I 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.
> 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.
>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
He's not, not really. This is neither directed at the guy nor is it all that fanciful. To understand it you do need to read it very carefully, though, this is kind of an "intellectual exercise" bit from Mark in my view. Sorry, this will be a long comment.
So the rich man asks Jesus for how to inherit eternal life, and he says "you know what to do," and the man says "... but I've already been doing that." Jesus does not contradict him by pointing out any broken commandments. So if you read carefully, as far as that first part of the exchange goes down, Jesus has promised that this man merely has to keep firm with these commandments and he will inherit eternal life.
But, this man has already been doing what he's supposed to be doing, and somehow he's still here asking Jesus to help him out. The careful reading is that the rich man has a conflicted, uncertain heart. He has been promised eternal life but wants the certainty that Jesus is correct. And Jesus then "loves him" and offers him a way to get precisely that certainty, basically saying "leave everything behind and follow me... You want the proof that I am who I say I am and when I promise that you have eternal life, you can be sure of that promise? The only way is to live with me for a long time, see the masses healed, see the sacrifice that I am about to make for you on the cross, and then you will have this certainty."
The selling of stuff has two functions that the text calls out here, the first is to "give the proceeds to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven," notice that this does not speak directly about inheriting the kingdom, Jesus already covered that part. This is about getting even greater rewards and celebration once you get into the kingdom, because you took care of the poor and needy in this life and that will be part of your legacy. And the second is "then come, follow me." The problem in the last part is that the property is an obstacle to following Jesus, it is that this guy can't leave his property behind without neglecting it, or else he's going to have to leave Jesus later to make sure that the fields are being plowed and the sheep are grazing and whatever else his property is doing for him. Property implies responsibility, Jesus is asking him to lay down all his other responsibilities if he wants to become a follower and have the certainty that he wants to achieve.
So Jesus doesn't say to bugger off, he says precisely the opposite, to not bugger off... and then the guy buggers off anyway! It's a theme in Mark that usually when Jesus or an angel tells someone to do something, they do the exact opposite. "Go and proclaim the good news! ... and the women didn't tell anybody." This is one of those cases. "Stay with me, I'll give you the certainty you crave" and he just goes off upset.
At this point he "went away," he's not the recipient of the camel/eye-of-the-needle saying, which is addressed to Jesus's disciples, almost exasperatedly.
Jesus says of this situation, where the man goes away grieving because of his possessions, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" And the disciples are "perplexed," to which Jesus first broadens to "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" (some texts add "for those who trust in riches" but I think that was not original here). And then he targets the camel/eye-of-the-needle analogy specifically at the rich.
If you understand all of this context then the camel thing makes sense, he literally has to shed all of this extra body-weight -- the responsibility, the worry, the misinterpretations when even a hint of danger towards your carefully curated nest egg presents itself -- to get the flexibility and finesse needed to just do the right thing and follow where Jesus leads him. It's not directly about "sell all of your stuff and give it away or bugger off", the careful reading is that it's about "stop lugging all of this dead weight around, because you can't take it with you anyway when you die and your soul passes through that tiniest of gates. If you're attached to all this baggage you won't be able to make it."
This is probably related to several mystical interpretations of Jesus's own ministry on Earth being related to a process of "self-emptying" but this comment is already way way too long.
Good 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.
The 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.
That seems to soften it a bit, in this story he’s saying that the rich particularly have an essentially insurmountable amount of sinfulness and inadequacy to overcome.
Yes, Jesus is saying something particular about the rich here, but not that they are particularly sinful. Rather, they are particularly susceptible to trusting in their money and placing it above God (making an idol of it) which gets in the way of their being willing to follow Jesus and put their faith in Him.
This goes along with another famous teaching of Jesus about money: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matthew 6:24)
The rich generally have a master they are unwilling to give up. It is money. They think they are the master of their money, but their money is their master.
Yet by God's grace, He can even change the heart of the rich to love Him instead of being devoted to money. Praise God for that. It is indeed a miracle. As crazy as a camel going through the eye of a needle.
In the preceding sections, Jesus basically tells the guy, who’d otherwise lived by the commandments, to come back after giving up all his money and stuff. It seems to me that he’s looking for some more concrete action than an internal change of heart. If I were a Christian I’d make sure to die poor at least, just to be safe.
I believe that a key position of the early church's teaching is that an inward change of the heart is not genuine if it does not manifest in outward concrete action. That's how you reconcile, for example, Paul's statements on salvation by grace and not works, with James' demonstration of his faith by his works. The works themselves don't save you, it is the sincere turning of the heart and belief in Jesus Christ. Paul made this point firmly to counter others who were teaching salvation by adherence to Jewish ceremonial law. But if your belief in Christ and turning of your heart does not result in changes in how you live, specifically following the commandments of Jesus, then James would question the sincerity of your conviction.
It is not the concrete action per se, but even if it were, the concrete action would involve a decision that entails a certain "change of heart". In that very act of relinquishing all one's wealth to follow Christ, you would have assented to and demonstrated your faithfulness to the proposition: to follow God is more important than to be wealthy, and if God were to call me to part ways with my wealth to follow God, then I should and would do it. The concrete act makes manifest the very good in question. It demonstrates and attains the temperance and rational order of the soul in question. Faith without deeds is dead.
We all like to think highly of ourselves, but if we were to find ourselves in that situation, how would we react? Most of us would behave exactly like the rich man. Few have the integrity to meet such austere moral standards. Few of us have the humility to admit that we're no better than the rich man.
This is indeed a passage that is easily misinterpreted by many of its readers. A key to interpreting it correctly, is to note whom Christ is addressing when he uses the expression in question. _It isn't the rich man._ The rich man had already left, because he was not prepared to prioritize God over material riches. The majority of people listening were not rich. They were the common folk. The lesson is, as you've made clear IMO, that the greatest good is God, and prioritizing other goods above God is to make a god of lesser goods, and that this does not lead to the ultimate happiness that is what Heaven is by definition, which consists ultimately of unity with the authentic greatest good first and foremost. And indeed, as other verses state, those who prioritize lesser goods will ultimately have neither the greatest good nor lesser goods. Everyday experience tends to agree with this as well. Obsessive pursuit of lesser goods (which are indeed good) often makes those goods inaccessible to us. We lose on all fronts.
And so, in a very real sense, as you also note, there is nothing especially important about the rich man per se. The poor can lust just as much, if not more, for money than the rich, because the poor can more easily fantasize about and project hopes onto what they do not have; the rich man is more likely to have become disillusioned with his riches.
I guess that most applies to the Prophets, who were warning a sinful nation of impending destruction, but it still seems like an oversimplistic view of the scriptures. Even in the Prophets, God's love and mercy are emphasized many times.
In 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.
> 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
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.
I 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?
First 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.
Just looking it up online as I have no personal knowledge here, the Hebrew word for rope, חבל (hevel, pronounced as ḥ or χ) apparently has shared roots with Arabic, Syriac, Akkadian and Ugaritic that all have similar sounding words and the current guess it that there was a proto-semitic word like "ḥabl" and of course none of those sound like camel or gamal, so you can at least strike Hebrew and Arabic from the list of potential sources of origin.
That would be the common word for rope. The claim isn't that it's the ordinary word for rope, but rather a more rare word for rope, maybe for a particular type of rope made of camel hair.
Others here have posted the Aramaic word in question.
Prepare yourself: the entire canon was equally made up from whole cloth, right from the beginning. The rope/camel line is neither more nor less made-up than the rest; it was just made up a bit later.
Notice though that the anonymous author of "John" appears to have tried to scrub it in the early/mid second century. It was apparently already a troublesome image by that time.
> Prepare yourself: the entire canon was equally made up from whole cloth, right from the beginning.
The fainting hypothesis seems much more likely than an intentional fraud.
Given the original leaders initially successfully scattered to the wind, then later returned to Jerusalem, and continued to travel the empire despite being slowly hunted down, tortured and executed by the Roman government over the next few decades, it seems they genuinely believed they were serving some grand purpose beyond themselves. They were clearly mobile, and word clearly got around they were being hunted. It would have been a much easier life for any of them to settle and hide in any one of scattered corners of the empire they visited rather than attempting to start churches there.
Especially after word got 'round that the first few had been tortured and executed, I'd expect any intentional fraudsters to just melt away into the backwater corners of the empire.
If they were going to make things up, you'd think they'd have made at least one of the disciples brave and smart. (To a man, they all come across as more than a bit dense and cowardly.) At a minimum, you'd think they would have made the first pope (Cephas/Peter) much less foolishly impulsive, and removed the several incidents where he tried to correct Jesus.
If you were making it up from whole cloth, you'd also have at least one of the disciples faithfully hang out at the tomb waiting for the resurrection, rather than having a group of women (considered hysterical unreliable witnesses) be the ones to discover the resurrection. Failing that, you'd expect at least one of the disciples to say "ah, of course" to the women, rather than (to a man) accuse them of hallucination.
Instead, with the official story, the one good leader is gone from the earth just as the story is getting going, and the remaining leaders are all poor choices.
A more plausible explanation is that one of the many charismatic anti-establishment nomadic preachers of the day assembled a ragtag bunch of illiterate fishermen, outcast Roman collaborators, etc. He starts to get some fame, it goes to his head and he gets a bit too anti-establishment, especially anti-priest. The priests convince the occupying Romans that they better execute him for sedition before he raises a rebel army. After his arrest and execution, his ragtag bunch flee Jerusalem and scatter. It turns out that against one-in-a-million odds, this one guy faints and survives crucifixion, wakes up a few days later, and wanders off to find his followers. The women left behind to do the grunge work discover the empty tomb, word gets 'round the small community, and the disciples trickle back into Jerusalem. The illiterate former cowards set out spreading the message. The leader eventually succumbs to his wounds a few weeks or months later, but his followers rationalize this just as his way of going back to heaven after making his point by coming back from crucifixion. They hide away the body to protect it from the Romans as they patiently await his second resurrection. (Or maybe the leader counted his blessings having survived execution and himself melted away into the backwaters of the empire without telling anyone.) As it was taking longer than they expected for Jesus to come back a second time, they later started a collection of sayings in the original Aramaic (the Q document hypothesis). At some point, a scribe marginally literate in Koine Greek tooks down Mark's version of events. Later on, other scribes working from these sources, passed oral history, and perhaps direct access to the disciples, wrote down a few more histories in Koine Greek. At some point, a physician (perhaps a freed slave, formerly belonging to a relative of Paul's) traveling with Paul tried to collect a proper history of events, citing names and locations of eyewitnesses.
Paul makes note of the portions of his letters that he's writing out with his own hand rather than dictating to a Greek-literate scribe. So, it seems his audience expected even most of his writings to be through a scribe rather than directly written by him, despite him being literate in Greek. Presumably early Christians would have similarly been un-surprised that scribes were involved in writing Greek accounts for illiterate Aramaic-speaking fishermen.
In any case, a mildly competent fraudster would have set himself or a collaborator up as the wise and brave hero, and would have vanished when it became clear that at best the leaders were going to spend decades on the run with only the clothes on their backs.
Being mistaken about what they witnessed seems much more likely than an intentional fraud.
Plenty of people have faced the risk of persecution, torture and death for fallacious and fraudulent beliefs sincerely held.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that Christianity began with a diverse multitude of often mutually contradicting schools of thought and far more than four Gospels, all written decades if not centuries after the death of Jesus, about whom we know nothing beyond a scholarly consensus that a person existed upon whom the religion is based, supernatural claims notwithstanding. We certainly have not a single word or teaching that can be directly attributed to Jesus, or the apostles. Whether one considers that "intentional fraud" or simply religion and folklore in its natural state is up for interpretation.
And the "scholarly consensus" is based on phantoms and will-o-the-wisps that evaporate upon examination. The scholarly consensus among scholars who have actually examined the evidence in detail and published under peer review is unanimous that he most likely did not exist; and that if such a one did, nothing written in gospels/acts describes anything any actual person did or said.
Wholesale fabrication was the normal mode of production for religious literature at the time. Why would exactly four gospels, out of the many dozens, be different, that way? And why exactly those four and not some other? Their contradictions demonstrate their authors were not interested in accurately recording anything.
We need look no farther than 2 Peter to find dire warnings to pay no attention to the other Christians saying Jesus had not walked the Earth; so we know that was a common enough belief to worry its late forger. Of course anything they wrote was burnt in short order, along with them.
Sure. My point is just that "whole cloth" fabrication "right from the beginning" is far too simple an explanation. Anyone fabricating from whole cloth would have made the facts much less inconvenient. Anyone knowing they were making things up would have given up rather than spend decades on the run as reports of the torture and execution of their co-conspirators trickled in.
Your arguments have all already been comprehensively addressed, in detail, in the peer-reviewed literature, which you may read at your leisure. Your suggestions are there demonstrated as untenable.
As someone interested in the topic but without any particular knowledge of it, any pointers to peer-reviewed literature from either POV would be appreciated.
I think there's enough evidence to suggest that whoever the people that wrote Matthew and Luke were, they were capable of introducing their own errors, along with embellishments, from their source material.
Given they wrote in Koine, and exhibit some ignorance of the geography of the area, and almost definitely never met anyone that met Jesus, it's reasonable to assume no spoken Aramaic accounts were part of their source material.
The only evidence I've seen points in the opposite direction; e.g.:
- The frequency and granularity of place names mentioned match other documents where we're pretty sure the people actually travelled there; vs other documents where we're sure they never travelled there
- The frequency of names and requirements for disambiguation (e.g., Jesus has two disciples named James, but only one named Bartholomew)
Regarding Aramaic: I'm just learning Biblical Greek, and one common pattern is rather than saying "X replied, '...'", to say 'X replied, saying '...'" (or "Replying, X said '...'". A Jewish friend who is a classicist told me that this pattern was a "semitism" -- i.e., not something you'd hear in native Koine Greek, but something imported from Aramaic / Hebrew. This would indicate at least that the original source material was written by native Aramaic speakers. (This latter bit is lower significance, because it was an offhand comment she made when discussing something else.)
Hmm, there's a LOT of inaccuracies between the gospels and trusted historical documents - the bottom section of rationalwiki's Gospel page [0] has some examples - though these are more historical than geographical.
I was probably thinking of the author of Mark who had his Jesus doing the roundabout trip via Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, or the same author having Jesus stepping out of his boat and into a region that is actually 45km from the shore [1].
With regards Hebrew phrasing - I believe the author of Matthew was almost definitely Jewish, not sure on the authors of Mark (who I think was writing for a non-Jewish audience) or Luke. So they were writing in common Greek, but almost definitely were either Jewish, or spoke Hebrew, and/or were well versed in Jewish lore.
Given the earliest copies we have date from a couple of hundred years after the alleged events, and would have been transcribed numerous times by then, we can't confidently read too much into the phrasing nuances, can we?
> And on the other hand, if Mark received his Gos-
pel from Peter, why is it that the other Gospels have more anecdotes about Peter, including for example, Je- sus telling him, “You are Peter the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church”? Would Peter himself for- get such an incident? It gets worse. Mark shows no un- derstanding of the social situation in the Holy Land, making numerous errors that no one living in early first century Judea would have made. Interestingly enough, when you compare Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels, one finds that the author of Matthew is constantly correcting Mark’s blunders about all aspects of Jewish society, re- ligion, the calendar, holidays, customs, attitudes – even repeated misquotes of scripture.
I'm afraid this is just not informative at all, and doesn't give me a good impression of the rest of the book.
Why did Mark not include it? The simplest answer is that he didn't think it was important. Mark is the shortest book -- there are lots of things that mark could have included and didn't. His implication is that somehow Mark didn't know where Peter / Cephas / Rock's nickname came from, which I find much more hard to believe than that he just decided not to include it. This is hardly the kind of evidence you can follow with "it gets worse".
But it gets worse. There's absolutely no detail here -- what social situation is Mark allegedly showing no understanding of? What kinds of "errors" is he making? I can't go and verify what he's saying, or consider the claim critically myself. Is Mark's change an "error", showing a basic lack of knowledge about the societal situation? Or is it a deliberate "contextualization", to make the stories accessible to a Greek audience without having to explain loads of irrelevant cultural background? No way to check and judge for myself; I'm expected to just take it on his authority.
And re the geographical "blunder" -- I someone in Cambridge, UK today said, "I'm going by way of Manchester to London", nobody would say they were committing a "geographical blunder". They'd understand that person to mean that they are going to first visit Manchester briefly, and then go to London.
This sort of thing is exactly in line with other things I've read claiming that Jesus didn't exist; I've never seen anything to make me think it's worth spending more of my time digging into.
> I'm afraid this is just not informative at all, and doesn't give me a good impression of the rest of the book.
Coincidentally, this fairly describes the reaction of a sceptic reading the book of Mark.
Anyway, you quoted entirely the wrong section, given your earlier question.
> "“from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis,” a trip 50 miles out of his way, on foot!"
Someone going from Cambridge to London via Manchester .. would take the train, or a bus, or drive.
As noted, this was a walking journey. It could be hand-waved away, but aren't you curious why someone would mention an 80km detour but not give the reader any tidbits about why, or what went on in Sidon that was worth a) the massive detour & effort, and b) mentioning?
I agree, however, that this is not, by itself, a compellingly damning piece of evidence. I hope you don't think it was meant as such.
> But it gets worse. There's absolutely no detail here.
Again, you're echoing the sentiment of people reading these works and wondering why there's no source citations, why the authors don't identify themselves, why there's no record of dates, why there's no critical analysis offered.
That book I pointed you at contains a lengthy bibliography, and in fairness was intended to provide an overview of the field.
There are certainly much more detailed works - including that author's follow-up trilogy Mything In Action, which I can highly recommend.
Obviously Price, Carrier, et al, provide a wealth of very detailed analysis, if you are indeed genuinely interested.
> I've never seen anything to make me think it's worth spending more of my time digging into.
Are you perhaps strongly invested in a particular position on this subject?
> Are you perhaps strongly invested in a particular position on this subject?
I'm strongly enough invested in the truth to ask you for references, read them, and engage critically with them. I can honestly say that if I was wrong, I would want to know. I've even thought carefully about what kind of evidence could be presented to me to convince me that I was wrong. Can you say the same?
> Again, you're echoing the sentiment of people reading these works and wondering why there's no source citations, why the authors don't identify themselves, why there's no record of dates, why there's no critical analysis offered.
The difference is, Mark isn't a 21st century skeptic claiming to represent scholarship. He's a first-century author trying to write down what's happened for common people to read. The proper thing to compare him to is other books of his time to which we give credence.
> As noted, this was a walking journey. It could be hand-waved away, but aren't you curious why someone would mention an 80km detour but not give the reader any tidbits about why, or what went on in Sidon that was worth a) the massive detour & effort, and b) mentioning?
The key thing here is that Tyre and Sidon are "foreign" places in the same region. You make a big deal about how far away they are, but almost everywhere in the New Testament they're lumped together. For example, in the Matthew version of this story (15:21-29), Matthew says, he "withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon". It then tells the story, followed by "Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee". Mark, on the other hand, says "Jesus... went to the vicinity of Tyre"; then tells the story, and then says "Jesus left Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee".
Nobody would at all wonder why, if I was in Paris, I decided I wanted to visit Lyon first before returning to London; or why if I was in Manchester I'd visit the Lake District before returning to Cambridge. Mark mentions Sidon for the same reason Matthew mentions Sidon: they think it's important to let us know that Jesus wasn't stuck south of Galilee, and/or that opposition at some point literally drove him out of the country. He doesn't tell any stories about Sidon for the same reason Matthew doesn't: nothing that happened there was worth the space on the scroll. That he went there, not what he did there, was the point. If anything, the fact that Mark feels it necessary to add a chronology (Tyre first then Sidon) when he could well have glossed over it like Matthew did, is a small amount of evidence that he's trying to be more accurate.
A more evidentiary approach here would be to look at other uses of the word "dia" (the word translated "by way of" in that verse) in ancient Greek. If other ancient sources exclusively use "ek X dia Y eis Z" (from X through Y to Z -- those are the prepositions used in that verse) to mean that Y is between / on the way from X to Z, then that lends credence to the "Mark is bad at geography" theory. If we have other examples of that pattern being for large-ish detours, then it undermines the "Mark is bad at geography" theory.
> That book I pointed you at contains a lengthy bibliography, and in fairness was intended to provide an overview of the field.
What you'd normally do in this case is to include the most convincing or most representative pieces of evidence. If among the top bits of evidence against Mark are, "He didn't include the story of how Peter got his name", and "He said Jesus went from Tyre to Galilee through Sidon", it gives me a lot more confidence in Mark.
I mean, sure, I'll take a quick look at Price et al; but my experience so far leads me to expect more like this -- people eager to find something to quibble with, uncritically making large lists of things that don't really mean anything.
You haven't stated your position, which highlights your side-stepping of revealing what kind of evidence you'd need to change your mind.
You refer to 'Mark' a lot - are you aware we don't know the author's name?
Comparing that work to actual historians of the time does that work no favours at all. Generally (at least the ones we have the most trust in) were identifying themselves, identifying their sources, writing about contemporary events, and so on.
It's unsurprising the mistake in Mark is repeated, slightly modified, in Matthew, given the way the latter lifted much of the former.
You're writing a lot of words to try to rationalise this one fairly trivial mistake. A simpler explanation exists - whoever wrote Mark wasn't familiar with the area, did not have access to maps (unsurprising), was not referring to any earlier source material, etc.
If you're relying on etymologies around via to provide legitimacy to this story, I'd suggest your complaints that I'm not providing substantive evidence in neatly tied up packages are disingenuous.
I don't believe you're sincere in your research, but on the off-chance I'll reiterate my recommendation for Fitzgerald's three-book work, Mything in Action.
If you find the material insufficiently detailed then his bibliography is a good place to pursue your search for points of view orthogonal to your beliefs.
The frequency of personal names demonstrate conclusively that all accounts are wholesale fiction.
Jesus ("Yeshua") was the single most common name among Jews of the time, with numerous examples noted in Josephus. Yet, they have no account of their puppet encountering a single example in a year's wandering the region.
Sure, but would they all make the same error? Either there was no error or they all inherited it from another source or Matthew and Luke inherited it from Mark.
There is some evidence in Matthew that it could have originally been written in Aramaic.
I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along with this unknown source (usually referred to as Q).
It seems fairly reasonable then to assume it was a literary device made by the author of Mark - his writing is actually pretty good as far as allegory goes - that was subsequently lifted near verbatim by the later two authors.
> There are some parts of Matthew and Luke that neither come from Mark nor Q so they each also have one or more other sources unique to themselves.
Given that we know nothing about the provenance or contents of 'Q' - it's lost to time, and its hypothetical existence is effectively intuited by some researches - I do not understand how we can identify the set of things 'not in Q' (or indeed 'in Q').
I'd also note that there's zero evidence to suggest the unknown authors of Matthew and Luke had other sources - there's more evidence to suggest they were simply making stuff up.
Q is literally 'source' - with unknown author and unknown content - so we don't know what's in it nor what's not in it.
Therefore I challenged the claim by parent that 'anything not in Q ...' because that's an objectively ludicrous statement.
My 'theory', inasmuch as I have one, is that the authors of Luke and Matthew had different target audiences, different incentives, but predominantly the same (probably two sets of) materials.
They made different mistakes than the author of Mark, and indeed each other, though were presumably much more earnest.
The author of Mark was probably just writing allegorical fiction.
The author of Matthew for instance was the only one to talk about saints / zombies rising from the graveyards and walking into town, being seen by many people, etc - which is an odd thing for everyone else to have missed or not think to be worth mentioning.
There's a beautiful graphic showing % breakdowns of the Mark / Luke / Matthew content about half-way down this page: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels
EDIT: that whole page is worth a read to get a better idea on the bleed between the different texts, a historical context for when they were probably written, and a reminder of the earliest copies we can reliably put dates to.
I think earnestly citing RationalWiki is enough to give me pause to take the rest of your 'theory' seriously. You know it's a humor website for teenagers, right? It's essentially ED for a different kind of edgy post-reddit nerd, it's not really a serious place to learn about theology.
I was defending my earlier logic (we don't know what's in Q, therefore we don't know what's not in it). Have you identified a flaw there?
I would prefer to earnestly cite Price, Carrier, Fitzgerald etc, but those citations are less convenient, especially for casual readers (clicking a link rather than obtaining books).
Disliking the style of rationalwiki seems insufficient reason to discount the clear assertions made, explained, and with original sources cited on that page.
Can you identify matters of factual error in that graphic I pointed at, or other material on that link?
I note this is the only comment you've made on the entire thread. I don't believe it moves us forward.
The simplest inference is that Luke simply cribbed what he liked directly from Matthew, and omitted what he didn't.
There is not a hint of evidence for unattested "sources" beyond their fevered imaginations. Making shit up was just how the stuff was produced, at the time, as illustrated by the (literally!) dozens of other "gospels" and forged epistles from the same period.
Have you tried actually reading the proponents arguments instead of relying on arrogance? That might be a better way to find out why the consensus is what it is.
If you could cite some rational sources that describe what you're alluding to, I'd be delighted to read them.
As I noted in a sibling comment, the consensus is Marcan Priority, but a) it's not a huge majority, and b) it's ultimately a tallest dwarf competition anyway.
This barely scratches the surface of the many opinions held about the collections of smaller books that are bound as versions of "The Bible"; which books, which translations, which interpretations, etc.
I'd suggest a large portion of self-identified Christian believers really haven't thought much about it at all, beyond (as you say) some orthodox assumptions about divine nature etc.
But as per my link above to wikipedia (Marcan Priority) the larger consensus amongst religious historians / researchers is that Mark was written first, Luke & Matthew were written subsequently, and based heavily on a combination of Mark + some unknown source ('Q').
Fascinating! Thanks I’ll have to read up on this mysterious Q figure and why it’s believed to be a ghost writer of sorts (is that accurate? Or is possibly just information lost to time?)
Q is a not a figure, but a document or a number of documents. It could have been written by a single figure, or compiled by many individuals.
What is interesting is that is appears to be a book of quotations, rather than a narrative - so Matthew and Luke agree more than expected when directly quoting Jesus. At the time the theory was proposed we hadn't discovered any gospels like this, but now at least one such book of Jesus quotations has been found.
I had a look around for this recently discovered book, but can't find references -- can you point me towards some please, it'd be fascinating to read the contents / context.
'Recent' needs to be interpreted in biblical terms - the book I was thinking of is the Gosple of Thomas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas - discovered in 1945 (the 'Q' hypothesis having been made around 1900).
Okay, Thomas - lots of dispute about when it was written, and the anthology style makes timing even harder to determine, while increasing the chance it was modified over the centuries.
I recalled something about the intrigue over some parchments from this collection, and found this recent story [0] about the alleged illegal sale, recovery, translation efforts, and (this year) publication of some fragments.
One of the researchers is quoted in that article with a 'This is not Q' statement.
Yes - before I go on, please note this is not my area of expertise, but just something I am interested in.
I haven't seen anywhere which suggests that Thomas is Q, but to me if a book of biblical quotations is hypothesised when none has previously been found, and forty-five years later a book of biblical quotations is discovered (which, despite uncertainty about its timing, certainly dates to at least a millennium before the hypothesis) that lends some weight to the hypothesis.
Of course, given my general ignorance in this area, perhaps books of quotations from this time are common, and hypothesising the existence of one is like hypothesising the existing of a website for a popular TV show in 2023 (i.e. a meaningless proposition).
No, that sounds fairly reasonable - not necessarily the 'hypothesised and then discovered, therefore credible' (that may be survivorship bias), but certainly the potential for that document to be 'Q'.
Given 'Q source' (tautology, forgive me) was a conceptual construct to try to explain a part of the synoptic problem, there's no reason to believe it was necessarily a single document in the modern sense, or that earlier versions (that we don't have) may be subsets of things we actually subsequently got our hands on.
I can’t find anything either. Q is probably an aggregate of the best creative free form half truth conspiracy writings that one was able to gather from various internet sources mixed with a garden variety of new age mystical belief and a dash of pure fn magic.
The best current scholarship is that there was no such thing as a "Q", and that what is in Luke and Matthew but not in Mark, the author of Luke just cribbed directly from Matthew.
"Q", like "oral traditions", Docetism, and Gnosticism, turns out to be a fever dream of "biblical scholars" working before sound textual analysis had been invented.
I think a more charitable (and interesting, sociologically) interpretation is that certain Protestant groups want the authority of God to not be vested in a temporal organization like the Catholic Church, and so the book itself serves as a replacement for this. The problem of determining what that means arises then, and not initially from a desire to only follow the book directly.
Such a belief would be heretical and very much outside the bounds of any canonical Christianity.
(The phrase you're looking for is "divinely inspired", but Christianity also teaches that all of world history is also divinely inspired. It's a very broad category.)
Isn't it an article of faith for some Christian groups that the King James version of the Bible was produced by 100 scholars each translating a Greek text independently, and each producing the exact same English translation, thus proving that God had directly guided them in this translation, and essentially making the KJV almost literal word of God?
Maybe for some very fringe groups but probably not. That sounds more like someone confusing the KJV with the Septuagint, which has a similar legend - that 70 Hebrew scholars independently produced the same Greek Translation of the Old Testament.
To use the expression "the language Jesus spoke" is to imply that a Jesus actually existed and said things quoted. But the best current scholarship today demonstrates persuasively that no walking, talking Jesus ever existed (never mind was executed extra-judicially). If any did, nothing he said found its way into the New Testament.
Certainly, neither Paul writing in the 50s, nor the Roman church elders who wrote 1 Clements in the 60s had heard of a Jesus ever saying anything noteworthy, despite that backup from that quarter would have enormously eased their own arguments. The anonymous author of "Mark" writing in the 70s evidently confabulated a Jesus to mouth Paul's opinions (as found in his letters) to silence quarrelsome opposition. Amazingly, "Mark" seems to have had little more than Paul to draw on, even then. Every scrap else written down seems to have been torched by his time.
It is particularly interesting that (the anonymous forger of the book of) "John" chose to scrub the "camel" line from his personal canon.
There is not so much as a hint of actual evidence that there was ever any such thing as a Q source, nor M, L, or J; nor any "oral traditions". All are figments of the bubbling "biblical scholar" imagination. The dozens of other gospels left out of the canon, and the even more numerous forged Pauline letters, a few adopted as canon, illustrate how wholesale fabrication was the normal mode of literary production in the early Church. What the anonymous authors of "Matthew" wrote not found in "Mark", of "Luke" that wasn't in either, and of "John" that wasn't in any, is very evidently their personal opinions on what their private Jesuses should have said. ("John" even invented from whole cloth an entire disciple, Lazarus, as his own Jesus's favorite that the other gospels have as at most a wholly hypothetical figure.)
If you are curious about the scholarship, you could start at "Why Invent the Jesus" on YT. Literally none of it has even been replied to, never mind refuted, in any peer-reviewed medium.
Why would someone refute a kooky YouTube video in a peer reviewed medium? This does not seem like a good proof of the factual nature of the YouTube kook.
There’s a guy at the end of my street who lives in a culvert and screams obscenities. I never saw him refuted in JAMA, though, so I guess by your logic he must be right?
No opinion on whether you’re right about Jesus or the Bible; just saying you might want to think about your yardstick.
Your reply is flagged and dead for obvious reasons.
Why would anyone watch a YouTube video and then proceed to the literature? Why not just read the literature? This sounds an awful lot like "dOiNg YoUr OwN rEsEaRcH" instead of "reading" (which, of course, is why your reply is flagged and dead).
Sometimes monospace can make it worse: early in my iOS work, I leaned on the alt key without (initially) realising, and got very confused by compiler errors caused by a "–" where it should have been a "-".
Note that light googling is very likely to reach the same problem as the article shows about Cyril: varied sources that are actually all based on a single original unreliable source.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The reason why people don't want to take this line literally is very simple: they don't want to believe that they can't live a life of luxury and still go into heaven. If you're both a believer and rich, you can either live with the cognitive dissonance, renounce your faith, or just reinterpret the precepts you don't like to suit you.
I know - the meaning is actually indisputable from all of the context, regardless of the precise phrase.
But, even so, it is also indisputable that many who consider themselves devout Christians, rich and poor alike, reach a very different conclusion about the meaning of this whole exchange. I can only imagine this must be motivated reasoning.
I found a thread showing some such rationalizations:
Interestingly, it seems modern day prosperity gospel sorts don't go for a reinterpretation of the camel, but for a reinterpretation of the word "rich".
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.
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.)
> the Greek word he uses for the receiving partner is specifically the word for an underage male slave kept for sexual purposes,
I've seen this making the rounds on TikTok and it is absolutely untrue. What I find unsettling about this is the people who originally made this claim (not the ones unknowingly spreading it) had to have been deliberately dishonest. It's very easy to verify this for yourself - Greek and English side-by-sides are readily available with Greek dictionaries.
There are actually several Pauline references. The most famous is probably Romans 1:27.
> And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
You can see the Greek words used, their translations, and look up their meanings and usage here:
You can see it is literally the same word, "men with men." There is no connotation of boyhood or slavery. The same is true in the other verses usually claimed to "actually" mean underage boys, although two verses do have an unusual word.
> Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
In this case, the word is arsenokoitai, which is an unusual word, possibly of Paul's coinage. But again, we can refer to dictionaries for the meaning and etymology. You can already see the root is the same as before.
Once again, there is no connotation of being underage or a slave.
To be clear, this is not an endorsement - but we should be honest about what the text says. They usually also make this claim about Leviticus, even though the word used is just "male" and means such throughout the rest of the OT.
agreed - although My understanding is that the word Paul uses there is actually not even a real word, and appears nowhere else in literature at the time - so we really have no clue what he means.
I always find it interesting that there is at least this one verse where there is some contention as to whether it is an explicit ban on male homosexual relationships - But there is absolutely no argument whatsoever : there is no reference at all to female homosexual relationships in the bible. Ever. And yet the church is often very preoccupied with viewing lesbian relationships as a sin. Very strange
Arguably there is a reference to female homosexual relationships in Romans 1:26, "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature."
In case you are not aware, apostolic churches do not and have never claimed to draw their teaching authority from the bible. It is true that sola scriptura groups are in a pickle here.
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.
Within the context of Matthew 19, it is clear that the goal was to provide an impossible example. The whole conversation doesn't make sense otherwise.
Furthermore, the image of a camel trying to get through the eye of a needle is extremely memorable, which was very important for transmission in the oral culture of the time. Notice that this expression is still used regularly in many languages.
————
Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me.”
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
The point being that if you want a relationship with him, you have to be willing to give up everything and trust him only. Those who are wealthy are unwilling to give up their trust in their wealth, but by God's grace, they may be able to do just that. In the case of the young man, he chose to trust in his wealth instead of Jesus. There are accounts in Acts of wealthy people being part of the church.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even 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.
I 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.
Just 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.
How about a crowdfunded nanomaterial syringe, $666,000 goal. Convince them that vaporizing the camel is a solved problem (such-and-such lasers, plasma cutter, whatever). We just need to prove the feasibility of a non-permeable, non-clogging conduit and this loophole (pardon the pun) will be closed. Then just do a rugpull.
You're forgetting that there's a secondary market for these things, similar to how subsistence farming is largely gone in lieu of the supermarket. Just purchase a share of camel slurry, and you're solid.
Actually, now that I mention it, that seems to be quite a bit like Jesus' problem with the currency conversion specialists in the temple: commoditization of something meaningful can lead to evil.
It'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).
> ... 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.
In the NRSV and ESV it says "a root of all kinds of evils".[0] That seems more accurate to me, because there are different roots of evil, including pride and lust. But if I understand what you're saying, it is true that money itself is not evil. In the early church, it was the glory of the rich to share their possessions with the poor. Rather, to my current understanding, it is evil to obsessively desire something beyond what God has given you, and that's not limited to just money. I wouldn't say that I'm a greedy person in terms of money (open to being wrong about that), but I've always felt unsatisfied wherever I was in life, and that led to all kinds of bad fruit. Anyway, thanks for the comment. :pray:
This may be taboo to discuss here, but the wording could phenomenologically transfer to "the love of commoditization and scalability of meaningful things that give power is the root of all evil".
Enjoying a beautiful sunset is an enhancement of the soul, but enjoying 10^100 identical sunsets has accrued enough diminishing return to be trivial to the soul.
I'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?
Because 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.
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. 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.
> 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)
Prosperity gospel is a fringe belief, even among evangelicals. It's definitely real, but the amount of attention it gets on the Internet is disproportionate to its real-world influence. From Wikipedia:
> Mainstream evangelicalism has consistently opposed prosperity theology as heretical[37] and prosperity ministries have frequently come into conflict with other Christian groups, including those within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.[39] Critics, such as Evangelical pastor Michael Catt, have argued that prosperity theology has little in common with traditional Christian theology.[83] Prominent evangelical leaders, such as Rick Warren,[9] Ben Witherington III,[9] and Jerry Falwell,[84] have harshly criticized the movement, sometimes denouncing it as heretical.[9]
Also, Jerry Falwell has been dead for several years, perhaps look to his son Jerry Falwell Jr's practices of flaunting wealth courting the wealthy for a more recent example. Yes, a lot of evangelicals denounce the prosperity gospel, but then they go on to act like it's their vibe. The prosperity gospel has permeated Christian Evangelical culture in the West to a degree that it's hard for the fish to see the water anymore. And in places like Africa it's often the mainstream teaching.
Sure. Prosperity gospel is a minority belief even among Pentecostals and other charismatic groups. “Charismatic”, as your article mentions, simply refers to the belief in very free distribution of the specific “charisma”/gifts of the Holy Spirit, most famously speaking in tongues, a very common practice among Pentecostals. This is indeed essentially the only faction that believes it at all, but its still not common and even many of the (alleged) famous adherents, like Joel Osteen, will deny having anything to do with it and condemn it - because they know they’d be deemed heretical for it.
That’s really saying something, when speaking in tongues is sufficient for many orthodox and Catholic figures to suggest charismatics are being influenced by demons.
> American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them.
That's far older than modern American evangelicalism. I'd have to guess it goes back to the beginning of the institutional Church in Rome.
Not to the same extent. Many officially recognized saints were extremely poor, and virtually all of the ones who had been rich were only canonized after (at least purportedly) giving all of their wealth away later in life. Nuns and monks, the holiest and most pious worshippers, must take vows of poverty. Clearly, the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox and other old institutionalized churches) preach that poverty is at least accepted, if not necessarily required. Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine.
The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible.
> Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine. The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible.
There's doctrine, and then there is practice. The doctrine of the sanctity of poverty is about the idea of justice (if not in this world, then the next) and a counterpoint to the "divine right" of monarchs and aristocrats. However, in practice it is about maintaining the temporal support of the poor (who are the majority throughout history) as a counterbalance to the nobility/aristocracy. This is true across many religions.
I'd argue that depending on the times, this doctrine/practice waxes or wanes, and I suspect that it correlates with both the spread of genuine aspiration to prosperity among the masses coupled with magical thinking about how to achieve prosperity. And when it fails to deliver on prosperity (as it must), you get angry populist reactions.
That isn't the natural reading of the passage. The listeners express surprise when Jesus says "rich folks won't enter the kingdom of God". They then ask "well if not the rich, then who?" indicating that they think rich folks were the most likely to get in. If not them, then who?
Jesus then says "no mortal person," explaining that only God makes it possible to enter the kingdom of heaven.
He doesn't say poor people. He says "nobody".
The point is that there is no material means to enter heaven. Rich and poor are identical in this regard.
Then why does he single out the rich folks? It would make more sense in your interpretation to not include the "rich" and imply that any man entering heaven was impossible.
> they then ask "well if not the rich, then who?" indicating that they think rich folks were the most likely to get in. If not them, then who?
> Jesus then says "no mortal person,"
Except this isn't what Jesus says. He says "With man 'it' is impossible." Jesus' response doesn't even make grammatical sense as a reply to "who can be saved?" because it isn't a reply to that. The question "Who can be saved?" was posed among the listeners to themselves, not to Christ:
> And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
Jesus' statement "with man it is impossible" is a continuation of the thought that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven (so hard that it requires a miracle above what's required for a normal person). It's impossible with men that a camel should pass through the eye of a needle, but with God, it's possible (and thus possible for a rich man to be saved, though not easy).
It's not that there's anything good about poor people that gets them in; it's that rich people don't want in.
Any interpretation that makes it as easy for rich people to enter as it is for poor people is missing the clear meaning of the words.
The passage basically says that rich people can not save themselves. This contrasted with other religions at the time where the wealthy and powerful could organize large games and sacrifices to please the gods while living a life of debauchery.
The "eye of a needle" has been making rich people anxious since the beginning of Christianity. Early Christians eventually addressed these anxieties by stating that rich people could only be saved if they became pious and devoted their wealth to help others.
Peter Brown's "Through the Eye of a Needle" is an amazing book about all of this.
The entire “mystery” is due to you, the apostles, and everyone else not understanding what Jesus (AS) was talking about. I remind you in the Gospels (feeding the multitude) Jesus chides the apostles for taking things literally.
An entire thread is filled with discussion of “rope” and “camels” and the matter is missed.
“Kingdom of heaven” and “perfect” are the terms you should be focusing on.
Kingdom of heaven is the highest state of consciousness. Jesus (AS) certainly did not say “rich people will go to hell”. Try this: “Only with the help of God can a ‘rich’ man enter into the state of perfection known as “Kingdom of heaven””.
The most ludicrous reading is the official one: A goody goody who is even being more of a goody goody (‘I got to go and put things in order’) is rebuked. Is he is going to “hell”? Nonsense.
To be rich means to have possession. To have possessions means you have attachments. Attachment is contra detachment of the ascetics.
“Who can be saved?” “Only with the help of God” will a goody goody pass through the TEST of “attachments”. Attachments that are the source “trials and temptations” and can lead us to the clutches of ”evil”. See Lord’s prayers for your morning instructions, dear ascetic follower of Jesus. (To follow means “do as i do”...)
In sum: You will not go to hell if you have possessions. But you will not reach the state of “post-resurrection” 3 guys shining with light as amazed disciples look on.
Kingdom of heaven is a state of being here and now. What keeps us from experiencing it is ‘attachment’. Not even the most innocent of attachments are excused.
Let's look at the context before the quote too: Mark 10:17-27 (NLT)
> As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
> "Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good. But to answer your question, you know the commandments: 'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.'"
> "Teacher," the man replied, "I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young."
> Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. "There is still one thing you haven't done," he told him. "Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
> At this the man's face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
> Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God!" This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard to enter the Kingdom of God. In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"
> The disciples were astounded. "Then who in the world can be saved?" they asked.
> Jesus looked at them intently and said, "Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But not with God. Everything is possible with God."
Jesus's analogy about a camel going through the eye of a needle is commentary on the situation that he and his disciples just witnessed. The rich man thinks that he can earn his way into heaven through good deeds: he's asking "what must I do to inherit eternal life", and probably hoping for a pat on the back from Jesus for all the good things he's done. But instead Jesus identifies a much deeper issue in his life: his earthly wealth is more important to him than anything else, even his eternal destiny! The point of the camel analogy is that riches are a distraction that make it impossible to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength."
> 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?
The central point of the Bible is that there are no "good people". Everyone is morally corrupt in one way or another, and cannot be saved through their own effort, only through Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. "God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it." (Ephesians 2:8-9, cf. Romans 3, Psalm 14, John 14). A lot (most?) of Jesus's teachings, including the passage in the OP, are addressed to people who think they are "good enough" and showing them to be self-righteous, hypocritical, and in need of salvation just as badly as everybody else.
Almost by definition, when you talk about the meaning of "the Bible", you mean the New Testament, and that it either explicitly supersedes or at least recontextualizes any teachings in the Old Testament. If you want to talk about the meaning of the Old Testament taken individually, you either talk about it directly, or talk about the Torah instead of the Bible.
Well, 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?"
Yes, 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.
We 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.
Trinitarianism isn't necessarily a strictly Christian construct—or rather the idea of a godhead comprising multiple parts. "Two Powers" theology (a transcendent, unseeable Yahweh; and Yahweh-as-man) was accepted by Jewish thinkers until about the First Century AD, largely due to Christian influences. It's visible in passages like Genesis 19:24 (two Yahwehs) and most "angel of the Lord" language (e.g. Judges 6:11ff).
Alan Segal's Two Powers in Heaven delves into this in great detail.
Divine threesomes abound in the religious writings and art of ancient Europe, Egypt, the near east, and Asia. These include various threesomes of male deities, of female deities, of Father-Mother-Son groups, or of one body with three heads, or three faces on one head (Griffiths 1996). However, similarity alone doesn’t prove Christian copying or even indirect influence, and many of these examples are, because of their time and place, unlikely to have influenced the development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
A direct influence on second century Christian theology is the Jewish philosopher and theologian Philo of Alexandria (a.k.a. Philo Judaeus) (ca. 20 BCE–ca. 50 CE), the product of Alexandrian Middle Platonism (with elements of Stoicism and Pythagoreanism). Inspired by the Timaeus of Plato, Philo read the Jewish Bible as teaching that God created the cosmos by his Word (logos), the first-born son of God. Alternately, or via further emanation from this Word, God creates by means of his creative power and his royal power, conceived of both as his powers, and yet as agents distinct from him, giving him, as it were, metaphysical distance from the material world (Philo Works; Dillon 1996, 139–83; Morgan 1853, 63–148; Norton 1859, 332–74; Wolfson 1973, 60–97).
Another influence may have been the Neopythagorean Middle Platonist Numenius (fl. 150), who posited a triad of gods, calling them, alternately, “Father, creator and creature; fore-father, offspring and descendant; and Father, maker and made” (Guthrie 1917, 125), or on one ancient report, Grandfather, Father, and Son (Dillon 1996, 367). Moderatus taught a similar triad somewhat earlier (Stead 1985, 583).
I think I tend to agree with the conclusion—namely that it was predominantly a Jewish influence on Christology. Part of my opinion is shaped by changes in and around the First Century in Judaism which, ultimately, culminated in the Masoretic Text evicting certain parts of the text that could remotely suggest anything akin to polytheism. Deuteronomy 32 is particularly one of the most affected chapters, but curiously "two powers" theology was largely left intact.
This is a particularly interesting period in Christianity, because you had numerous influences (including what would later become gnosticism around the same time), the term "trinity" wouldn't appear in extant works until sometime in the Second Century, then the Council of Nicaea in or around the latter half of the Fourth Century establishing it as doctrine.
So, I think the evidence of a decidedly Jewish influence is quite strong and would date at least to the Babylonian captivity.
I believe Dr. Robert Alter leans toward an evolution from polytheism -> monotheism in Jewish thinking (I highly recommend his The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary); but I think the evidence for a sort of henotheism is a bit stronger and more sensible, which would better fit the sources you shared here, alongside the biblical texts.
I believe English is actually one of the only ones where cult has a negative connotation, and where sect does not. French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Dutch, Polish, Romanian, Swedish, Russian - all of these use "cult" to mean any religious group, even in official language ("the Catholic cult"), and all use "sect" to mean "a fringe, possibly dangerous, religious or quasi-religious group" ("the members of that sect that poisoned themselves").
Oh, not even close. I speak Romanian, English, and French. For all of the others I looked up Google translations of the phrase "I think he joined a cult" - in all of them, the translation replaced "cult" with some equivalent of "sect".
Also, I noticed that for more obscure languages (including Romanian), it didn't, so that confirmed to me it's not some fully hardocded conversion - for languages where it has enough examples it understands the "proper" translation, for those where it doesn't it does the simpler thing.
The other comment mentions dutch- As a dutchie I'm not entirely sure they're correct that "kult" is less negatively charged than "sekte". They both take on negative connotations depending on context- "sekte" is definitely religious, while "kult" isn't necessarily, based on the van Dale dictionary. I'd say "cult" isn't always negative in english either, the term "cult classic" comes to mind.
For that matter, would you use "sect" in english and be confident it would not be seen as pejorative term? I feel it's all context dependent.
I also don't think looking through google translate with a single phrase is the right method to figure this out- for one thing I've heard the european languages are usually heavily based on legislature (eu legislature is published in all eu languages, so an excellent source of translations). In my experience google translate can be stilted and formal, so which implications and connotations a phrase or term has in different languages can definitely be literally "lost in translation".
Islam isn't based on Christianity or Judasim. Rather is the the revival/continuation of the one message which is monotheism, given to every prophet and messenger throughout history. It would not be unfound for overlap in teachings between the prophets as they are ultimately upon one religion.
While I perhaps agree in principle, I think it's also fair to say that while Islam isn't strictly based on Christianity or Judaism, it was strongly influenced by both, to the extent that the Qu'ran borrows quite a bit from the New Testament, which in turn borrows heavily from the Hebrew Bible. The overlap is not accidental, but rather intentional in order to provide a sense of credibility in their teachings.
In that sense, both Christianity and Islam view themselves as supersessionist to the respective religion that predated them, with Judaism being more or less the root of the Abrahamic tree (though you could argue that Zoroastrianism may have been the precursor for monotheism as a concept, predating them all).
The Qur'an didn't borrow anything, nor was it influenced by the previous religions. The Qur'an is a revelation from God, as was the original Torah to Moses and the Injeel to Jesus. The same accounts of history and messages would be told to the prophets from God.
The claim where Muhammad ﷺ copied from the previous books is simply not possible. An unlettered man narrating and correcting the histories/traditions of the Jews and Christians where they were few and far between in Arabia. It was pagan through and throught. Recounting their history would require a library to be available and be a polyglot in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek (there were no Arabic Bible translation until the 10th Century).
If the motivation is to gain followers from the prior Abrahamic religions, the easiest thing to do would be to appease their view points and reaffirm what they believed, not to correct them. Not to mention the sheer volume of recounting the children of Israel and history of Jesus in the Qur'an, which does not make sense if you are copying as you would want a few lines here and there to avoid saying something wrong.
(The tone of this comment sounds firm in writing, in reality it is cordial)
This is of course wrong, Mohammed as an illiterate man can copy things because he grew up in a christian and jewish influenced society and no doubt heard the stories of biblical characters and then decided to incorporate them into his own retelling, including various historical errors that make his retelling impossible to be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_in_Islam#:~:text=Accordin....
It is also false to say that gaining followers through appeasement is the way to go, there is not a single sect in christianity that doesnt change vital parts of the bible or how to be saved. It is far easier to obfuscate and pretend to follow christianity and then make changes later.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and accept it in cordiality! :) And I hope you will accept my replies in the same kindly spirit.
I think perhaps I inadvertently implied that the Qur'an was copied from earlier sacred texts, when I only meant that it was likely influenced by them ... in the same way that the New Testament was strongly influenced by the Hebrew Bible (in some cases referencing portions directly - especially regarding prophetic literature, but in other ways making very different claims). Where I agree with you is that it's simplistic to say that Islam was simply a distant branch of another religion -- it's clearly it's own tradition, but my understanding is that most Muslims would agree that it both shares common roots (i.e. a foundational understanding) with Christianity and Islam while also superseding them.
In my mind at least, that indicates that there is some narrative progression, of which Islam would see itself as the most recent, or most complete, revelation; building on what came before while also correcting it (where it is seen as erring from Allah's/God's intended message). In that sense, I think it shares a lot in common with Christianity, a religion that more or less treats Judaism the same way.
I think there are a great many prophets and messengers throughout history that preached polytheism of one kind or another. There is even one prophet who preached that no gods exist, or at least that they are unimprotsnt to the struggle for a good life - Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.
I'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."
I'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.
I 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.
The 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!"
The way I heard the "needle gate" interpretation is:
1. A camel normally is tall, covered in a tarp / saddle, and loads of baggage.
2. To get through the Needle Gate, a camel needs to take off all his baggage, saddle, and tarp, and then crawl through on his knees
3. So with a rich man: To get into heaven, he must take off all his worldly baggage (i.e., stop loving his wealth) and humble himself by crawling in on his knees.
So at a certain level it does make sense; there is a sense in which that's exactly what Jesus asked the Rich Young Ruler to do.
Methinks they don’t want the rich man to have to give away his wealth, just to “love God more than the money”.
So many in these comments (presumably wealthy or aspiring wealthy) seem desperate to assure themselves that wealth-hoarding is not inherently evil by His standards
If you had a lot of money but loved the god described in the New Testament more, then wouldn't you give it all away to the poor and needy as Jesus says?
More 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.
interesting. 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.
I 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.
> 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.
I 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.
I’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?”
Man, 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.
It'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."
I 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.
Thanks 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.
While 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.
His fiction as well. The Father Brown stories are better known now because there was a recent TV series but they really did no convey a lot of what was in the books (I only saw an episode or two).
Oddly enough, the fiction is more a product of its time and feels more dated to me than the journalism and serious writing of his I have read.
> 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.
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
In 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.
The way I read this passage, Jesus was speaking to the impossibility of the rich being saved. I don't see it as "if they became poorer they could diminish themselves to the point where it was possible," but rather "in their own power they cannot be saved, the value system that led them to build and maintain their wealth is contrary to the value system of heaven." In the next verse the disciples are shocked and basically say that no one could be saved in this case. Rather than correct them and explain that the rich can be saved after divesting themselves of their riches, Jesus replies instead (paraphrasing), "Yes, you're right. It is impossible, but God can do the impossible." This also leads me to believe Jesus meant "camel," not "rope."
The myth of persecution was always central to the doctrine, but the sheer volume of wholesale fabrication that evidently had to be cooked up in support of it easily demonstrates its falsehood.
That's nonsense. Plenty of persecution is well-documented.
Nero had Christians torn apart by dogs (though not in the Coliseum), there was the torture and persecution of the martyrs of Lyon, Diocletian enacted his “Great Persecution” in 303, etc.
yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in
that said, if a dude is going around knocking over tables in the temple, proclaiming himself the king of israel (and in most versions also the sole begotten son of god himself), telling people influential religious authorities have everything backwards, supposedly raising the dead, telling rich people to give away all their possessions to the poor instead of giving their children an inheritance, etc., there's guaranteed to be a fair bit of persecution directed his way
> yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in
The gospels were written later, by disciples. Of course they would showcase the messages from Jesus that were most relevant to the people then. This doesn't require any backwards causation, or even distorting any messages, they just have to showcase the sayings that are most relevant there & then when they're writing them down.
And persecution happened quite early, Paul himself admits to doing it in his former life, so there are stories already in the Gospel, not to mention Paul's entire appeal to Caesar.
The gospels were not, in fact, written by disciples. They were all written well after any disciples would have died.
But we know how they were written. Whoever wrote "Mark" made up things for his Jesus to say based on Paul's opinions, cribbing plot elements liberally from the Septuagint and from Homer. "Matthew" cribbed from Mark and made up whatever he liked. Luke cribbed from Mark and Matthew, and made up more stuff. John did a full-on rewrite cribbing from Mark, Matthew, and Luke for theme and plot.
If there was a living, breathing Jesus, we have no hint of anything he said while he lived. Certainly Paul writing in the 50s and the authors of 1 Clement writing in the 60s never heard of any Jesus having said anything they found meaningful enough to mention. Paul is very clear that every single thing he knew about Jesus came from ancient scripture and visions, period. 1 Peter also offers no hint that he ever met a live Jesus.
None of the early 2nd & 3rd century Christian writers, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, etc. had ever heard of Nero slaughtering Christians. Pliny the Younger, who had a personal copy of his uncle Pliny's detailed history of Nero's reign, and spent his life in the justice system, also had no clue about anybody executing Christians for anything but illegal assembly. So the best evidence says that the early Roman persecutions were forged later.
> They were all written well after any disciples would have died.
Depends on who you count as "disciples" (e.g. only the 12) and what exact form you count as the "Gospels," but it's true that the books we have today are built on earlier sources. The more skeptical accounts of the dating seem to assume that the first fragment we have is the original document, never mind if it's a Coptic translation found far afield. One might be forgiven for thinking that some accounts of the dating all but assume that the scribes ran off to translate their works into every language and made it to Egypt in a week or two, as if scribes were easy and cheap.
> If there was a living, breathing Jesus, we have no hint of anything he said while he lived.
Yet the gospels agree on this to the point where it's hypothesized that there's a sayings source and we have so many copies of books that show rather little variation. This is one of the things where people always try to have it both ways, any variation in the story is presented as invention, any commonality in the story is presented as copying a single source. So a lot of accounts with minor variation are pushed one way or the other to serve whatever argument is being made at the time, rather than being seen as imperfect people trying to keep an accurate account.
> Paul is very clear that every single thing he knew about Jesus came from ancient scripture and visions, period.
I see that you're ignoring Paul meeting with Peter & co. at the Council at Jerusalem, which is attested in both Acts & Galatians. One might think they compared notes when discussing what rules Gentile converts had to keep, given that they ended up with something like a variation on the Noahide laws. You'll say he didn't meet Jesus, other than the Damascus road, but c'mon, he was studying under Gamaliel, it's not like he wouldn't have been completely out of the loop about things going on in Jerusalem.
> None of the early 2nd & 3rd century Christian writers, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, etc. had ever heard of Nero slaughtering Christians.
This is a really odd argument to make, given that they didn't personally live through those particular persecutions. And if we did point to something, it'd be easily dismissed because you just can't trust Christian sources...
Meanwhile, you blithely ignore Tacitus' account, which is especially odd given that he was not a Christian and is writing about things that happened during his own life.
> Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.
And Pliny the Younger is another odd citation, you forget to mention that he does reference Jesus as a historical person (contrary to your "if" there was a Jesus). And you really can't think of any reason he might want to downplay things that made Nero look bad? Nothing at all?
> His guardian and preceptor in charge of his education was Lucius Verginius Rufus,[7] famed for quelling a revolt against Nero in 68 AD.
There is, in fact, no scant breath of evidence that any gospel was written based on any such lost source; their anonymous authors cited none. People can "hypothesize" a "sayings source" all they like, but any conclusions based on it are worth as much as the hypotheses: garbage in, garbage out. Nowhere else in history does making up imaginary sources pass muster. The synoptic gospels do not, in fact, agree, neither among themselves nor with the literally dozens of others omitted. They blatantly contradict, instead, despite that each author visibly had all the previous texts ready to hand. Contradicting earlier texts was the whole point of writing it.
Paul insists, as I said. He probably lied, but neither he nor anyone else writing before Mark reports a live Jesus ever saying anything. All of Paul's elaborate logical arguments supporting what he clearly identifies as his personal opinions could have been cut short if only he could have cited Jesus having said the same thing. He also never answers anybody else citing Jesus, either to concede the point or explain why what that Jesus had said didn't apply.
If Ignatius et al. had claimed Roman persecution, we could reasonably suspect later forgery, and their testimony would be moot, but their not asserting it when it became so central to later doctrine speaks volumes. Do you pretend that if it had happened, none of them would have heard of it? The lack of mention is a hard nugget of fact we cannot doubt, and that demands explanation.
Tacitus manuscripts were in the hands of the Church for many centuries, where they could insert anything they liked, just as they did in Josephus. (We even know precisely who inserted the TF into Josephus.) We have zillions of examples of them doctoring things so ham-handedly as to make it undeniable. Anywhere they were more careful, we don't know about.
Pliny's mention of a historical Jesus is reporting hearsay from (former) Christians. If he had known anything about Nero slaughtering them, he would not have been so visibly at sea about why any were executed.
Is it possible that early Christians were comprehensively persecuted? Sure, nothing is certain. But the balance of reliable evidence indicates not. If we were to take the persecution as given, we would then have no explanation for the wholesale forgery of myriad transparently false cases. Those were, recall, what we started out trying to understand.
Amazing. The one time the monks perfectly inserted something into every copy of Tacitus, without leaving any evidence for you to point at, is that part where he says something inconvenient for you.
How many ancient copies of Tacitus do we have? 3rd-century Christians show no hint of awareness that Tacitus wrote that. So very evidently the Tacitus manuscript our copies are based on was doctored after theirs.
Why would Tacitus care that it was some obscure procurator Pilate who nailed up Jesus? But Christian interpolators considered it critically, indeed creedally, important to mention.
“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.”
This 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.
The 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?
The 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.
Edit: saw the edit now, no problem, and thank you very much for engaging in good faith! I will leave the rest of my comment up, but either way, I didn't interpret your comment in a negative way, just trying to get to a common understanding.
If there is no other evidence of the word kamilos, rope, existing, that represents evidence that Cyril made this word up. Then, we know from the two quotes that Cyril believes that the rope interpretation is more favorable to rich people than the camel interpretation.
So we have reason to believe that Cyril invented this word, and we know he thinks that the correct interpretation is softer for rich people, so it seems like a simple assumption that he invented the word to make the interpretation that's better for the rich more plausible.
What other reason would he have to invent a new word that happens to support his preferred interpretation?
> please record a video of yourself passing a rope in a needle's eye, and I will stand corrected.
This is irrelevant. As I showed in the quote, it is indisputable that Cyril thinks that there is some small hope for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle. Why he thinks this is beyond me, but it is clearly what he believes, per his own words.
This 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.
I've repeatedly noticed an even worse practice on anything news-related on Reddit: Top-rated comments saying "the title is misleading" when it actually isn't. I don't know if they skimmed the article way too quickly or were just trying to call it fake news because they didn't like it.
Anyway, deleted my account there and haven't gone back in a few months.
It's a funny thing psychologically. I think it makes us feel smart to upvote the person saying it's all nonsense. Feels like now we're one level up in understanding. And that feeling makes it even harder to think about how maybe the comment is wrong and the article/title was right after all.
I assume most everyone here on their free and unpaid time is here for entertainment purposes. Why waste time reading an article if the title already provides enough entertainment for a creative dialog?
I'm not going to pretend that I read the article every time. But if I'm going to point out something I think the article is missing or accuse the title of being false, yeah I'll check the article first.
In my opinion a title should properly reflect the compressed contents of the article accurately and in full. If the title is just a setup for answering a question we all already probably knew anyway then it is simply click bait.
This article is quite the opposite of that though, and has done a lot of work covering most of the points that are being made in the comments here anyway. The Aramaic words, the similar verse in the Quran, the rope being "still impossible" etc, are all covered in the article.
I'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.
Honestly 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.
Meh. 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.
I 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.
You might like William Stringfellow's "Impostors of God:Inquiries into Favorite Idols". It's part of a long intellectual tradition that is absolutely wrenching.
Presently 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).
Rabbi Tarfon said, “Where there is no bread, there is no Torah; where there is no Torah, there is no bread.”
it’s an interesting book that tells you to put the book down and go out and check in on your neighbor. So don’t let your backlog get in the way of that virtuous cycle.
I've been tossing around the idea of doing a topical Bible study night/meal once a month with some neighbors who are interested (or at least tangentially so) along with some folks from Sunday school. A friend of mine who has been struggling with sin and faith suggested it. I feel a sense that your comment is being used to prod me a bit further.
One of the fears I've had (just tossing this out there for advice I probably already know but need to hear/read from someone else) is stepping on toes. I KNOW that if I just teach from the word it isn't a problem—or rather it isn't a problem unrelated to conviction, but going back to your earlier recommendation we all have difficulty with the idol of self-perception. I probably need to re-read 1 and 2 Timothy, because I've sometimes had issues with timidity in the face of those who are older and dealing with scripture.
An example: Explaining the nature of the word "elohim" as an ontological term (I'm a Southern Baptist) to a church elder who was convinced it's strictly another name for God was a good exercise but somewhat difficult, even with a Hebrew-English interlinear in hand to show him precisely how it is used in situ throughout the text. I managed, but my comparative youth against an elder and his obstinate refusal to see the word for what it was set me back somewhat in deciding whether to go forward with, shall we say, giving bread to the spiritually hungry.
I guess the only way to feed anyone is to start by making a meal. Thank you for the encouragement!
> I guess the only way to feed anyone is to start by making a meal.
if there’s one thing that echoes down through the line of prophets, it’s this seeking out of a hospitable way of neighborliness in a world which is stubbornly uninterested in it.
“So I called my Jesuit friend, Tom, who is a hopeless alcoholic of the worst sort, sober now for 22 years, someone who sometimes gets fat and wants to hang himself, so I trust him. I said, "Tell me a story about Advent. Tell me about people getting well."
Well said, and there's certainly a dearth of hospitality today. Surely that's true of all times, I realize, but through the ebb and flow of thoughtfulness and kindness it seems the West is at something of a local minimum (depending on where you live, of course).
The human condition is broadly uniform post-Fall, subject to the natural and elementary forces satisfied only by destruction.
Thank you for being a blessing and inspiration to do better!
But 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?
Huh. 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.
This 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.
You'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?
True… 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.
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.
Easy. 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.
“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.