6 ms·

I 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 ro

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
    Good 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.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Clearly we should just combine both of these revisions—tossing some rope through a gate would be easy!
  - Zancarius 3y ago
    I like the way you think!
- vintermann 3y ago
  > His words reflect an ancient Jewish figure of speech for the impossible The article claims that the Gospels are the oldest known use of the figure of speech.
  - Zancarius 3y ago
    Maybe, at least in "modern" writing. The problem I have with that claim is that the phrasing "eye of a needle" appears in Talmudic writings that predate the NT, so the idea itself likely predates that, and other creatures (elephants) have been used instead of camels. Granted, this is just hair-splitting, but I would strongly suspect its use dates much earlier.
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      There are no Talmudic manuscripts that predate the NT. There is a reasonable inference that much of what is in them does, but there is no guessing which bits those are.
      - Zancarius 3y ago
        Ah interesting, thanks! I didn't realize the only surviving manuscripts for which we have evidence date approximately to the time range of the MT. Whereas the Sinaiticus majuscule is easily 2-4 centuries earlier. Still, I would expect the idiom was well-established by the first century.
- jjeaff 3y ago
  the version of the eye of the needle being a particular gate in Jerusalem that I heard is that it was a short entrance. so a camel could conceivably go through it, but you would have to take off any provisions it is packing and the camel would have to kneel down to get through. Which I think would square with other teachings of Jesus, which is that a man CAN get into heaven by humbling himself (kneeling) and casting off his worldly possessions first.
heavyset_go 3y ago
> I 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. I agree, considering the prosperity gospel types have found a way to reinterpret the analogy literally, claiming that Jesus was actually talking about a gateway to Jerusalem called the Eye of the Needle[1] that required those with goods to hand them through the Eye to get where they're going. The analogy, in that interpretation, means that wealth was able to pass through the Eye, and thus so could the wealthy enter heaven. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle#Gate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle#Gate
- kragen 3y ago
  the article discusses the origin of this other specious interpretation at some length
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Zanni 3y ago
Rope and needle are close enough in scale that passing the one through the other is merely improbable. Consider a thin rope and a large needle, for example. You could also unbraid a rope and pass it through a needle, strand by strand, and reconstruct it on the other "side." Much harder to do with a camel.
- DebtDeflation 3y ago
  Except that the rope in question here is a "seafaring" rope used by sailors. If you're familiar with nautical rope, it has no more possibility of passing through the eye of even the largest sail needle than a camel does.
  - acdha 3y ago
    This is true but I don’t think this was aimed at people who were going to deeply contemplate it as a serious metaphor. It seems more along the lines of effective altruism, designed to let people sleep comfortably while enjoying the pleasures of wealth now while saying that they would thin the rope with a massive donation later (why do you even need to ask?), which the church could very conveniently help receive.
DontchaKnowit 3y ago
I dont understand why people refuse to take this line as literally as possible - A rich person has as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle. Its just a humorous way of saying "fat chance" ... why read into it so much. Never made any sense to me.
- sn41 3y ago
  I agree, but I guess it goes against things like the Work Ethic [1], the Prosperity Theology [2] and the funding sources of megachurches, all which take material prosperity as a sign of divine grace. It is strange that some megachurches who espouse "Sola fide" and "Sola scriptura" also directly contradict one of the famous sayings in the Gospels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic#Weber's_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic#Weber's_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  That's how I read it. That he was just looking around exasperated trying to explain why rich people don't go to heaven, and saw a camel and made it up on the spot as an example of something that is obviously impossible. I still find it fascinating that this simple, utterly unambiguous line, gets totally ignored or misinterpreted so that rich people get to call themselves christian while persecuting gay folks on the basis of vague OT references.
  - KMag 3y ago
    The OT references aren't vague, but due to the idea of the new covenant, they likely apply as much as the OT prohibitions against touching pig leather or touching a menstruating woman. The only treatment of homosexuality in the NT comes from Paul, and the Greek word he uses for the receiving partner is specifically the word for an underage male slave kept for sexual purposes, so it's unclear how applicable it is to modern consenting adults. I'd certainly much prefer Paul was trying to say "Yo, don't be a pedo, and no matter your circumstance as far as you have control don't ever offer sexual favors for advancement/favorable treatment" instead of "Yo, don't be gay." However, unfortunately we'll never know how Paul would have felt about modern Western conceptions of homosexuality, and my wishes have zero impact on his actual intent. He would have been familiar with Jewish culture in which homosexuality was forbidden, and Hellenistic culture where creepy mentor/mentee homosexual pedophilia was apparently commonplace. He may not have had any concept resembling our modern Western conception of homosexuality, so even in an alternate history where he wrote "Yo, don't be gay" (somehow miraculously in modern English), reasonable people could still disagree over modern applicability. An in-depth study of Paul's Koine Greek word choices for homosexuality would probably be much more enlightening than an in-depth study of Aramaic words for rope and camel. Rope vs. camel has zero impact on practical application of the teaching. Also, the main thrust of Jesus's teaching is against the arrogance of religious authorities and against greed/selfishness. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, and the entire NT maybe mentions homosexuality (or maybe lack of consent was the gripe there) once. The preoccupation some churches have with homosexuality is clearly unwarranted. (On a side note, the OT explicitly mentions that arrogance was the sin that doomed Sodom. Food for thought for anyone citing Sodom, new covenant aside.)
tsimionescu 3y ago
The article explicitly quotes the original source for this kamilos theory as claiming exactly this: > ‘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. So, even if you don't agree with Cyril's reasoning, it is clear that he believed that "camel through the eye of a needle" would have meant complete impossibility, but "rope through the eye of a needle" actually allows a slither of a chance.

Zancarius 3y ago

I 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 ago
  Good 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.
bee_rider 3y ago
Clearly we should just combine both of these revisions—tossing some rope through a gate would be easy!
- Zancarius 3y ago
  I like the way you think!
vintermann 3y ago
> His words reflect an ancient Jewish figure of speech for the impossible The article claims that the Gospels are the oldest known use of the figure of speech.
- Zancarius 3y ago
  Maybe, at least in "modern" writing. The problem I have with that claim is that the phrasing "eye of a needle" appears in Talmudic writings that predate the NT, so the idea itself likely predates that, and other creatures (elephants) have been used instead of camels. Granted, this is just hair-splitting, but I would strongly suspect its use dates much earlier.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    There are no Talmudic manuscripts that predate the NT. There is a reasonable inference that much of what is in them does, but there is no guessing which bits those are.
    - Zancarius 3y ago
      Ah interesting, thanks! I didn't realize the only surviving manuscripts for which we have evidence date approximately to the time range of the MT. Whereas the Sinaiticus majuscule is easily 2-4 centuries earlier. Still, I would expect the idiom was well-established by the first century.
jjeaff 3y ago
the version of the eye of the needle being a particular gate in Jerusalem that I heard is that it was a short entrance. so a camel could conceivably go through it, but you would have to take off any provisions it is packing and the camel would have to kneel down to get through. Which I think would square with other teachings of Jesus, which is that a man CAN get into heaven by humbling himself (kneeling) and casting off his worldly possessions first.

heavyset_go 3y ago

> I 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. I agree, considering the prosperity gospel types have found a way to reinterpret the analogy literally, claiming that Jesus was actually talking about a gateway to Jerusalem called the Eye of the Needle[1] that required those with goods to hand them through the Eye to get where they're going. The analogy, in that interpretation, means that wealth was able to pass through the Eye, and thus so could the wealthy enter heaven. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle#Gate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle#Gate

kragen 3y ago
the article discusses the origin of this other specious interpretation at some length

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Zanni 3y ago

Rope and needle are close enough in scale that passing the one through the other is merely improbable. Consider a thin rope and a large needle, for example. You could also unbraid a rope and pass it through a needle, strand by strand, and reconstruct it on the other "side." Much harder to do with a camel.

DebtDeflation 3y ago
Except that the rope in question here is a "seafaring" rope used by sailors. If you're familiar with nautical rope, it has no more possibility of passing through the eye of even the largest sail needle than a camel does.
- acdha 3y ago
  This is true but I don’t think this was aimed at people who were going to deeply contemplate it as a serious metaphor. It seems more along the lines of effective altruism, designed to let people sleep comfortably while enjoying the pleasures of wealth now while saying that they would thin the rope with a massive donation later (why do you even need to ask?), which the church could very conveniently help receive.

DontchaKnowit 3y ago

I dont understand why people refuse to take this line as literally as possible - A rich person has as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle. Its just a humorous way of saying "fat chance" ... why read into it so much. Never made any sense to me.

sn41 3y ago
I agree, but I guess it goes against things like the Work Ethic [1], the Prosperity Theology [2] and the funding sources of megachurches, all which take material prosperity as a sign of divine grace. It is strange that some megachurches who espouse "Sola fide" and "Sola scriptura" also directly contradict one of the famous sayings in the Gospels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic#Weber's_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic#Weber's_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
marcus_holmes 3y ago
That's how I read it. That he was just looking around exasperated trying to explain why rich people don't go to heaven, and saw a camel and made it up on the spot as an example of something that is obviously impossible. I still find it fascinating that this simple, utterly unambiguous line, gets totally ignored or misinterpreted so that rich people get to call themselves christian while persecuting gay folks on the basis of vague OT references.
- KMag 3y ago
  The OT references aren't vague, but due to the idea of the new covenant, they likely apply as much as the OT prohibitions against touching pig leather or touching a menstruating woman. The only treatment of homosexuality in the NT comes from Paul, and the Greek word he uses for the receiving partner is specifically the word for an underage male slave kept for sexual purposes, so it's unclear how applicable it is to modern consenting adults. I'd certainly much prefer Paul was trying to say "Yo, don't be a pedo, and no matter your circumstance as far as you have control don't ever offer sexual favors for advancement/favorable treatment" instead of "Yo, don't be gay." However, unfortunately we'll never know how Paul would have felt about modern Western conceptions of homosexuality, and my wishes have zero impact on his actual intent. He would have been familiar with Jewish culture in which homosexuality was forbidden, and Hellenistic culture where creepy mentor/mentee homosexual pedophilia was apparently commonplace. He may not have had any concept resembling our modern Western conception of homosexuality, so even in an alternate history where he wrote "Yo, don't be gay" (somehow miraculously in modern English), reasonable people could still disagree over modern applicability. An in-depth study of Paul's Koine Greek word choices for homosexuality would probably be much more enlightening than an in-depth study of Aramaic words for rope and camel. Rope vs. camel has zero impact on practical application of the teaching. Also, the main thrust of Jesus's teaching is against the arrogance of religious authorities and against greed/selfishness. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, and the entire NT maybe mentions homosexuality (or maybe lack of consent was the gripe there) once. The preoccupation some churches have with homosexuality is clearly unwarranted. (On a side note, the OT explicitly mentions that arrogance was the sin that doomed Sodom. Food for thought for anyone citing Sodom, new covenant aside.)

tsimionescu 3y ago

The article explicitly quotes the original source for this kamilos theory as claiming exactly this: > ‘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. So, even if you don't agree with Cyril's reasoning, it is clear that he believed that "camel through the eye of a needle" would have meant complete impossibility, but "rope through the eye of a needle" actually allows a slither of a chance.