Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 07-09-2013, 09:55 AM

Quote:

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.

Yes but - as usual - you take ONE reasonable observation (i.e. the fact that the passage was taken literally) and make an absurd leap to the conclusion that it must be satire. The Acts of Peter and Andrew cannot be classified as 'satire.' Jeffrey had this discussion with you months ago and you demonstrated you don't know anything about ancient forms of satire so please read a book on the subject. This is not satire.

stephan huller · 07-09-2013, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Did Jesus say camel instead of elephant?

Since the Christian saying is witnessed as early as the second century and the Jewish saying is much later it would stand to reason that the elephant reference is based on the gospel saying. There is no evidence to suggest that this was a common figure in antiquity before the saying in the gospel.

stephan huller · 07-09-2013, 09:59 AM

Here is the saying in Celsus as testified by Origen

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 leads 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.[Contra Celsum 6.16]

stephan huller · 07-09-2013, 10:01 AM

What I am wondering is whether "it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches" makes more sense if Celsus knew the camel or the rope saying. For, when you think about it, the camel saying says in effect - a rich man can't get into heaven. Plato doesn't seem to say that. The rope saying effectively says 'thin' the rope and the rope can thread the needle - more of a statement of ascetic logic. Thin rope = thread.

stephan huller · 07-09-2013, 10:05 AM

Here is the section from the Laws Book 5:

Quote:

The intention, as we affirm, of a reasonable statesman, is not what the many declare to be the object of a good legislator, namely, that the state for the true interests of which he is advising should be as great and as rich as possible, and should possess gold and silver, and have the greatest empire by sea and land;-this they imagine to be the real object of legislation, at the same time adding, inconsistently, that the true legislator desires to have the city the best and happiest possible. But they do not see that some of these things are possible, and some of them are impossible; and he who orders the state will desire what is possible, and will not indulge in vain wishes or attempts to accomplish that which is impossible. The citizen must indeed be happy and good, and the legislator will seek to make him so; but very rich and very good at the same time he cannot be, not, at least, in the sense in which the many speak of riches. For they mean by "the rich" the few who have the most valuable possessions, although the owner of them may quite well be a rogue. And if this is true, I can never assent to the doctrine that the rich man will be happy-he must be good as well as rich. And good in a high degree, and rich in a high degree at the same time, he cannot be. Some one will ask, why not? And we shall answer-Because acquisitions which come from sources which are just and unjust indifferently, are more than double those which come from just sources only; and the sums which are expended neither honourably nor disgracefully, are only half as great as those which are expended honourably and on honourable purposes. Thus, if the one acquires double and spends half, the other who is in the opposite case and is a good man cannot possibly be wealthier than he. The first-I am speaking of the saver and not of the spender-is not always bad; he may indeed in some cases be utterly bad, but, as I was saying, a good man he never is. For he who receives money unjustly as well as justly, and spends neither nor unjustly, will be a rich man if he be also thrifty. On the other hand, the utterly bad is in general profligate, and therefore very poor; while he who spends on noble objects, and acquires wealth by just means only, can hardly be remarkable for riches, any more than he can be very poor. Our statement, then, is true, that the very rich are not good, and, if they are not good, they are not happy. But the intention of our laws was that the citizens should be as happy as may be, and as friendly as possible to one another. And men who are always at law with one another, and amongst whom there are many wrongs done, can never be friends to one another, but only those among whom crimes and lawsuits are few and slight. Therefore we say that gold and silver ought not to be allowed in the city, nor much of the vulgar sort of trade which is carried on by lending money, or rearing the meaner kinds of live stock; but only the produce of agriculture, and only so much of this as will not compel us in pursuing it to neglect that for the sake of which riches exist-I mean, soul and body, which without gymnastics, and without education, will never be worth anything; and therefore, as we have said not once but many times, the care of riches should have the last place in our thoughts. For there are in all three things about which every man has an interest; and the interest about money, when rightly regarded, is the third and lowest of them: midway comes the interest of the body; and, first of all, that of the soul; and the state which we are describing will have been rightly constituted if it ordains honours according to this scale. But if, in any of the laws which have been ordained, health has been preferred to temperance, or wealth to health and temperate habits, that law must clearly be wrong. Wherefore, also, the legislator ought often to impress upon himself the question-"What do I want?" and "Do I attain my aim, or do I miss the mark?" In this way, and in this way only, he ma acquit himself and free others from the work of legislation.

stephan huller · 07-09-2013, 10:08 AM

I am not sure that Celsus actually read 'camel' rather than 'rope.' Origen's text was rewritten in Caesarea (see Book One). It may have been rewritten many times.

stephan huller · 07-09-2013, 10:30 AM

There this too -

Quote:

On the other hand, Theophylact and Origen understand the phrase of a cable, as does Phavorinus, who says that kamelos is a cable; and see Alberti Gloss.

mountainman · 07-09-2013, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

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.

Yes but - as usual - you take ONE reasonable observation (i.e. the fact that the passage was taken literally) and make an absurd leap to the conclusion that it must be satire.

Well allow me to withdraw the additional claim of satire (which was not really required in the OP) and stay with the basic claim that the literalist interpretation is evidenced in antiquity.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller · 07-09-2013, 11:33 PM

People have argued that the 'camel' reference 'makes more sense' because - basically - they like Jesus to say that a rich man is prohibited from partaking of the afterlife. The best and worst argument for it is perhaps the fact that Clement seems to witness this saying repeatedly in QDS:

Quote:

Perhaps the reason of salvation appearing more difficult to the rich than to poor men, is not single but manifold. For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, "that 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 heaven," despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God. But others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching slight importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the requisite preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope. And I affirm both of these things of the rich who have learned both the Saviour's power and His glorious salvation. With those who are ignorant of the truth I have little concern. [2]

Quote:

But if not, "sooner shall a camel enter through a needle's eye, than such a rich man reach the kingdom of God." Let then the camel, going through a narrow and strait way before the rich man, signify something loftier; which mystery of the Saviour is to be learned in the "Exposition of first Principles and of Theology." Well, first let the point of the parable, which is evident, and the reason why it is spoken, be presented. Let it teach the prosperous that they are not to neglect their own salvation, as if they had been already fore-doomed, nor, on the other hand, to cast wealth into the sea, or condemn it as a traitor and an enemy to life, but learn in what way and how to use wealth and obtain life. For since neither does one perish by any means by fearing because he is rich, nor is by any means saved by trusting and believing that he shall be saved, come let them look what hope the Saviour assigns them, and how what is unexpected may become ratified, and what is hoped for may come into possession. [26 -27]

It should be noted though that Clement does not believe that the rich are prohibited from the kingdom of God (= they must "learn in what way and how to use wealth and obtain life". So a problem arises. How could 'camel' be the right noun?

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

07-09-2013, 10:01 AM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	What I am wondering is whether "it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches" makes more sense if Celsus knew the camel or the rope saying. For, when you think about it, the camel saying says in effect - a rich man can't get into heaven. Plato doesn't seem to say that. The rope saying effectively says 'thin' the rope and the rope can thread the needle - more of a statement of ascetic logic. Thin rope = thread.

07-09-2013, 10:08 AM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am not sure that Celsus actually read 'camel' rather than 'rope.' Origen's text was rewritten in Caesarea (see Book One). It may have been rewritten many times.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.