Freethought & Rationalism Archive

couch_sloth · 04-20-2011, 11:12 PM

Questions about Matthew 19:24.
Is this really the condemnation of the rich it appears to be?
I've seen a lot of different & widely varying interpretations of it on the Web.

What I really want to know is what most scholars seem to think it means, and do the opinions differ significantly between the more theistic and secular scholars?

stephan huller · 04-21-2011, 12:03 AM

Who cares what most scholars have to say? Why don't you go back to what Celsus and Origen say it meant. That's all that matters. Clement says that the idea is stolen from Plato's Laws and Origen says the following:

Quote:

In the next place, with regard to the declaration of Jesus against rich men, when He said, “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,” Celsus alleges that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and that Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that “it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches.” Now who is there that is capable of giving even moderate attention to affairs—not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind—that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied literature—not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the Hebrews—as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him, had read Plato, and being pleased with the opinion he expressed regarding rich men, to the effect that “it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness and riches at the same time,” had perverted this, and changed it into, “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!” Now, if Celsus had not perused the Gospels in a spirit of hatred and dislike, but had been imbued with a love of truth, he would have turned his attention to the point why a camel—that one of animals which, as regards its physical structure, is crooked—was chosen as an object of comparison with a rich man, and what signification the “narrow eye of a needle” had for him who saw that “strait and narrow was the way that leadeth unto life;” and to this point also, that this animal. according to the law, is described as “unclean,” having one element of acceptability, viz. that it ruminates, but one of condemnation, viz., that it does not divide the hoof. He would have inquired, moreover, how often the camel was adduced as an object of comparison in the sacred Scriptures, and in reference to what objects, that he might thus ascertain the meaning of the Logos concerning the rich men. Nor would he have left without examination the fact that “the poor” are termed “blessed” by Jesus, while “the rich” are designated as “miserable;” and whether these words refer to the rich and poor who are visible to the senses, or whether there is any kind of poverty known to the Logos which is to be deemed “altogether blessed,” and any rich man who is to be wholly condemned. For even a common individual would not thus indiscriminately have praised the poor, many of whom lead most wicked lives. But on this point we have said enough. [Origen Contra Ceslum 6.16]

It has been argued that the Greek text is a mistranslation of an Aramaic saying about a rope/cable not passing through the eye of needle. It should be noted that a kabbalist would immediately recognize that 'camel' = gimmel (= 'g' the third letter of the Hebrew alphabet), 'kuf' = 'eye of the needle' (= 'q' קוף) I don't know what significance this would have but certainly the Marcosians would have developed something according to their taste.

The significance of the letter kuf is obvious. We are told that the letter was placed on boxes associated with the high priest to signify 'qadosh' = 'holy.' It has a value of 100 in the Hebrew counting system and is at the heart of another gospel parable = the lost sheep from the ninety nine. There is a consistent interest in the number 100 as a symbol of perfection in the gospel. In the parable of the ninety nine sheep the explanation in the Gospel of Truth and Irenaeus's analysis of the Marcosian exegesis imply a connection also between 100 and the 'right' (hand). Yaman (יָמַן) use the 'right' (hand), go to the right = y (10) m (40) n (50) = 100.

Another example of the interest in 100 in the gospel:

Quote:

'and some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it; and it yielded no fruit. And other fell into excellent and good ground; and it came up, and grew, and brought forth fruit, some thirty, and some sixty, and some a hundred.' [Diatessaron xvi.24]

Irenaeus says the heretics see the 100 here as a reference to heavenly liberation as opposed to earthly places after death in the numbers 30 and 60 (AH 5 somewhere). I haven't a fucking clue why the letter 'g' should go through the 100. Maybe its nothing but a g thang

http://youtu.be/1gK1e2TCFAA

Steve Weiss · 04-21-2011, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by couch_sloth

Questions about Matthew 19:24.
Is this really the condemnation of the rich it appears to be?
I've seen a lot of different & widely varying interpretations of it on the Web.

What I really want to know is what most scholars seem to think it means, and do the opinions differ significantly between the more theistic and secular scholars?

The message of the mythical Jesus was anti-materialist through and through. Why be concerned about material possessions or even burying the dead if the kingdom of heaven were imminent? He was a symbol of poverty and attacked the money changers in the temple. Jesus didn't know about the Protestant ethic, corporations, mass production and people who routinely lived to age 80. If he had he would have condemned them as unspiritual and a blockage on the way to the Father. In his time people were uneducated, poor, miserable, dirty, and superstitious. He was a "man" or myth of his times. He offered no new knowledge about science or suggestions on how to improve one's health and welfare. Hope and faith were his coin of the realm, neither of which is of any real value for mankind.

mountainman · 04-21-2011, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Who cares what most scholars have to say? Why don't you go back to what Celsus and Origen say it meant. That's all that matters.

No it is'nt. Dont be so hasty - there are other sources to be examined relevant to the OP such as the following extract from the Acts of Peter and Andrew. We will pick up the story at the appearance of the "Camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-mention": I have added my own indented comments.

The account opens here with some dude called Onesiphorus. He is busy choking the apostle Andrew with a garment, while the apostle Peter is looking on. It's quite surreal. Salvador Dali could have painted this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Acts of Peter and Andrew and the Camel through the eye of a needle business

Peter said:
"I tell you this:
it is easier for a camel
to go through a needle's eye
than for a rich man
to enter the kingdom of God."

Onesiphorus was yet more angry
and took his garment off Andrew's neck
and cast it on Peter's
and haled him along, saying:

"You are worse than the other.
If you show me this sign,
I and the whole city will believe
but if not you shall be punished."

ED:
Peter catches the reference to "WIZARD"
Only then does he try and intervene in Andrew's choking.
The rich and powerful man asks Peter his opinion.
Peter rattles off the one about the rich man
and the camel and the eye of the needle.
The rich and powerful man stops choking Andrew.
The rich and powerful man starts choking Peter.
Onesiphorus demands Peter to show him this sign.
Or he will be punished.

15 Peter was troubled
and stood and prayed:

"Lord, help us at this hour,
for thou hast entrapped us
by thy words."

ED:
Peter become afraid of receiving punishment.
He is perfectly happy to condone punishment of an innocent woman.
But he is exceeding afraid of receiving punishment.
He prays to his god for help.
He accuses his god of entrapping him
with the words (of the New Testament).
He is lost and afraid.
He is an empty and unbalanced individual.
Will Peter's saviour god save Peter?

16 The Saviour appeared
in the form of a boy of twelve years,
wearing a linen garment
'smooth within and without',
and said;

"Fear not: let the needle
and the camel be brought."

There was a huckster in the town
who had been converted by Philip;
and he heard of it,
and looked for a needle
with a large eye,
but Peter said:

"Nothing is impossible with God
rather bring a needle with a small eye."

ED:
Peter's god appears as an immature youth.
Peter's god tells Peter to "fear not".
Peter fears are allated by an immature youth.
Philip has converted a huckster in the town.
The huckster hears of the test, and want in on the action.
Peter goes the action alone.

17 When it was brought,
Peter saw a camel coming
and stuck the needle in the ground
and cried:

"In the name of
Jesus Christ crucified
under Pontius Pilate
I command thee, camel,
to go through
the eye of the needle."

The eye opened like a gate
and the camel passed through;
and yet again, at Peter's bidding.

ED:
Peter sticks the needle in the ground.
Peter commands the camel in the name of Jesus Christ.
Peter qualifies Jesus Christ as the one crucified under Pontius Pilate.
Why is Pontius Pilate mentioned ?
Just to make sure we know which Jesus Christ perhaps.
Obviously the author has Peter using Pontius Pilate
as a bit of historical reference for the name Jesus.
Peter then commands the camel through the eye of the needle.

18 Onesiphorus said:
"You are a great sorcerer:
but I shall not believe
unless I may send
for a needle and a camel."

And he said secretly to a servant:
"Bring a camel and a needle,
and find a defiled woman
and some swine's flesh
and bring them too."

And Peter heard it in the spirit and said:

"O slow to believe,
bring your camel and woman
and needle and flesh."

ED:
Onesiphorus hales Peter as a great magician and sorcerer.
But he want a re-run with his own camel and needle.
He wants to incorporate a wanton woman and pork.
He attempts to rig the deck against the apostles.
Peter became aware of deceit though his deceiptful spirit.
He says he is ready to proceed in the face of this.

19 When they were brought
Peter stuck the needle
in the ground, with the flesh,
the woman was on the camel.

He commanded it as before,
and the camel went through,
and back again.

ED:
Peter commands the camel again.
In the name of Jesus and Pontius Pilate.
Peter then commands the camel again
through the eye of the needle

20 Onesiphorus cried out, convinced and said:

"Listen. I have lands and vinevards
and 27 litrae of gold
and 50 of silver,
and many slaves:
I will give my goods to the poor
and free my slaves if I may do
a wonders like you."

Peter said: "If you believe, you shall."

ED:
Onesiphorus is impressed by the magic.
He is rich and powerful and want this magic.
He asks Peter if he can do these wonders.
Peter replies that he can, if he believes ...

21 Yet he was afraid he might not be able,
because he was not baptized, but a voice came:
"Let him do what he will."

So Onesiphorus stood before the needle and camel
and commanded it to go through and it went as far
as the neck and stopped. And he asked why.

'Because you are not yet baptized.'

He was content, and the apostles went
to his house, and 1,000 souls
were baptized that night.

ED:
We discover a small technical hitch.
Onesiphorus is not baptised. The camel gets stuck.
The camel is commanded in the name of Jesus and Pilate.
But only as far as the camel's neck and no further.
Onesiphorus buys the story of lack of baptism.
One thousand souls are converted to christianity by magicianship.

Toto · 04-21-2011, 09:55 AM

Pete: I don't know if you picked this up, but the point of the story is not the part about the camel and the needle, but "with god all things are possible."

Your comments show that you have not gotten into the spirit of the story. Peter is not afraid of punishment, but of failure in his mission, if anything.

But, to get back to the OP, I think that most commentators think that this is the intended part of the story - that, with god, salvation is possible for everyone, even the rich.

maryhelena · 04-21-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by couch_sloth

Questions about Matthew 19:24.
Is this really the condemnation of the rich it appears to be?
I've seen a lot of different & widely varying interpretations of it on the Web.

What I really want to know is what most scholars seem to think it means, and do the opinions differ significantly between the more theistic and secular scholars?

Well, as Stephan says - who cares what the scholars say....

So, here is one way to make sense of the quotation.

Camels cannot pass through the eye of a needle.
Rich men cannot enter the kingdom of god.

Condemnation of rich men is illogical.

The rich man is not referencing a particular type of man but rather referencing human physicality, Matter. The kingdom of god that Matter cannot enter is a spiritual kingdom - Mind.

Matter and Mind the two elements of our human nature. A dualism that allows for much word play......

The rich man enters the kingdom of god - all things are possible. His dual nature of Matter and Mind allows him to experience both elements of his human nature. No giving up his riches is necessary, his physicality does not prevent him from experiencing his intellectual life.

PhilosopherJay · 04-21-2011, 12:32 PM

Hi Pete,

Quote:

"In the name of
Jesus Christ crucified
under Pontius Pilate
I command thee, camel,
to go through
the eye of the needle."

I assume that the addition of "crucified under Pontius Pilate" means that there were people performing magic in the name of Jesus Christ who was not crucified under Pontius Pilate.

This suggests that there were debates in the Christian communities over whether Jesus Christ was crucified and if crucified, when it was done.

The Gnostics of the early Second century saw Jesus Christ as a shape-shifting "Savior," as in this story. We should assume that the story was written around this time.

Rufus, Alexander and Michael appear to be the name of three of the twelve apostles, so the text seems to be in conflict with the gospel stories that made it into the New Testament.

The Gospel of Mark does know of Rufus and Alexander:

Quote:

“And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. ” (Mark 15:21)

If Alexander and Rufus were two of the twelve apostles in an earlier gospel story or Ur-Mark text, this line from Mark would make perfect sense. Mark obviously expected his readers to know who Alexander and Rufus were, therefore he defines Simon of Cyrene in terms of them.

There are mentions of both Rufus and Alexander in the epistles of Paul. There's a mention of Rufus in Romans:

Quote:

Romans 16:13 “Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.”

Possibly, whoever the author of Romans is, he wants to associate himself with Rufus (Red-haired), one of the twelve apostles. Knowing that his father carried the cross for Jesus.

Rufus and his mother are in Rome, where the letter writer has never been, but apparently the writer has met him before and Rufus' mother has treated him very well.

In Timothy, Paul disassociates himself from Alexander

Quote:

2 Timothy 14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. 15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. 16 At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them!

The "Acts of Peter and Andrew" are connected to "the Acts of Paul and Thecla" through the character of Onesiphorus, who appears in both as a rich man who converts to Christianity.

Acts of Paul and Thecla also introduce to other servants of the lord: Demas and Hermogenes.

Quote:

4 And when Paul saw Onesiphorus he smiled, and Onesiphorus said: Hail, thou servant of the blessed God. And he said: Grace be with thee and with thine house. But Demas and Hermogenes were envious, and stirred up their hypocrisy yet more, so that Demas said: Are we not servants of the Blessed, that thou didst not salute us so? And Onesiphorus said: I see not in you any fruit of righteousness, but if ye be such, come ye also into my house and refresh yourselves.”

Richard G. Fellows talks about a conflation of names in Paul's writings in his blog Does the author of the Acts of Paul conflate Hermogenes, Hymenaeus, Alexander, Demas, Phygelus, and Philetus into two people?

He suggests Hermogenes, Hymenaeus, Alexander are one character and Demas, Phygelus, and Philetus are another character. He concludes:

Quote:

In conclusion, the presbyter seems to have (correctly or incorrectly) conflated Phygelus, Hermogenes, Philetus, Hymenaeus, Demas and Alexander into as few as two people. He probably saw Hermogenes-Hymenaeus-Alexander as one person, and he may have seen Demas-Phygelus-Phelitus as another.

The author also notes:

Quote:

In the Acts of Paul Demas and Hermogenes value marriage and child bearing and oppose Paul’s support for chastity. The name “Hymenaeus”comes from “Hymenaios”, the god of marriage ceremonies. Thus the presbyter may have imagined that Hymenaios was a nickname given to Hermogenes in keeping with his philosophy. The presbyter calls Thecla’s fiance ”Thamyris”, which was a very rare name and that of a figure in Greek mythology who schemed to have sex with all the Muses (according to one version) or of marrying one of them (according to another).

I would like to argue that Alexander and Rufus were the original two apostles in the early gospel story/stories. While Alexander gets transformed into Hermogenes and Hymenaeus, Rufus gets transformed into Demas-Phygelus-Phelitus.

In all the early references and pseudonyms one can glimpse a story line wherein Alexander and Rufus are portrayed as opposing the Church over the question of marriage. They are followers of the Church who oppose the idea of strict chastity and virginity and the idea that marriage is sinful.

The character of Rufus may have originally been based on the stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus (time of Nero). Richard Carrier has a brief essay on him.

Quote:

On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay (1999)

Clement of Alexandria, in Paedagogus apparently relies on his works to describe Christian Ethics.

Wikipedia notes this about him:

Quote:

He combats all selfishness, and regards marriage not merely as becoming and natural, but as the principle of the family and state, and the preservation of the whole human race

It is possible that the Philosopher Rufus was the model for the apostle Rufus in an/the ur-gospel. The anti-marriage faction in early Christianity had him cut out. Only erasures and odd references remain.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Who cares what most scholars have to say? Why don't you go back to what Celsus and Origen say it meant. That's all that matters.

No it is'nt. Dont be so hasty - there are other sources to be examined relevant to the OP such as the following extract from the Acts of Peter and Andrew. We will pick up the story at the appearance of the "Camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-mention": I have added my own indented comments.
{snip}
17 When it was brought,
Peter saw a camel coming
and stuck the needle in the ground
and cried:

"In the name of
Jesus Christ crucified
under Pontius Pilate
I command thee, camel,
to go through
the eye of the needle."

The eye opened like a gate
and the camel passed through;
and yet again, at Peter's bidding.
{snip}

ED:
We discover a small technical hitch.
Onesiphorus is not baptised. The camel gets stuck.
The camel is commanded in the name of Jesus and Pilate.
But only as far as the camel's neck and no further.
Onesiphorus buys the story of lack of baptism.
One thousand souls are converted to christianity by magicianship.

Roller · 04-21-2011, 07:44 PM

If you subscribe to apocalyptic Jesus, he condemned rich people. Jesus (in apocalyptic tradition) preached that rich people were in league with forces of evil. Their riches signal led this alignment. The only way to be rich was to align yourself with evil.

stephan huller · 04-21-2011, 08:55 PM

I am not so sure that is true. Clement of Alexandria certainly didn't read the narrative that way.

mountainman · 04-21-2011, 09:46 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Very interesting analysis of Alexander and Rufus as Lost Apostles. But did they exist, or were they data-mined or text-mined from the canon as your analysis clearly demonstrates below?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The Gnostics of the early Second century saw Jesus Christ as a shape-shifting "Savior," as in this story. We should assume that the story was written around this time.

Although Eusebius himself is the earliest witness for this text, the general argument that it belongs in the 2nd and not the 4th century is twofold. The first argument you yourself state later on, is that the text is related to the series of acts that have been traditionally ascribed to the pseudonymous name of Leucius Charinus, which includes aPaul:

Quote:

The "Acts of Peter and Andrew" are connected to "the Acts of Paul and Thecla" through the character of Onesiphorus, who appears in both as a rich man who converts to Christianity.

The second and related argument to 2nd and not 4th century chronology is the "Testimonium Tertullianum". Here's my summary of this:

Quote:

The Acts of Paul:

The chief and final literary citation is from Eusebius’ often cited Latin author Tertullian, in his De baptismo 17.5. This appears as the only early instance in which information is provided concerning an author of apocryphal writings. Note that the manuscripts which preserve Tertullian's De baptismo are quite late, the earliest being the 12th century Codex Trecensis.

As for those (women) who appeal to the falsely written Acts of Paul in order to defend the right of women to teach and to baptize, let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul, was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul.

The 4th century interpolation into Josephus, known as the "Testimonium Flavianum", is regarded by many as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the New Testament Canon. Likewise the "Testimonium Tertullianum", it is suggested, should be regarded as a critically positioned forgery, with respect to the history of the Gnostic Acts and Gospels. Jerome’s novel addition to the Christian tradition - that the author of the Acts of Paul wrote in the presence of the apostle John in the 1st century - is a plainly fraudulent misrepresentation, and has been soundly rejected by many academics.

So to summarise the chronological beliefs, we are following Tertullian's assertion that the author of the heretical gospels and acts authored their blashemous works "out of love for the apostles".

To turn now to your identification of these extra apostles and their actions and missions in Peter & Andrew ...

Quote:

Rufus, Alexander and Michael appear to be the name of three of the twelve apostles, so the text seems to be in conflict with the gospel stories that made it into the New Testament.

The Gospel of Mark does know of Rufus and Alexander:

Quote:

“And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. ” (Mark 15:21)

If Alexander and Rufus were two of the twelve apostles in an earlier gospel story or Ur-Mark text, this line from Mark would make perfect sense. Mark obviously expected his readers to know who Alexander and Rufus were, therefore he defines Simon of Cyrene in terms of them.

There are mentions of both Rufus and Alexander in the epistles of Paul. There's a mention of Rufus in Romans:

Quote:

Romans 16:13 “Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.”

Possibly, whoever the author of Romans is, he wants to associate himself with Rufus (Red-haired), one of the twelve apostles. Knowing that his father carried the cross for Jesus.

Rufus and his mother are in Rome, where the letter writer has never been, but apparently the writer has met him before and Rufus' mother has treated him very well.

In Timothy, Paul disassociates himself from Alexander

Quote:

2 Timothy 14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. 15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. 16 At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them!

I would like to argue that Alexander and Rufus were the original two apostles in the early gospel story/stories. While Alexander gets transformed into Hermogenes and Hymenaeus, Rufus gets transformed into Demas-Phygelus-Phelitus.

I follow this argument to a point. But I think that the author of the gnostic works is cleverly data mining the canon, and that there really were no other stories around (except for a growing collection of Gnostic works) at all that we have to posit existence for, except the canon. Your exposition above services to demonstrate the modus operandi of the author of this "Acts of Pater and Andrew" and the resourcefulness and ingenuinity and inventiveness displayed by seeking the canonical names for these characters in this gnostic act. This pattern is replicated throughout the majority the texts of all the gnostic acts and gospels that I have reviewed. The LXX is also used as a source for the gnostic author(s).

The transformations you have identified seem to match the way the gnostic author also uses other gnostic acts and gospels and sources, and simply weaves the whole agglomeration together into a series of "other Gospels and Acts". They are highly inter-reated between each other, and each also highly related to the canonical texts and LXX.

A soup of evidence.

Quote:

The character of Rufus may have originally been based on the stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus (time of Nero).

Yes, I agree with this. But on the basis of the systematic evidence I have stepped beyond the "may have been based". Elsewhere I have attempted to formally deal with the characters known to the Classical History as the Platonists Ammonias, Origen, Anatolius, etc as evidence of examples of other victims of Eusebian identity theft.

Best wishes,

Pete

04-20-2011, 11:12 PM	#1
couch_sloth Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: California Posts: 2,732	Camel through the eye of a needle Questions about Matthew 19:24. Is this really the condemnation of the rich it appears to be? I've seen a lot of different & widely varying interpretations of it on the Web. What I really want to know is what most scholars seem to think it means, and do the opinions differ significantly between the more theistic and secular scholars?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2011, 09:55 AM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Pete: I don't know if you picked this up, but the point of the story is not the part about the camel and the needle, but "with god all things are possible." Your comments show that you have not gotten into the spirit of the story. Peter is not afraid of punishment, but of failure in his mission, if anything. But, to get back to the OP, I think that most commentators think that this is the intended part of the story - that, with god, salvation is possible for everyone, even the rich.

04-21-2011, 07:44 PM	#8
Roller Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cleveland Posts: 658	If you subscribe to apocalyptic Jesus, he condemned rich people. Jesus (in apocalyptic tradition) preached that rich people were in league with forces of evil. Their riches signal led this alignment. The only way to be rich was to align yourself with evil.

04-21-2011, 08:55 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am not so sure that is true. Clement of Alexandria certainly didn't read the narrative that way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.