Freethought & Rationalism Archive

William · 05-12-2008, 02:15 PM

Thinking this may fit better over in BC&H.

NZSkep · 05-12-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Bloe

Since Matthew and Luke copied Mark, all it would take would be for Mark to have made the error.

I must admit that I thought this was the best argument, but NZSkep doesn't have that as an option as he has dismissed such a possibility as a straw man:

What? So because I didn’t mention it (I did think of it couldn’t remember who copied who, or how strong the evidence was that they were copied) that means I ‘dismissed it as a strawman’? I think you have no idea what a strawman is, or how it is used.
Pleas explain how me failing to mention an argument that supports my case would be ‘dismissing it as a strawman’.

Quote:

I hope that explains why I am balking at the absudity of every single early manuscript having a smudge on the word camel/rope in all three synoptic gospels.

Why would every single copy have to have a smudge? Only the first would have to have a smudge/misprint then all copies would have the incorrect translation.
It wouldn’t even have needed a smudge. It could have been, amongst other possibilites, that the translator simply didn’t know the correct translation of ‘rope’ and put down the closest thing he thought, or that he was was wrong about the spelling of ‘camel’ and genuinely thought that the word for camel was spelled differently.

Quote:

With your (to my mind) stronger argument, the problem remains that we don't have the pericopes from which Mark compiled his gospel. As such, we aren't in any position to say that the original word is meant to be 'rope'. It is pure conjecture. It seems to only be worth putting forward as a hypothesis for the purposes of apologetics (edit: though even then it seems deeply problematic - well noted! ) and, as such, I think scepticism is the most sensible response.

At very least we'd expect to see some prominent writers out there proposing that the phrase ought to be different. Uproar is good for sales after all....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Bloe

Which is not to say that an accurate translation of the actual Greek in this passage would be "rope" instead of "camel." The word in the Greek manuscripts is clearly "camel," and the translators are right. But the similarity of the words and the difference in how "rope" and "camel" fit in this context make it reasonable to posit that the writer of Mark (or a very early copier of Mark) made a mistake which was then copied by the writers of Matthew and Luke.

The thing is that this is best of a bad bunch of very odd claims. Others include the claim that the original text referred to a "camel hair" rope and then there's the ridiculous references to a special gate in Jerusalem. (However, I must say that I wasn't about to accept NZSkeps proposition that it is a matter of poor translation of the gospel manuscripts and neither, it seems, were you.)

I will accept the hypothesis that Mark made a mistake and, as you rightly note, this would cause serious problems for some Christians. It would thoroughly demonstrate that the synoptic gospels are working on a process of chinese whispers. Nevertheless, I will not accept that it is a hypothesis with strong backing (no matter how much it might make Christians squirm if it were).

I know there is no strong backing for this (and I wouldn’t expect there to necessarily be any hard evidence given the time spans and uncertianties around authorship etc) but it just seems plausible (i.e. possible, not probable).

To simply dimsiss it out of hand as apologetics seems absurd, as if it were the correct translation then it would actually weaken the christian case – because it shows that errors are made in gods word, and if errors can be made then god is not ‘perfect’.

Joe Bloe · 05-12-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

then there's the ridiculous references to a special gate in Jerusalem.

Yea, I've heard a few versions of that one, and it is really odd. I don't know where that story came from or when/where it originated, but as far as I know it doesn't fit anything real.

Solitary Man · 05-12-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

why stop at camel.

Because oikia wouldn't complete the pun.

John Kesler · 05-12-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

and a huge coincidence that 'rope' just happens to make sense in the context of the phrase

I disagree. Neither image of impossibility seems more suited to the scenario of a rich man upset that he must give up all he has in order to follow Jesus. Whether it is a rope going through a needle or a camel going through a needle, in either case it is impossible. If the intention of the phrase was to express impossibility, the word 'camel' seems to do the job more effectively.

"Camel" is probably correct. See my post on the subject from July, 2005.

Newfie · 05-12-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

look at donkey Kong vs Monkey Kong for a modern day version of almost the exact scenario.
Monkey was misread/misprinted into Donkey, despite donkey making no sense
(the character was a gorilla!) and it just stuck over the years.

I thought that the story went that the Japanese creator of the game thought that "donkey" meant "stupid" in English, and that he was trying to make the main character look like a dumb ape. Do you have a source for the Monkey-Donkey mixup explanation?

Amaleq13 · 05-12-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newfie

I thought that the story went that the Japanese creator of the game thought that "donkey" meant "stupid" in English, and that he was trying to make the main character look like a dumb ape.

Close. The word he allegedly wanted was "stubborn". The phone mix-up is popular but thought to be an urban legend while the stubborn/donkey mix-up is supposed to be the true story.

That is the origin story repeated during a recent TV show on video games.

squiz · 05-12-2008, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Bloe

Which is not to say that an accurate translation of the actual Greek in this passage would be "rope" instead of "camel." The word in the Greek manuscripts is clearly "camel," and the translators are right. But the similarity of the words and the difference in how "rope" and "camel" fit in this context make it reasonable to posit that the writer of Mark (or a very early copier of Mark) made a mistake which was then copied by the writers of Matthew and Luke.

Has anyone considered that it might be a play on words? You know: you think it is difficult to put a rope through the eye of a needle, then what about a camel (which has a similar sounding name)? If this is the case, then it would be another example of a saying that could not have arisen in Hebrew, but must have been originally Greek, like the "born again" story.

I would be interested in hearing what the various Greek words for thread are too, in this context.

fatpie42 · 05-13-2008, 12:37 AM

Okay, if everyone has finished with the discussion on the needle/eye/gate/rope discussion, do you reckon anyone can think of any new additions to the list in the OP?

Huon · 05-13-2008, 12:46 AM

kalos (with an omega) means a rope.
kamelos (with an eta and an omicron) means a camel.
kamilos is not in my dictionary.

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

05-12-2008, 02:15 PM	#31
William Moderator - NAR Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Northern Japan Posts: 2,312	Thinking this may fit better over in BC&H.

05-13-2008, 12:37 AM	#39
fatpie42 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Britain Posts: 5,259	Okay, if everyone has finished with the discussion on the needle/eye/gate/rope discussion, do you reckon anyone can think of any new additions to the list in the OP?

05-13-2008, 12:46 AM	#40
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	kalos (with an omega) means a rope. kamelos (with an eta and an omicron) means a camel. kamilos is not in my dictionary.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.