Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 06-26-2013, 10:57 PM

25. easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. A hyperbolic comparison sums up the matter; again Jesus uses a grotesque figure. See 6:41–42; cf. Matt 23:24. The largest of Palestinian animals is compared with the tiniest of commonly known openings. Both “camel” and “eye of a needle” are to be understood literally. See O. Michel, TDNT 3. 592–594; S. Pedersen, EWNT 2. 609–611. In its own way, the comparison makes the same point as Jesus’ saying about the “narrow door” (13:24).

To avoid the grotesque in the comparison, some commentators have suggested other explanations of the saying—both of them improbable: (1) Some would understand the “eye of a needle” as the name for a small entrance in a city wall through which a camel might squeeze only with the greatest difficulty. See G. Aicher, Kamel und Nadelöhr, 16–21, for a list of those who have proposed such an explanation. Plausible as it might seem, no one knows of the existence of such a named tiny entrance. (2) Ever since the patristic period others have suggested that kámēlos, which in Roman and Byzantine times would have been pronounced káh-mee-los (by itacism, according to which an ēta was pronounced as an iōta), should be understood as kámilos, which means “rope, hawser, ship’s cable.” Indeed, a few mss., undoubtedly affected by this interpretation, even read kamilon (S, f13, 1010, etc.). This explanation was used by Origen, Catena, frgs. in Matt. 19.24 (GCS 41.166); Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. in Matt. 19.24 (PG 72.429D); Theophylact, Enarr. in Matt. 19 (PG 123.356D). See further J. Denk, “Camelus: 1. Kamel, 2. Schiffstau,” ZNW 5 (1904) 256–257; “Suum cuique,” BZ 3 (1905) 367; F. Herklotz, “Miszelle zu Mt 19,24 und Parall.,” BZ 2 (1904) 176–177; “Nachtrag,” BZ 3 (1905) 39. Again, plausible as it might seem, it takes something off the edge of Jesus’ words. Note that the rabbinic saying about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle (Str-B 1. 828) dates from the fourth century and may well be dependent on this gospel saying.

Fitzmyer, J. A., S.J. (2008). The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV: Introduction, translation, and notes (1204). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Tubby Lardmore · 06-26-2013, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

To avoid the grotesque in the comparison, some commentators have suggested other explanations of the saying—both of them improbable: (1) Some would understand the “eye of a needle” as the name for a small entrance in a city wall through which a camel might squeeze only with the greatest difficulty.

Years back I heard (wealthy?) radio preacher John Hagee say it was obvious that scripture was referring to a Jerusalem gate called Eye of the Needle.

I believe Rev. Hagee considers himself an inerrantist, so it is a bit odd that he feels free to change the article from "a" to "the."

Be that as it may, I have heard others on Christian broadcasts say that while there was such a gate in Jerusalem, the timing of its existence was not compatible with it being what that passage was talking about.

This probably does not answer your question, though. :redface:

mountainman · 06-29-2013, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

To avoid the grotesque in the comparison, some commentators have suggested other explanations of the saying—both of them improbable: (1) (2) ....

The silver bullet argument against these alternatives is the existence of the The Acts of Peter and Andrew

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.R. James-Translation and Notes - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

13 There was a rich man named Onesiphorus who said: If I believe, shall I be able to do wonders Andrew said: Yes, if you forsake your wife and all your possessions. He was angry and put his garment about Andrew's neck and began to beat him, saying: You are a wizard, why should I do so

14 Peter saw it and told him to leave off. He said: I see you are wiser than he. What do you say 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.

15 Peter was troubled and stood and prayed: Lord, help us at this hour, for thou hast entrapped us by thy words.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A thousand souls and Onesiphorus were baptised not because of the Jesus Story or the Jesus religion
but because they all wanted the power to be able to pass a camel through the eye of a needle.

HA HA HA HA HA !!!!

What a joke on Christianity.

Long live the author of this story - Leucius Charinus !!!

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

steve_bnk · 06-29-2013, 09:10 PM

Why do the secular literalists seem unable to see metaphor in the NT even if the supernatural aspects do not exist, nor an HJ?

Finding spiritual happiness through wealth is like trying to fit a camel through the eye of a needle.

Today one of the clichés is something like 'money can not buy you happiness'.

If I said something like 'You can't take it with you when you die' there are some who would launch on aas to what 'it' means.

Or the life metaphors in Aesop's fables.

James makes a metaphor to the rich and flowers.

http://biblehub.com/james/1-10.htm

'..and the rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away...'

And the context of the story and times. JC in the tale takes in tow a group probably illiterate poor fisherman.

He was not preaching a modern material success gospel to the Jews at the top, he was preaching a reward for suffering in eternity to the poor if one but believes.

mountainman · 07-08-2013, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Why do the secular literalists seem unable to see metaphor in the NT even if the supernatural aspects do not exist, nor an HJ?

Finding spiritual happiness through wealth is like trying to fit a camel through the eye of a needle.

The citation I gave in the above post to The Acts of Peter and Andrew (M.R. James-Translation) indicates that the gnostic were satirizing (or at least poking fun at) the spiritual happiness that was supposedly encapsulated in the metaphor of having a camel go through the eye of a needle (and back again).

The idea presented in the Acts of Peter and Andrew is that the thousand souls and Onesiphorus were baptised not because of the Jesus Story or the Jesus religion or because they wanted spiritual happiness but because they all wanted the power to be able to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. The text makes this quite clear.

When a group of people take over an empire and want to conform that empire to some ideology or in this case, a HOLY WRIT, there will always be those people who oppose the agenda.

Spiritual happiness is not to be found in a holy writ but inside of people.

Huller's OP Was 'Camel Through the Eye of a Needle' an Third Century Reaction Against Itacism? may be firmly answered in the negative as a direct result of the text of the Acts of Peter and Andrew.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller · 07-08-2013, 11:16 PM

Quote:

The citation I gave in the above post to The Acts of Peter and Andrew (M.R. James-Translation) indicates that the gnostic were satirizing (or at least poking fun at) the spiritual happiness that was supposedly encapsulated in the metaphor of having a camel go through the eye of a needle (and back again).

That is the worst possible explanation of the material.

mountainman · 07-08-2013, 11:45 PM

More unsupported assertions without any hint of reason or explanation. Were you even aware of the use of the 'Camel Through the Eye of a Needle' in these non canonical acts? Probably not.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller · 07-09-2013, 12:52 AM

Actually I was aware of the story but I don't see its relevance. More significant is the fact that Celsus (c. 178 CE) identified the parable as being taken directly from Plato, that Jesus had distorted the Platonic sentence: 'It is impossible for an outstandingly good person to be outstandingly rich at the same time' (Origen, Contra Cels. 6.16).

mountainman · 07-09-2013, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Actually I was aware of the story but I don't see its relevance.

The relevance (as I see it) is that the OP suggests that the literal understanding of "camel through the eye of a needle" might be explained alternatively by (1) the needle was a small part of a city gate, or (2) itacism, where the kámēlos should be understood as kámilos, which means “rope, hawser, ship’s cable.”

The relevance IMO of the Acts of Peter and Andrew is that this very early non canonical text deals very explicitly with the literal understanding of passing the camel through the eye of a needle (and back again). Therefore those commentators who wish to explain this by means of (1) or (2) above either need to further explain why the author of the Acts of Peter and Andrew took the phrase completely literally, or to ignore this textual evidence completely.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Iskander · 07-09-2013, 09:14 AM

The Talmud uses the expression “an elephant going through the eye of a needle" twice.

In bar 55b, it is used to mean that a man would never thinks such things. In Matthew it could mean that a wealthy person would not think of salvation for some reason

In b b metz 38 b, it is used as meaning someone is very subtle. In Matthew it could mean that it would be very difficult to explain the acquisition of wealth and its use.

There is nothing odd about the expression used in Matthew 10:24 if the listener happens to be a Judean friend of Jesus. Did Jesus say camel instead of elephant? Or was he deliberately made more plausible by a helpful Greek reporter?

Long live big fat elephants and banish the small underfed camel , say all of us.

Quote:

This is proved by the fact that a man is never shown in a dream a date palm of gold, or an elephant going through the eye of a needle.39
(39) Because he never thinks of such things.
B.bar 55b

Perhaps you are from Pumbeditha, he retorted, where they draw an
elephant through the eye of a needle.25
(25) The scholars of the Pumbeditha academy were extremely subtle
B b metz 38b

06-26-2013, 10:57 PM	#1
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Was 'Camel Through the Eye of a Needle' an Third Century Reaction Against Itacism? 25. easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. A hyperbolic comparison sums up the matter; again Jesus uses a grotesque figure. See 6:41–42; cf. Matt 23:24. The largest of Palestinian animals is compared with the tiniest of commonly known openings. Both “camel” and “eye of a needle” are to be understood literally. See O. Michel, TDNT 3. 592–594; S. Pedersen, EWNT 2. 609–611. In its own way, the comparison makes the same point as Jesus’ saying about the “narrow door” (13:24). To avoid the grotesque in the comparison, some commentators have suggested other explanations of the saying—both of them improbable: (1) Some would understand the “eye of a needle” as the name for a small entrance in a city wall through which a camel might squeeze only with the greatest difficulty. See G. Aicher, Kamel und Nadelöhr, 16–21, for a list of those who have proposed such an explanation. Plausible as it might seem, no one knows of the existence of such a named tiny entrance. (2) Ever since the patristic period others have suggested that kámēlos, which in Roman and Byzantine times would have been pronounced káh-mee-los (by itacism, according to which an ēta was pronounced as an iōta), should be understood as kámilos, which means “rope, hawser, ship’s cable.” Indeed, a few mss., undoubtedly affected by this interpretation, even read kamilon (S, f13, 1010, etc.). This explanation was used by Origen, Catena, frgs. in Matt. 19.24 (GCS 41.166); Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. in Matt. 19.24 (PG 72.429D); Theophylact, Enarr. in Matt. 19 (PG 123.356D). See further J. Denk, “Camelus: 1. Kamel, 2. Schiffstau,” ZNW 5 (1904) 256–257; “Suum cuique,” BZ 3 (1905) 367; F. Herklotz, “Miszelle zu Mt 19,24 und Parall.,” BZ 2 (1904) 176–177; “Nachtrag,” BZ 3 (1905) 39. Again, plausible as it might seem, it takes something off the edge of Jesus’ words. Note that the rabbinic saying about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle (Str-B 1. 828) dates from the fourth century and may well be dependent on this gospel saying. Fitzmyer, J. A., S.J. (2008). The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV: Introduction, translation, and notes (1204). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

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

06-29-2013, 09:10 PM	#4
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	Why do the secular literalists seem unable to see metaphor in the NT even if the supernatural aspects do not exist, nor an HJ? Finding spiritual happiness through wealth is like trying to fit a camel through the eye of a needle. Today one of the clichés is something like 'money can not buy you happiness'. If I said something like 'You can't take it with you when you die' there are some who would launch on aas to what 'it' means. Or the life metaphors in Aesop's fables. James makes a metaphor to the rich and flowers. http://biblehub.com/james/1-10.htm '..and the rich man is to glory in his humiliation, because like flowering grass he will pass away...' And the context of the story and times. JC in the tale takes in tow a group probably illiterate poor fisherman. He was not preaching a modern material success gospel to the Jews at the top, he was preaching a reward for suffering in eternity to the poor if one but believes.

07-08-2013, 11:45 PM	#7
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	More unsupported assertions without any hint of reason or explanation. Were you even aware of the use of the 'Camel Through the Eye of a Needle' in these non canonical acts? Probably not. εὐδαιμονία \| eudaimonia

07-09-2013, 12:52 AM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Actually I was aware of the story but I don't see its relevance. More significant is the fact that Celsus (c. 178 CE) identified the parable as being taken directly from Plato, that Jesus had distorted the Platonic sentence: 'It is impossible for an outstandingly good person to be outstandingly rich at the same time' (Origen, Contra Cels. 6.16).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.