Of camels and ropes, eyes and needles…
My characteristically spotty effort at wit in a headline below on needle exchanges is a good excuse to point to a biblical translation issue that may be well known to many here but which was new to me, and one of those quirks I always find intriguing. Brad Miner at The Catholic Thing was writing about Zeffirelli’s “Jesus of Nazareth” and the screenwriter, Anthony Burgess, whose knowledge of scripture was pretty impressive:
Anyway, it was in reading Burgess on the subject of his adventures with Zeffirelli that I first became aware of the camel-rope controversy of Matthew 19:23-25. That’s the story of the young man who asks to follow the Jesus. Our Lord bluntly responds that he should liquidate his assets and invest it all in charity. The young man is rich and skulks away. Jesus turns to his disciples: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Now in Greek, the primary language of the Gospel, the word for camel is (depending on how it’s transliterated) kamilon. But Burgess argued (and he is one of many who have) that since the word for rope, kamiilon, is essentially a homophone, the passage actually makes more sense if Jesus is telling his fisherman followers, in whose former trade cords and nets played such a prominent role, to imagine trying to thread a thick, nautical rope through a needle’s eye.
Others argue that the camel, the largest thing around, made for vivid imagery: big beast, tiny opening. Still others say there was once an actual gate in Jerusalem’s wall called Needle’s Eye. Other ancient cities had such narrow, low-lintel passageways designed to be the only ones left open late and requiring travelers to dismount, unburden their camels, and squeeze through. A security measure. But no archaeological evidence exists to indicate that Jerusalem ever had a Needle’s Eye. More than that, there’s support for the “rope” hypothesis in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke most of the time, in which the words for camel and rope are the same: gml. (As in Hebrew, there are no written vowels in Aramaic.)
As Miner asks, does it matter which word or image was used? Probably not. But for me the interest in such things plays up again the perennial fascination in the historical Jesus, and trying to “be there” with his listeners.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:00 am
Shortly after the Council, a Catholic magazine that delighted in publishing satirical pieces pictured a huge stained-glass window, paid for by an immensely wealthy merchant, showing a camel easily skipping through the eye of an enormous needle.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:10 am
David – it also points out the difficult task of liturgical translations and how ridiculous some of these arguments are in terms of latin – which latin translation – latin is a translation from Greek or Aramic, etc.
Sort of depends upon how far you drill down and whose ox is being gored.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:22 am
David: My take on this passage has been to point out the importance of the word “but.” In fact, I sometimes tell people it is the favorite biblical word of wealthy people. You see, after we are told regarding wealthy people getting into heave, or even camels/ropes getting through the eye of a needle, that “it is impossible for humans,” we are then told, “but, for God, all things are possible.” Thus, the force of the claim seems rather reduced as a result of this qualification.
Even more laughable is the initial response of the disciples. After Jesus seems to make such a strong claim about rich people you would assume that his followers would be nodding their heads and going “Yeah!” or “True Dat!” Instead, they ask with amazement, “Then who can be saved?” Makes the disciples sound like a bunch of Wall Street execs rather than humble fisherman.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:25 am
Perhaps it’s a reference to Camel cigarettes.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am
According to the latest edition of the NT Nestle-Aland the word for rope (KAMILOS)is found in a few manuscripts and is reflected in an Armenian translation. One of the difficulties is that the rope word is certainly attested elsewhere only in a Byzantine Lexicon and a note to Aristophanes’ play Wasps. The most common view is that it originated in an easy mistake in the spelling of the word for camel–the relevant vowelpair, eta and iota having become homophones– and was then taken up to explain the Gospel passage. But even with rope we have hyperbole. Compare the passage where Jesus recommends taking the “wooden beam” out of your own eye before removing a splinter from that of someone else.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:47 am
Joe Pettit
Do we know that the disciples were “poor fisherman”? Perhaps they had prosperous businesses. Matthew had been a tax collector. Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee may have been doing quite well as commercial fisherman.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 10:54 am
Joseph Gannon:
Indeed, Peter and Andrew may have been the Starkist of their day, or perhaps the “Mr Peter’s” nonfrozen fish products. At any rate, I still find amusement in their amazement.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:11 am
I heard a homily on the “rope” idea that stuck with me because it allowed for a rich metaphor — the image of a rope being stripped down to its essence. The painful, necessary process of having burdens and obstacles stripped away to make one fit for the narrow opening. But I heard another homily that did something similar with the “narrow gate” idea — you could get your camel through, but only if you dismounted, unburdened, bent low.
Both of those takes presume that the camel/needle metaphor has a deeper meaning than “bizarre combination suggesting impossibility.” The alternative is that Jesus was intentionally using a bizarre metaphor. Someday I’d like to see someone who really knew his stuff explain which is more likely!
As for the disciples’ response — I don’t think their incredulity implies that they identify with the rich man; just that they’ve bought into the idea that the rich are more favored by God and therefore ought to have the best shot at getting into heaven. Jesus spent a lot of time trying to break down that assumption, it seems to me.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:27 am
Mollie:
All right, so be serious and theological about a sacred text. I like your takes, although I still wonder about the way the rich seem to get off the hook at the end.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 11:48 am
I seem to remember Raymond Brown finding parallel images in Jewish midrash texts from the first and second century where authors use “semitic hyperbole” to make a point through the employment of an outrageous image; for example, a elephant passing through the eye of a needle. There are also other examples of Jesus using similar language–”blind guides who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel” in Matthew, etc.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Sorry Joe! Fr. Komonchak is telling jokes, so what’s left for me but to be serious? Fr. Keane — thanks, I forgot about the camel-swallowing bit. I do rather like the idea of Jesus saying something simply preposterous — to get a laugh, maybe!
on February 3rd, 2010 at 2:00 pm
The rich do not get off the hook. The exceptional rich person who spreads the wealth is the exception and with God is able to make it. The Apostles, at that point, understand human greed and ask the right question. The monarchical church has not learned this important lesson. Usually when this comes up it is pointed out how some poor are not good people, as if to counter the lesson of Jesus. The wealthy right and the rich liberal left ignore this lesson.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:36 pm
The most common error I hear in interpretations of this passage (and which has been made several times already in this comment thread) is assuming that Jesus is primarily talking about entry into heaven. Jesus says that it is extremely difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (or in Matthew, the “kingdom of heaven”). In either case “the kingdom” is not synonymous with heaven. The kingdom is God’s reign coming to earth and God’s will being done “on earth as it is in heaven.”
Some might think this is quibbling, but I hold that it is decisively important for understanding most of what Jesus had to say. Most of Jesus’ preaching was devoted to explaining this new reality that he was innaugurating. Jesus insisted that, contrary to what many expected, the kingdom would be hidden (like a treasure buried in a field); it would start small but grow persistently and subversively (like a mustard seed); it would have surprising membership (like a royal wedding banquet attended by beggars and travelers because most of the invited guests decided not to come); evil would continue to exist and grow alongside the kingdom for now (like weeds and wheat growing in the same field). His sermon on the mount detailed how one could live as part of this hidden kingdom. And so on.
I think that generations of interpreting “the kingdom of God” as simply another way of saying “heaven” has distorted our eschatology and our ethics. Too much Christian preaching has been focused on trying to “get us into heaven” rather than on trying to help us live out and embody God’s kingdom now. Recognizing that we live as part of an already innaugurated, but not yet completed, renewal of this world will give us a different outlook and way of life than simply looking at our present life as a series of tests we must pass in order to get our the real reward and our real life.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 3:38 pm
last line should read:
“in order to get to our real reward and real life”
on February 3rd, 2010 at 4:01 pm
So in terms of this passage:
Rather than thinking about this passage as a warning that we need to make sure we give away lots of our wealth before we die (or pray like crazy that God will make it possible for us to enter into heaven despite the fact that we kept most of our wealth), instead we should hear this as a warning about how our wealth already prevents us from participating in and experiencing the life God wishes us to have now. (John’s gospel speaks of this as ‘zoe aionios’, literally “the life of the age [to come]“, but usually translated as “eternal life”. Either way, Jesus makes it clear in John’s gospel that this is not just a future life, but something he wants us to have inside us now.) The life of the kingdom is marked by radical sharing and the breaking down of barriers. It is a return to the complete communion and harmony that originally existed in the world (Gen 1-2) and that was lost through sin. Our wealth keeps us separated from others in so many ways. This is why it is so hard for the rich to participate in the life of the kingdom.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
David,
I have no problem with your corrections. However, I suspect that two of the reasons folks so quickly switch to speaking of heaven are that history has biased the discussion in this way (as you indicate), and the kingdom didn’t come – a rather embarrassing state of affairs for Christians.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 9:39 pm
David Tenney, many thanks for your take on the Kingdom. That’s a keeper, and a thought I’ll ponder for a long while.
on February 3rd, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Joe,
Jesus’ central message was that the kingdom has come, so I presume you are referring to the fact that the kingdom has not yet reached its fullness. I see no embarassment in this fact though. As is said in 2 Peter 3:8, “A day to the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day.” God works on his own schedule.
While we wait and hope in expectation, and creation groans, I think the important thing to remember is that the focus of the Christian life shouldn’t be waiting and groaning. The kingdom is already here; our job is to make it visible.
on February 4th, 2010 at 8:06 am
David:
Do you have a source beyond the gospel of John for the conclusion that “Jesus’ central message was that the kingdom has come”? This move always strikes me as a theological response to the fact that the kingdom did not come as anticipated.
Either that, or what you mean by Kingdom, others (Jews, etc) mean by holiness, righteousness, and justice. What is your understanding of the difference between the kingdom and say Micah 6:8?
on February 4th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Actually, John’s gospel is where the language of “the kingdom” is used the least. (Although, as I said, the concept is there if you understand the term “eternal life” properly.)
All three of the synoptic gospels present the coming of the kingdom of God as the main thrust of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus begins his ministry in the synoptics by announcing the kingdom:
Mk 1:15 > “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!”
Mt 4:17 > “From that time on Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”
Lk 8:1 > After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God.
Lk 17:20-21 > Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is among you.”
As I alluded to in my previous post, most of Jesus’ parables are attempts to explain the nature of the kingdom. Likewise, Jesus explains that his healings, exorcisms, and table fellowship (the most characteristics acts of his public ministry) are signs-acts of the kingdom:
Mt 12:28 > “But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
Lk 10:9 > “Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’” (instructions to disciples)
Lk 13:29 > “People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God.”
on February 4th, 2010 at 9:19 am
David,
Perhaps we are talking past each other. Let me try to clarify. As I see it (and mine is certainly not a unique interpretation), the earliest strand of Christian witness indicate a belief in the imminent coming of the kingdom, and as such provide a strong indication that this is what Jesus himself preached. The kingdom is here understood in very eschatological terms, similar to notions of the Messianic age. It is not a spiritualized kingdom. Some of the kingdom texts you cite above indicate this form of early Christian belief (eg Lk 13:29).
As the kingdom did not arrive and did not arrive, a theological reinterpretation took place that spiritualized the kingdom, made it an internal phenomenon. My earlier question to you had to do with my sense that this move uses kingdom language as if it is something unique, but in practice it never seems to indicate anything other than the experience of God in some form or other. As such, it is not really unique as a religious experience; rather it is something that Jews talk about all the time. So, the thrust of my earlier question remains, What do you take to be distinctive about the experience of the Kingdom?
on February 4th, 2010 at 9:51 am
David Gibson
On the original question here are two considerations from a text-critical perspective. (1) The manuscripts overwhelmingly, whether we consider them quantitatively or qualitatively, support the camel interpretation. (2) It is far more likely that someone would attempt an “improvement” by changing from “camel” to “thick rope” than the other way round. The conclusion that “camel” is the original reading should not be in doubt.
on February 4th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Joe,
It’s good a question. I think the difference here is what one means by the term ‘eschatological’. The general 1st Century Jewish expectation was that the messiah would usher in the reign/kingdom of God which would mean peace, justice and a renewal of the earth. Thus, their eschatology was divided into two: before and after the messiah.
Jesus significantly modifies this eschatology with his preaching. He suggests a three part echatology in which there is an interim period where the kingdom has begun, but has not yet reached its fullness. This is what his parables tried to describe. He made it clear that while the innauguration of the kingdom was beginning with his ministry, its culmination would come only slowly and perhaps be long delayed (cf. the parable of the yeast, the parable of the ten virgins). Some of what he said may suggest that he believed the ultimate culmination might come soon (he clearly urged his followers to be ever vigilant for it), but he also freely admits that he doesn’t know when it is going to happen (Mk 13:32).
This three part eschatology is also clear in Paul. Paul speaks of Jesus as the firstfruits of the coming resurrection (1 Cor 15); the general resurrection won’t be until later, but it has already begun in Jesus. And while the earth clearly hadn’t been restored, he urged his Christians to see themselves as a new creation because of their baptism. And while Paul seems to be of the mind that the final age will come soon, all of his writings are marked by the eschatological tension of the inbetween times (e.g. Romans 9-11 where he explains the paradox of the widespread Jewish rejection of Christianity and the ongoing validity of God’s Covenant with Israel in light of this three stage eschatology).
So I guess what I am saying is that I reject the notion that this approach to understanding the Jesus constitues a modification of what Jesus and the apostles actually preached. TI aslo reject the idea that this is a “spiritualized” kingdom. The presence of the kingdom isn’t merely spiritual but one that is embodied in the Church. What Jesus invites us to in the sermon on the mount and what Paul demands of his churches isn’t merely righteousness. It is a new way of life (in fact a new level of life) made possible through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is not merely carrying out God’s law in one’s thoughts and actions, but allowing God (through teh Holy Spirit) to dwell inside you. Thus you are a temple, and a new creation, and it is no longer you who lives, but Christ in you.
on February 4th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
David,
It looks like we just disagree, both about what the scriptures indicate and what is or is not distinctive about Christianity. I think most Jews would find this description of them theologically wrong, and perhaps dangerously so: “It is not merely carrying out God’s law in one’s thoughts and actions,” for I think they too would affirm “allowing God (through the Holy Spirit) to dwell inside you.”
Regarding the kingdom, I think if you take your three part eschatology and get rid of the final part, you have something very similar to Judaism/Islam. One then is still left wondering what is distinctive about the Christian understanding of life here on earth. For all three religions, it is still about allowing God to guide our heart, soul, mind, and strength. If I am right about this, keeping faith in the final part after 2000 years seems to become an effort to create Christian distinctiveness (and often divisiveness with other religions) at high cost of theological credibility (at least for some of us).
I have enjoyed this exchange. Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
Joseph Gannon: regarding mistranslations, you may wish to Google “Life of Brian Sermon on the Mount” and enjoy what you find.
on February 4th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
One of the worst mistranslations in Scripture is after Jesus rises from the dead and the English reads that he “appeared” before them. The correct translation should be “he let himself be seen”. Thus, no one would be able to see Him unless He allowed it. As LaVerdiere says, this is what happened on the way to Emmaus – they did not recognize him. Is this not what happens in the Eucharist, that the Spirit allows us to see Jesus with the eyes of faith because it is willed? Also, is this not how it will be at our own resurrection? Is this not what happened at Fatima when only the children could see Mary? And what about the Transfiguration? Did Jesus allow Himself to be seen as divine and “others” to be seen also because Jesus knew humanity and the three apostles with Him needed to be strengthened spiritually and were becoming complacent?
on February 4th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Joe,
I would hope that no one would find the notion of striviing to carry out God’s law in one’s thoughts and actions in anyway offensive, much less dangerous, but I will leave it to those with a better understanding of modern Judaism to correct me. I do want to be clear that I am not trying to suggest that Judaism is merely ‘works righteousness’ as too many Christians have done over the years. I’ve already written too much, so I will leave it at that except to say thanks for the good discussion. You’ve given me some things to think about and look into. By the way, Pope Benedict issued his lenten message today and in it he relates his understanding of the relationship (and difference) between the Christian notion of justice and the Jewish concept of tsedekah (righteousness) that we have been discussing. I’m not comfortable with sometthing in it, but I’m still thinking about what. Rocco’s got it over at Whispers if you are interested:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2010/02/for-lent-to-each-his-due.html
on February 4th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
David:
I was your use of the phrase “not merely” that had me worried. I am quite sure you meant to say nothing deliberately negative. For what it is worth, I have met some amazing Jews over the years, and I sometimes find myself responding as if I were in their shoes.
Thanks for the link. I will give it a read.
Cheers.
on February 4th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
David:
Sorry that should read, “It was your use…” If my Google skills work, and I found the right David Tenney, you and I will both need to be hunkering down for some snow.
Best wishes,
Joe Pettit
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
Morgan State University, Baltimore