheism.
- djur 3y ago"Sect" isn't a pejorative term, at least not in this context.
- sctb 3y agoI'm predisposed to mysticism, so I probably read this passage a lot less mundanely than most. I'm also a minimalist and tend to view spiritual teachings as enigmatic ways of pointing out something obvious that we are conditioned to overlook. To me, this passage says: "You don't get to keep anything."
- swayvil 3y agoI would put it equivalent to Sinclair's famous, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” In this case the understanding = the religious stuff. So it's basically the same.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- debok 3y agoI'm less predisposed to mysticism, but I agree with you conclusion on "You don't get to keep anything." I would also add "You don't get to buy your way in." Often in the gospels we hear Jesus say things that stump both us and the hearers at the time. It is almost like he is inviting us to search for meaning behind his words. He is speaking in metaphors, and that much is clear with how "off" his responses sometimes feel to us.
- vcg3rd 3y agoWell, in context, Jesus has just said you must come as a child. And He finishes with those who would be first shall be last. Children aren't focused on money and they were always last. It's hard to be childlike (totally dependent) when you think you're autonomous and wealth tends to solidify the illusion of autonomy. I don't think the literal meaning of the Greek word matters that much to grasp the meaning of the account. The analysis at least assumes Jesus said it and it was recorded in 3 Gospels. If one starts with that, Jesus (Whomever one believes He was [1]) meant something, used some word, and the listeners understood what He meant enough to ask a follow-up question. In his advice to Timothy, Paul warns how a focus on words in an effort to "gain" is harmful: "[He] is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world." 1 Tim 6:4-6 I think it ties in nicely with what Jesus said about how wealth/gain is often a hindrance to childlike humility, innocence, and trust. [1] I agree with Peter when Jesus asked him "Who do you say that I am?"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rrauenza 3y ago“All things (e.g. a camel's journey through A needle's eye) are possible, it's true. But picture how the camel feels, squeezed out In one long bloody thread, from tail to snout.” ― C.S. Lewis, Poems
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CrzyLngPwd 3y agoIn 400 years, people could be interpreting the Harry Potter series similarly.
- labster 3y agoThey already are. And not just deep in the Harry Potter fandom, but in bitter, highly public schisms over the meaning.
- runeofdoom 3y agoBalrog wings.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 3y agoI will fight someone in public over the time turner thing. No it's not a closed loop, yes they could've used it to kill Voldemort.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bhelkey 3y agoIt's not a closed loop? It's been quite some time since I read the Prisoner of Azkaban but I was under the impression that was one of the limits.
- hot_gril 3y agoIt's supposed to be, according to the book, but what I mean is it doesn't make sense. The supposed explanation for why they didn't use it to kill Voldemort is "because they didn't."
- labster 3y agoMan, I was thinking about the gay Dumbledore thing, and the trans thing of course (JKR has very different conceptions of her characters than some of her readers do). Those are like national newspaper debates. But not as interesting as the origin of the race of orcs and whether it’s okay to use a Qenya word in Quenya.
- timbit42 3y agoIn Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, the word for camel is gamlo (ܓܐܡܠܐ) while the word for rope is gamla (ܓܐܡܠܥ). Mixing these up would be an easy mistake to make. Matthew and Luke both took some info from Mark but also took some info from the Q source and their own sources. Since all three have this same wording, it is likely the error came through Mark.
- re 3y ago> In Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, the word for camel is gamlo (ܓܐܡܠܐ) while the word for rope is gamla (ܓܐܡܠܥ). The blog author briefly references this Aramaic theory in his post and says that it has been similarly debunked, linking to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf0Fm8aVApk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf0Fm8aVApk The supposed Aramaic word for rope doesn't appear in any sources until the 10th century CE and is derived at that time from the same Cyril origin.
- emodendroket 3y agoI have to admit that the fact that various commentators suggest THREE different languages happen to have words for camel and rope that sound almost the same does rather bolster the case being made here. Someone want to suggest a seafaring rope known as kyummel or something?
- KMag 3y agoFirst of all, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Greek, English, etc. all have very similar words for camel/gimel/gamal/etc. (The Greek letter Gamma and the Hebrew/Phoenician letter Gimel derive from a drawing of a camel's head. Though, it's probably originally derives from a drawing of a boomerang-like hunting stick with a rhyming name in Demotic, and "throwing-stick" probably got switched to "camel" when the Phoenicians adapted the Demotic alphabet.) The word for camel got borrowed pretty readily as cultures came into contact with camels. It wouldn't be at all unusual for all three languages to have a very similar rare word for rope if the word at least originally meant a (rarely made) type of rope made of camel's hair. A couple decades ago, I was told that this saying was an intentional play on words between an Aramaic word for a rope made of camel's hair rhyming with the Aramaic word for camel, to make the saying more memorable. It's a bit sad to hear it was probably made up rather than clever word play.
- ranprieur 3y agoI don't buy the idea that changing camel to rope is about pleasing rich people, because a rope can still nowhere near get through the eye of a needle. But a rope is qualitatively the same kind of thing as a thread; so if camel is the right word, the message is that what gets into the kingdom of God is a whole different kind of thing than money.
- Zancarius 3y agoI agree! Where this argument pops up is through the modern myth that "eye of a needle" was a reference to a particular gate in Jerusalem (or something similar; there are different variants of this claim). If this were true, then THAT would turn the passage from an impossibility to something that's rather exceedingly difficult, thus pleasing rich people. Rope versus camel doesn't dramatically change the outcome as much as changing the idiom from a literal needle to a gate. Here's what the IVP commentary says: 19:23–26. Here Jesus clearly uses *hyperbole. His words reflect an ancient Jewish figure of speech for the impossible: a very large animal passing through a needle’s eye. On regular journeys at twenty-eight miles per day, a fully loaded camel could carry four hundred pounds in addition to its rider; such a camel would require a gate at least ten feet high and twelve feet wide. (A needle’s eye in Jesus’ day meant what it means today; the idea that it was simply a name for a small gate in Jerusalem is based on a gate from the medieval period and sheds no light on Jesus’ teaching in the first century.) Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, Second Edition. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2014), 94.
- Natsu 3y ago> Where this argument pops up is through the modern myth that "eye of a needle" was a reference to a particular gate in Jerusalem The article says this theory appears as early as the 11th century, which isn't quite "modern."
- Zancarius 3y agoGood point. I guess my view of "modern" with regards to scripture is somewhat warped by the view that anything later than, say, the 7th or 8th centuries is "too new." Either way, the analogy is anachronistic to the text, which is probably the better way to render it.
- robocat 3y agoEven moderately rich people have a variety of loopholes. * Turn a camel into a fine slurry that can be easily put through the eye of a needle. * Commission a very big needle. Or the classic redefinition of rich: most people that complain about the rich always seem to mean someone richer than they are. E.g. If you're writing on HN you are the rich.
- deepsquirrelnet 3y agoI like this direction. But the passage talks about the ease of doing so. I propose something like a wood chipper attached to a conveyor belt that runs through a giant needle and deposits the remains on the other side. You could use an excavator to lift the camel into the chipper just to make sure there’s almost zero effort involved In building such a device, you will have saved all of humanity, rich or poor from the eternal fires.
- robocat 3y agoJust make it easy: there is an obvious market gap. It should be highly profitable: the market segment is rich old gullible Christians. I can see 3 levels: 1: camel slurry as a service. An Australian company (you get paid to cull feral camels there - extra profit) - paid for at a dedicated website - with a personalized certificate mailed for completion. Easy. 2: personalized. You travel to the machine in a suitable country and do your own camel. Bring your own needle. 3: home service - for the ultra-wealthy. Harder to do due to animal product export/import laws. Pesky laws - rich people don't need to bother about those or can find the loopholes. You mention the theoretical tragedy of the commons problem (do you need to do your own camel, or does one machine cover all mankind?). So perhaps your buyer is an evangelical church (or believers that the bible is literal truth?). Or set up a charity. Personally, I think if you are going to sell something as intangible as salvation, it is only ethical to sell it as many times as possible to as many people as possible! After all a salvated person has no more use for their money.
- deepsquirrelnet 3y agoOK how about industrial scales of salvation? Here’s what I propose: 1. Switch to camel meat farming 2. Route all sewers through the eye of a giant needle en route to water treatment 3. Receive eternal blessings every morning if you took your fiber the previous evening Sorry vegetarians and vegans, you’re still at risk. You’ll have to use messy camel slurries or just take your chances.
- rando_dfad 3y agoHuh. I thought the camel/needle's eye thing was about a small narrow gate into Jerusalem. You can get a camel through it, but it needs to get down on its knees and crawl. Apparently, camels don't like to do that. But I've never seen the gate, and don't have strong views on biblical accuracy.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anonymous_sorry 3y agoThe article tells us that this is not true.
- kragen 3y agokjv text for reference > And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. > Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 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. https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/19.htm https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/19.htm selling all your possessions and giving them to the poor, then wandering around the country homeless following a new religious movement is what jesus was advocating in this passage i mention this because a few comments here have been totally bogus
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Natsu 3y agoIn context, the new believers were frequently put out of their homes and sent destitute, so being willing to give it all up was a requirement. That said, there isn't a whole lot of evidence what is meant here and a rope makes more sense than a camel, because a rich man can become poorer by giving it up just as a rope can be made thinner (by taking away most of the fibers), whereas a camel just can't manage at all. It wouldn't be too surprising if it was an obscure bit of slang among a less literate group meant for a joke, but there are a few other words that seem to have been coined by gospel writers that have seen lots of litigation, e.g. arsenokoites which seems to echo a construction from Leviticus.
- jdbernard 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pizzafeelsright 3y agoTake the most challenging interpretation and you're probably correct.
- Nition 3y agoThis is a bit of a meta-comment but, there are a great deal of of comments in this thread that say something that's already covered in the article. I've noticed that Hacker News comments do seem to be trending more over time to being from people who only read the title, or at best only skimmed the article. If you go straight to the comments on any news post on Reddit, the discussions usually seem relatively insightful, but if you read the article and then the comments, suddenly many of them seem ridiculous. Either they're discussing questions that are already answered in the article or covering topics that are completely irrelevant. Often they're interpreting the article in completely the wrong way.. I've always much appreciated that Hacker News is not like that and most comments are responding to parts of the article itself. I hope we don't end up that way eventually.
- doublerabbit 3y agoI'm guilty. I'm just here for the comments. I tend to learn more about the subject that way. And if I find the comments confusing I'll then jump to the article. Partly due to the popup spam on any major media outlet site, even wikipedia with its constant nagging for donations. Downvotes: Not sure why some HN readers are upset by this comment, I don't have time to read every article or to skim. Especially at work. Reading articles on mobile hurts my eyes, it's easier to get an understanding via comments.
- Nition 3y agoHonestly I think going straight to the comments is totally fine, as long as you read the article (or at least skim it, please) before posting your own top-level comment. I'm not sure why you're downvoted either really, because you're not doing any harm by just reading them. However, your method does become less useful if the comments that people do post become increasing divorced from the article! Sometimes on Reddit people almost create their own alternate reality in the comments based only on the title. When we only read the comments we end up living in that reality.
- potsandpans 3y agoMy unsubstantiated hypothesis is that this is a direct correlation to the reddit api changes.
- pazimzadeh 3y agoHas anyone considered that this may be a double entendre, and that ancient peoples may have been pretty witty?
- galaxyLogic 3y agoThis may be a bit un-orthodox, but I think there is some sense in Trinity if you interpret it properly: "Father" is the concrete DNA that creates each of us. "Son" is each individual that manifests that DNA. "Holy Ghost" is the whole INFORMATION in the DNA-population which gives rise to different concrete DNA strands. They are all manifestations of the same thing.
- tsimionescu 3y agoYou're trying to find a contrived scientific notion of trinitarianism, which is a belief that is built out of the long history of Judaism and Christianity. How does this make any sense? If you don't believe Jesus was an actual person, or that God the Father gave stone tablets to Moses, what does the trinity even mean to you? And if you do believe in these things, how is "DNA" a satisfying explanation for the Father who parted the sea for His people to cross it? How would you interpret the sacrifice of Jesus/God the Son to save humanity (God sacrificing Himself to save humanity) in this DNA based framework?
- spacebacon 3y agoTrue… the moment you do not accept that Jesus Christ is the walking and breathing incarnation of God is the moment you completely deny Christianity within the scope of the solidified Christian belief system. It is more realistic for the Christian to accept Jesus Christ was an alien, the Holy Ghost is a tractor beam, and God is the flying purple people eater at that point.
- angiosperm 3y agoApologia is all exactly like that. The answer to "who are you trying to fool?" is in every case the same: himself, and anybody along for the ride. The usual hope is that, even when he cannot fool himself, he might fool (i.e., "save") somebody else.
- galaxyLogic 3y agoEasy. The Son has to die, meaning every human individual must die because ONLY that way the evolution of DNA can proceed. DNA can "go to heaven", meaning beyond the death of the individual, for future generations to live, and to repeat the same cycle. DNA has a mechanism for aging, meaning we really die because of it, not in spite of it. The Aging has been built in (= has evolved as a trait) because it allows the species to evolve when older generations leave room for newer ones.
- aunwick 3y ago[flagged]
- joegibbs 3y agoBut that doesn’t sound particularly difficult. If he was saying “rich people get into heaven just about as easily as poor people do” why would he word it like that?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mastazi 3y agoThis aricle does a good job in presenting sources in support of its first argument (it was a camel, not a rope) but then it presents exactly zero evidence to support the conclusion (the error was intentional, the goal was to appease rich people). Clearly, the author knows about the importance of supporting argument with sources... so I have the impression that they might be in bad faith.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tsimionescu 3y agoThe quote from the original source of the "rope" claim, Cyril, is pretty explicit: > ‘camel’: he doesn’t mean the pack animal here, but the thick rope, with which sailors bind anchors. He shows that the situation isn’t absolutely permanent, but makes the matter extremely difficult for him in future, and for the present, close to and neighbouring on impossibility. Cyril explicitly considers that replacing "camel" with "rope" changes the meaning of the passage from complete impossibility to something that is extremely hard but still conceivable. What more evidence do you need that this was the reason?
- mastazi 3y agoEDIT: I misunderstood your comment originally. My response was based on that misunderstanding. I removed it. Also, I should not have suggested that the author might be in bad faith.
- spacebacon 3y agoThe size of synthetic fibers used in nautical ropes can vary widely depending on the material and manufacturer. However, the diameter of individual synthetic fibers typically ranges from micrometers (1,000 nanometers = 1 micrometer) to tens or hundreds of micrometers, depending on the specific type of synthetic fiber and its intended use in rope-making. The average eye of a needle typically ranges in size from about 300 to 800 nanometers in diameter, depending on the needle's gauge or size. This can vary slightly based on the needle's purpose and manufacturing specifics, but generally, it's within this nanometer range. While at first blush it may seem impossible to thread the nautical rope through one strand at a time one must consider that a method to achieve this delicate task using specialized tools like a needle threader or a microscope-guided threading technique is feasible. These tools can help manipulate and guide the 10-micrometer strand through the 800-nanometer eye of the needle with precision and accuracy. But you may still be wondering how so allow me to elaborate… Generally, nylon is known for its high elasticity, with a stretch capacity ranging from 10% to 40% or more of its original length before breaking, making it a popular choice for ropes requiring flexibility and shock absorption. I propose a slow and steady heated and compressed stretch wins this race nine times out of ten.
- bee_rider 3y agoI guess the fact that “big animal through a needle’s eye” was a common expression would make it more obvious. But, without knowing it, I kind of thought the rope phrasing seemed better. Without knowing the expression, “camel through a needle’s eye” sounds a bit fanciful, like there must be some sort of fairy-tale exception or trick to make it work. Edit: for example maybe camel fur can be made into thread? I don’t know. “Rope through a needle’s eye” would just be a mundanely impossible task, which, if anything, makes the analogy more concrete, in my opinion. The fact a rope is pretty similar to a thread, except in the very way that matters for fitting it through a needle’s eye, makes it more obvious. It seems like the theory is pretty throughly debunked anyway. But it is sort of funny that the misreading doesn’t even get you very close to the supposed goal.
- vintermann 3y ago> I guess the fact that “big animal through a needle’s eye” was a common expression would make it more obvious. The article suggests it may not have been a common expression at all until Jesus popularized it: the gospels are the earliest known occurrence of the expression.
- thfuran 3y ago>Without knowing the expression, “camel through a needle’s eye” sounds a bit fanciful, like there must be some sort of fairy-tale exception or trick to make it work But isn't that the whole point?
- grotorea 3y agoGood point but since the whole controversy is about what's the correct point of view to be defended, it depends. My guess: the "fairy-tale exception or trick" could be simply divine mercy towards the rich he feels are deserving. The rich can get into heaven not through brute force but through God's will.
- mminer237 3y agoThe point of Christ's teaching is that rich or poor, no one is deserving. It's only by admitting one's sinfulness and inadequacy and turning from it to instead accept God's mercy and gift of Christ that anyone can be saved.
- DeathArrow 3y agoI think the needle's eye was an actual place in the Jewish temple, which was very narrow.
- emodendroket 3y ago> The ‘rope’ theory is one of a couple of tactics for softening Jesus’ condemnation of wealth-hoarding. I don’t see that the message is particularly changed either way. It seems like if I hyperbolically said I had a million things to do or a billion, either way it’s not really like you’d assume one meant I wasn’t all that busy.
- spacebacon 3y agoI find it more interesting to web search the hacker news profits user names.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- johnsonjo 3y agoIt's interesting to me that the focus of these verses has always been on the "impossibility" of rich men entering the kingdom of Heaven. When 2 verses later it says with God all things are possible (in reference to what He just said about the eye of the needle). In my opinion I think Jesus Christ makes it pretty clear throughout the Gospels especially in His sermon on the mount that there are diverse paths to Hell and those paths are broad and "easy" (Matthew 5 doesn't say those terms exactly but the sentiment is there), but the point is not that we're all going to Hell in fact it is far from it. It's that there is a way to Salvation and that we all need that way. The idea conveyed here is the same as breaking any other law of God that you don't really have a chance of making it to heaven without God. In fact that's a little too specific of a condition really it's you don't have a chance of making it to heaven without God even with all the good works in the world (notice this is to say it is necessary God is in the equation to make it to Heaven). Also another often misquoted bible verse is "Money is the root of all evil" when really it says "For the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). That chapter is a good read for what makes having or wanting riches often lead to evil (for those who don't want to read it; it basically says coveting, lusting, and setting your heart upon riches, instead of God, is evil).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cyost 3y agoHere's St. Basil's commentary: > ... And it seems to me that the sickness of this young man, and of those who resemble him, is much like that of a traveller, who, longing to visit some city and having just about finished his way there, lodges at an inn outside the walls, where, upon some trifling impulse, he is averted, and so both makes his previous effort useless, and deprives himself of a view of the wonders of the city. And of such a nature are those who engage to do the other commandments, then turn around for the sake of gathering wealth. I’ve seen many who will fast, pray, groan, and display every kind of pious exertion, so long as it costs them nothing, but who will not so much as toss a red cent to those who are suffering. What good do they get from their remaining virtue? For the kingdom of heaven does not admit them; for, as it says, “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” (Lk 18:25). But, while this statement is so plain, and its speaker so unerring, scarcely anyone is persuaded by it. “So how are we supposed to live without possessions?” they say. “What kind of life will that be, selling everything, being dispossessed of everything?” Don’t ask me for the rationale of the Master’s commandments. He who lays down the law knows how to bring even what is incapable into accordance with the law. But as for you, your heart is tested as on a balance, to see if it shall incline towards the true life or towards immediate gratification. For it is right for those who are prudent in their reasonings to regard the use of money as a matter of stewardship, not of selfish enjoyment; and those who lay it aside ought to rejoice as though separated from things alien, not be embittered as though deprived of what is nearest and dearest. https://bekkos.wordpress.com/st-basils-sermon-to-the-rich/ https://bekkos.wordpress.com/st-basils-sermon-to-the-rich/
- backtoyoujim 3y agoRich people need to let criticism of their wealth exist without complaining. Holy books are always infallible until they fall on one's own lifestyle.
- m3047 3y agoI contend that a camel tethered by a ring on a runner which passes through the eye of a needle, by means of a sheet bend specifically, can "pass through" the eye of the needle just as a float strung on the bridle passes through the eyes of the fishing net. As to whether or not the thread which would fit through said eye of the needle would be enough to restrain said camel, this is in the hands of God.
- tpoacher 3y agointeresting. The gist seems to rely on the word literally meaning rope, in a manner unrelated to actual camels. but the phrasing I'd been given to understand was that coarse camel hair was a common fibre in use for making rope; indeed camel fibre is mentioned elsewhere as used for other items as well, like tents and clothing. So the idea of camel referring to rope would then be a reference to the coarse camel thread, as opposed to fine silk threads typically passed through needleheads. i dunno, in my mind this is a more persuasive visual than camel as animal. I take the preexistence of the elephant quote, but that seems to put it in the context of a dream, which makes it a bit more trippy in nature, in a manner that is less likely to have been the desired effect in the camel quote.