Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones: Still a rip-off. You can buy three copies of A.J. Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic for less than 18 bucks.

Yeah, and you can get a helluva lot of toilet paper for $18, but it's not a very good read. Since when did the cost of a book determine its literary value? Gimme a break...

hezekiah jones

Never, as far as I'm aware. Did I say that?

Incidentally, the price above refers to the KJV version. The NKJV is nearly 30 bucks at amazon (list price: 40 bucks!).

Interestingly, the "Extreme Teen Bible," according to the sample pages at amazon.com, claims that the Book of Genesis was "written" about 1445-1400 B.C. This is ridiculous.

Maybe such a date is among the reasons the editors decided to call this the "extreme" bible?

Pantera

LOL!

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones: Never, as far as I'm aware. Did I say that? Incidentally, the price above refers to the KJV version. The NKJV is nearly 30 bucks at amazon (list price: 40 bucks!). Interestingly, the "Extreme Teen Bible," according to the sample pages at amazon.com, claims that the Book of Genesis was "written" about 1445-1400 B.C. This is ridiculous. Maybe such a date is among the reasons the editors decided to call this the "extreme" bible?

$14.99 at CBD. <a href="http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/65827677?item_no=1340&event=SRC" target="_blank">Same Bible at CBD</a>

I guess it's not such a rip-off after all. I bet you probably pay retail for everything you buy, huh? FYI... Sometimes it pays to check around for the best prices.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Tomije

obviously, there are threads within this one big thread.

So you will excuse me if I kind of ignore the thread of discussion that has been going on for the last few posts, and address haran's concerns:

Considering how close that translation is, I'll bow to common sense. "camel" makes absolutely NO sense. While "rope" or "wide cord" does. My old Classics professor, who has participated in digs from Israel to the Black Sea, absolutely rails against the current translation.

Let's face it, the current translation makes no sense. There are a lot of theories out there about who Jesus was, and very few peg him as a crazy man. But you would be crazy to suggest that camels passing through the eyes of sewing needles makes a lick of sense.

According to Jesus, it would be absolutely impossible for a rich man to make to heaven, if that translation stands. While Jesus was a voice of the underclass, I doubt he would suggest that being rich was a sin outright. It's so clearly a mistranslation, it is not even funny. However, since it is also one of the most quoted lines, Biblical scholars are lacking the guts to admit it is a mistranslation, officially.

Especially those who are Christians. They know what changing such a popular line now, after thousands of years, could do. They look the other way, and give the line an "A". But, like I said, feed those scholars a couple of drinks, and they will tell you, the line makes no sense, and doesn't fit in with Jesus' philosophy.

The man hated the rich, certainly. But there is no way he would suggest it was impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. Difficult, sure. But not impossible. A Camel entering the eye of a needle is impossible; a thick cord being threaded is difficult. It seems obvious to me that it is a mistranslation.

hezekiah jones

Being told that Genesis was "written" before 1400 BCE isn't a rip-off? From amazon.com:

Cutting edge!?! I want my "!!!!!Extreme Teen Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel!!!!!" (sans the "funky purple print," of course). From the Preface: "Yo Dawgs! Shout out da props to da main man,
J-Diddy Wellhausen!"

Yes, it's a birthright. Why do you think the Elohim Brothers invented Gentiles? Someone's got to pay retail.

That's not the "same Bible." That's the softcover. I need my Bible to withstand the ravages of at least 3401 years of Hebrew history. Anyway, your link says $15.99. That one (ISBN 0785200827) is only $12.99 <a href="http://www.2hq.com/store.asp?n=29|21|160|69&i=494003&p=" target="_blank">here</a>.

Or the best scholarship, for that matter.

&lt;code&gt;

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Muad'Dib

It is not clear to me that passing a rope through the eye of a needle is any more possible than fitting a camel through, but I think the point of the passage is in the very next verses.

Mt 19:25-6, NRSV, emphasis mine:

Mk 10:26-7 and Lk 18:26-7 read similarly. Jesus says it is impossible for rich mortals to save themselves, but God can do anything in that regard. It seems to me that the camel imagery fits perfectly.

Given that these same Biblical scholars also reject the Johannine Comma (one of the most obvious trinitarian references) as authentic, this is hardly convincing.

Further, given our best manuscript evidence, it is not a mistranslation from Greek. Now, if the Greek has somehow abused some original Aramaic message, that would be more of a transmission problem than a translation problem.

I find it hard to believe that you have done this with every Biblical scholar, or even the majority of them.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]</p>

Pantera

I'd heard that the passage may have referred to a narrow gate in the walls of Jerusalem known as "The Eye Of The Needle", which a fully laden camel would be unable to get through. To enter the city, the camel would have to be unladen, just as the rich man would have to give away all his posessions to enter heaven. While this explaination would make sense, a quick search uncovers that there is actually no evidence for the existence of such a gate before a 9th Century commentary, so such an interpretation must be regarded as highly speculative at best.

The idea that the saying originally referred to a rope rather than a camel through the eye of a needle is certainly an attractive idea. After all, nobody would ever try to fit a camel (even a small one) through the eye of a needle. The rope image at least makes sense, while maintaning the point that rich people can't go to heaven. However, as has been pointed out, the manuscript evidence for such a reading is scanty - and as the phrase is the same in Matthew and Luke (who copied from Mark) it is extremely likely that the original edition of Mark referred to a camel. It is possible of course that the saying did originally refer to a rope and the mistake had already been made by the time it found its way to Mark, but that is also speculative.

The saying may simply refer to a camel because it was the largest animal commonly seen in Palestine at the time - so was simply a juxtaposition of something suitably enormous and something suitably tiny, to stress just how hard it was for a rich fellow to enetr the kingdom of God.

A couple of the links I found

<a href="http://www.wnetc.com/scripture-l/Footnotes/Footnotes2.html" target="_blank">http://www.wnetc.com/scripture-l/Footnotes/Footnotes2.html</a>

<a href="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrichman.html" target="_blank">http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrichman.html</a>

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Haran

Wow! Great posts Muad'Dib and Pantera! I'm not sure there's much left for me to say. I'm not familiar with either the "Straight Dope" or Kevin Barney, but they both state fact.

Perhaps it is my somewhat abstract mode of thought, but this particular figure of speech has never bothered me. I don't think that using the ill-attested variant "rope" would make much more sense. After all, the type of rope intended still would not fit through the eye of a needle.

Finally, it seems that Jesus was using a relatively common Jewish proverb. As mentioned on the websites provided by Pantera, Rabbinic literature uses a similar phrase. To be more specific, in the <a href="http://www1.snunit.k12.il/kodesh/bavli/brcu055b.html" target="_blank">Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berakot 55b</a> (hopefully I got that link right ), there is a phrase that says something about a man not even in his dreams seeing an elephant pass through the eye of a needle. There is another similar usage in <a href="http://www1.snunit.k12.il/kodesh/bavli/bbam03.html" target="_blank">Babha Metsia, tractate 38b</a>.

Sorry those links are in Hebrew. Unfortunately, I'd mangle any real translation of them. Perhaps there is someone here who could better translate them into English? If not, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it...

Thanks,
Haran