[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #549
b-greek-digest Friday, 20 January 1995 Volume 01 : Number 549
In this issue:
camel/rope
Re: eph. 2:8-9
Re: eph. 2:8-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:46:26 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: camel/rope
I did successfully locate the December 1992 thread on this topic. I think
it is worth the "re-broadcast" as there is some nice wit and interesting
reflection in it.
Text of December 1992 thread:
- -----------------------------
======================================
Received: id 5362; Thu, 10 Dec 92 08:25:59 CST
Message-Id: <10DEC92.09696439.0062.MUSIC@LAFAYACS>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 08:58:41 EDT
From: "Holton, Jeffrey Boris 'Baboo'"
<HJ46%LAFAYACS.bitnet@lafibm.lafayette.edu>
To: nt-greek@Virginia.EDU
Subject: kamelios vs. kamilios
Fellow scholars,
Does anyone know anything about the kamelios/kamilios
question in translating Matthew 19:24. It makes more sense
to assume he meant "rope," but corruption of the text is a
little hard for me to swallow.
Any of you have any insight into this?
- --Jeffrey Boris Holton
hj46@lafayacs.bitnet (or...)
hj46%lafayacs.bitnet@lafibm.lafayette.edu
===================================
Received: id 7854; Thu, 10 Dec 92 11:25:51 CST
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 09:12:15 -0700
Message-Id: <00964DF3A5A14640.0000276F@Augustana.AB.CA>
From: "Sterling G. Bjorndahl" <bjorndahl@augustana.ab.ca>
Subject: Re: Kamelios vs. kamilios
To: nt-greek@Virginia.EDU
X-VMS-Mail-To: UU%"nt-greek@Virginia.EDU"
> Does anyone know anything about the kamelios/kamilios
question in translating Matthew 19:24. It makes more sense
to assume he meant "rope," but corruption of the text is a
little hard for me to swallow.
> Any of you have any insight into this? --Jeffrey Boris
Holton
>
> hj46@lafayacs.bitnet (or...)
> hj46%lafayacs.bitnet@lafibm.lafayette.edu
It could well be a deliberate pun on someone's part
somewhere in the oral or written tradition.
Or it could be intentional. [On a less serious note:] After
all, how do you get a camel through the eye of a needle? By
first putting it through a meat grinder (or food processor)
and straining it through the needle bit by bit. How's that
for a starting point for a fire-and-brimstone sermon on the
evils of wealth? ;-)
I apologize if I have offended any animal rights people.
- --
Sterling G. Bjorndahl, bjorndahl@Augustana.AB.CA or
bjorndahl@camrose.uucp
Augustana University College, Camrose, Alberta, Canada
(403) 679-1516
===================================
Received: id 9074; Thu, 10 Dec 92 12:41:50 CST
From: wilm@legacy.calvin.edu
Date: 10 Dec 1992 13:11:28 EST
Subject: Re: Kamelios vs. kamilios
Sterling Bjorndahl notes: >...Or it could be intentional.
[On a less serious note:] After all, how do you get a camel
through the eye of a needle? By first putting it through a
meat grinder (or food processor) and straining it through
the needle bit by bit. How's that for a starting point for
a fire-and-brimstone sermon on the evils of wealth? ;-)
> >I apologize if I have offended any animal rights people.
I seem to recall G.K. Chesterton dealing with this passage
in exactly the same way. Where might that have been?
_Orthodoxy_? (Sorry, but I'm at work, and I must keep the
temptations posed by Chesterton et al. safely at home!)
MW
===
Mark F. Williams Internet:
WILM@calvin.edu
Classical Languages Voice: (616)
957-6293
Calvin College FAX:
(616) 957-8551
Grand Rapids, Michigan
USA 49546
===================================
Received: id 6088; Thu, 10 Dec 92 23:30:36 CST
Date: 10 Dec 1992 21:11:49 -0500 (EST)
From: B <CORYBRUW@udavxb.oca.udayton.edu>
Subject: Kamelios vs. kamilios
Concerning the question that Jeffery Boris Holton poses
about the passage in Matthew 19:24, I would like to shed
some information that I have heard. Most major cities of
the time period were often surrounded by a high wall and
contained openings through which traffic could move. During
the night, these passages would be closed up, except for one
passage that was very narrow and low. This passage remained
open for late arriving travelers to enter. The passage was
narrow so that an invading army would have to enter single
file, being easy to kill as they entered. Late arriving
travelers with significant "wealth" and riding on camels
would often find it difficult, if not impossible, to enter
the city. They would either leave their baggage outside the
city, or unpack it and carry it in. (The gate being to low
for the camel and the baggage to pass through at the same
time.) These gates were often called "eyes of the needle"
due to their small size. This could be what the Matthean
author meant when this passage was used. Incidently, this
also fits in with the surrounding narrative. This passage
deals with the accumulation of wealth. A person wishing to
pass into eternal life must divest his or herself of the
"excess baggage" or wealth in order to enter into the narrow
gate.
Bruce William Cory
===================================
Received: id 6427; Fri, 11 Dec 92 00:38:24 CST
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 23:05:08 -0700
Message-Id: <00964E68003A8980.00002F95@Augustana.AB.CA>
From: "Sterling G. Bjorndahl" <bjorndahl@augustana.ab.ca>
Subject: city gates
> Concerning the question that Jeffery Boris Holton poses
about the
> passage in Matthew 19:24, I would like to shed some
information that I have
> heard. ... to enter into the narrow gate. > Bruce William
Cory
I think it might be helpful to readers wanting to follow up
on this topic if we could have some sources or references
for this kind of information. To what extent is this
verified by archeology? Do we have ancient authors who tell
us about this practice? In what part of the ancient near
east or ancient mediterranean did they do this? You get the
picture. Bruce, can you point us to some concrete evidence
for this?
To put it more boldly, I think that if you look into
reliable commentaries, you will find that this theory cannot
really be supported by solid evidence. It lives on only
because of the dis-ease that many comfortable scholars feel
when confronted by the radical statement. That way you only
need to get rid of your excess baggage before "entering the
gate," rather than being turned into camelburger first.
By the way, for those of you who know about the Jesus
Seminar: Mark 10:25 ended up "pink" and Mark 10:27 ended up
"black." This is not surprising; it agrees with a widely
held critical scholarly opinion that the camel -> needle
saying may well go back to Jesus, but the appendix
"everything is possible for God" is a later addition
stemming from that dis-ease I mentioned above.
- --
Sterling G. Bjorndahl, bjorndahl@Augustana.AB.CA or
bjorndahl@camrose.uucp
Augustana University College, Camrose, Alberta, Canada
(403) 679-1516
===================================
Received: frid 2897; Fri, 11 Dec 92 12:41:16 CST
From: Robert Low <mtx014@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 14:05:14 GMT
Message-Id: <28898.9212111405@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: city gates
Re stuff mailed by Bruce Cory (I think, sorry if I've
goofed), about the "narrow gate" = "camel's eye"
interpretation,
Sterling Bjorndahl writes... >I think it might be helpful to
readers wanting to follow up on this topic if we could have
some sources or references for this kind of information."
I looked at this once, a while back. As far as I could find
out, the "narrow gate" idea was cooked up in the middle ages
by a commentator seeking to explain the saying. (I think I
found a decent reference to this in The Intepreter's Bible,
but my memory is a bit fuzzy...) The "rope" as an
alternative for "camel" reading is supported (weakly) by
textual evidence, but it's hard to understand why a
miscopying would go in the direction of a
harder-to-understand passage---i.e. one would expect that
the "camel" reading disappeared in favour of the "rope" one,
rather than vice-versa. It seems more likely that the "rope"
reading is a dictation error (since the two were pronounced
identically in the first century).
Finally, one might also note that there are Talmudic
references to something being as difficult as passing an
elephant/camel through the eye of a needle, providing fairly
good evidence that some such saying was a proverbial way of
denoting impossibility. The New Jerome Commentary has some
discussion of this (at least, I think that was where I saw
it).
In summary, I could find few commentaries that went for
either the "rope" theory (though Calvin thought it a strong
possibility), or the "gate" one (though amongst my more
evangelical friends, it is a very popular explanation);
indeed most of the commentaries I looked in that mentioned
the gate idea at all were pretty dismissive of it.
Sorry I don't have more detailed references, but I don't
keep that sort of stuff in my office.
- ---
Robert Low email(JANET): RobLow@uk.ac.coventry.cck
smail : Mathematics Department, Coventry University,
Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, England.
Keep an open mind---but not so open your brain falls out.
===================================
Received: id 4220; Fri, 11 Dec 92 14:17:14 CST
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 14:33:04 EST
From: "Joseph P. Riolo" <riolo@cor4.pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: camels and needles
Message-ID: <9212111433.aa20715@COR4.PICA.ARMY.MIL>
In spite of the fact that I am not an expert or scholar
on any of fields relating to writings, I do love to read any
that comes on this list, in additional to other lists. I
have been reading posts about the camel and rope, which
intrigue me, but I do not see anyone mentioning about the
other translations of the writings before 400 CE (or around
that). Does that mean that other translations do not have
any value in clearing up some difficult passages in Greek
writings like camel and rope? For example, will Peshitta
shed any light on this passage? I know that this list
focuses on Greek New Testament but after seeing four or more
posts without any reference to non-Greek manuscripts, I am a
little puzzled because I think that comparing with other
translations often help in many ways. Well, any comment
will be appreciated.
Joseph P. Riolo
<riolo@pica.army.mil>
===================================
Received: id 3300; Fri, 11 Dec 92 13:10:53 CST
Message-Id: <9212111839.AA04382@Calvin.EDU>
Subject: camels and needles
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 13:39:12 EST
Cc: weve@ursa.calvin.edu
On the matter of camels and the eyes of needles--I wrote an
article about this the similar passage in Mark (which has
the same difficulties, but some extra information Matthew
omitted) for a local educator's journal. It was a special
Christmas edition on the general topic of giving.
I examine several Greek words, especially -dyskolon- (used
in all three gospel accounts, and nowhere else in the New
Testament) but also a few other words-- -stugnasas-,
- -lupoumenoj-, -eukopwteron-. The character of camels also
enters into the picture, though my knowledge of camels is at
best 3rd or 4th hand.
I do not have access to a scanner to distribute the article
on the netword, but I could xerox the two pages and send it
by surface mail to a few who may be interested.
Richard F. Wevers (616) 957-6294
Dept. of Classics
Calvin College weve@ursa.calvin.edu
===================================
Received: id 4214; Fri, 11 Dec 92 14:17:12 CST
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 11:30:04 PST
From: John_Maxwell.PARC@xerox.com
Subject: Re: city gates
In-Reply-to: "mtx014@cck.coventry.ac:uk:Xerox's message of
Fri, 11 Dec 1992 06:05:14 PST"
I think that the disciple's response makes the city gates
interpretation unlikely:
"And when the disciples heard this, they were very
astonished and said, 'Then who can be saved?' "
It is clear that the disciples did not interpret Jesus'
saying as referring to city gates, for otherwise there was
no reason to be astonished or to question if anyone could be
saved. (I have heard that the last comes from an assumption
common at that time that if anyone could be saved, it would
be the rich, since they had time to study the Scriptures and
riches were considered a mark of God's blessing.) One
possibility is that Jesus intended to refer to city gates,
but that the disciples misunderstood him. However, this
doesn't seem likely, since Jesus doesn't correct their
misunderstanding with his next statement:
"And looking upon them Jesus said to them, 'With men this is
impossible, but with God all things are possible.' "
I tend to agree with Sterling Bjorndahl that this passage
gets reinterpreted because of people's dis-ease people feel
at Jesus' radical statement, not only at the difficulty of
rich men entering the kingdom of heaven but of *any* man
entering the kingdom of heaven. This is supported by other
statements that Jesus makes, such as Matthew 5:20 ("unless
your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and
Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven"), John
3:3 ("unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God"), and Matthew 18:3 ("unless you are converted and
become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of
heaven").
Cheers,
John.
- -------------------------------------
end of December 1992 thread
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Bill Kelley <bkelley@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 19:47:23 -0800
Subject: Re: eph. 2:8-9
on Thursday, 19 Jan 1995 Travis Bauer quoted and wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Bill Kelley wrote:
>
>> A lot of ink as been spilled over the phrase "through faith, and that not
>> of yourselves... ."
>> Is there any compelling reason why this phrase can't be translated "through
>> faithfulness... ? Any comments appreciated
>>
>>
>
>Before looking at the Greek text, I'm wondering if we could
>define your proposed English translations, so we agree on what the
>difference between faith and faithfullness is.
>
(text deleted)
>
>Assuming the distinctions between the terms made so far, I'd like to
>propose that faithfulness is not an appropriate translation because of
>the phrase immediately following, "that no one may boast." If I am
>faithful, that is, have generated my own reliability, I would have a
>reason to boast.
>
>
> Travis Bauer
> Jamestown College
>
I tend to agree with your defintions, Travis. My question is whether or not
this phrase
could be speaking of the faithfulness/reliability of God to us ( or Christ,
to God; see Ken Litwak post of 19 Jan 1995). This would then make sense of
the following phrase "so that no one may boast", since the faithfulness is
not ours, but God's.
Bill Kelley
Salem Bible College
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 21:03:30 PST
Subject: Re: eph. 2:8-9
Carl,
(Not quoting for UNIX reasons :-) ) I am aware of arguments for the
subjective genitive. Thanks for the reference. The point of the article
is that the early Fathers, native Greek readers and writers, _never_
understtod the phrase or similar phrases as subjective genitives but
always as objective, in the cases where we can tell what they thought it
was, as opposed to when they quoted it and said nothing to give us an
indication of their thought. That's not absolute proff, but I think it is
significant and any serious case for the subjective genitive needs
to adeuately explain it I think.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #549
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu