“…easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than…” Some quote that Jesus made in the gospels.
Someone says “It’s actually a rope. Camel is a mistranslation.” and immediately I think, in order to respond to something like this is going to take a book. Otherwise, my comment to this fine person might be… “Could you provide the source to this claim?” These questions almost never provide fruit. I’d rather not create any hurt feelings. Not my heart. But truth is ever so important.
Here’s my attempt to respond to that author’s two short sentences, 8 words, or 38 letters with two periods and an apostrophe.
Basics. The English translations we have today are from the original Greek.
Text from 3rd century AD – Example
https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_P75
The current English translations are largely as follows:
Context matters. Let’s read what Jesus tells a rich young man, after he claims that he has perfectly followed all of the law. Moral perfection.
The Biblical Greek that is commonly used today: ΚΑΜΗΛΟΝ (κάμηλον) or kamelon transliterated to English, so we can talk about this more freely. This word is translated to “Camel.”
Today’s Greek through “Google”
Biblical and today’s Greek align, but what about the ancient Greek texts?
4th century AD text from the book of Luke. Referenced as GA01. https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_01?OSIS=Luke.18.1
5th century AD text also from the book of Luke. Referenced as GA02. https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_02?OSIS=Luke.18.1
This does not reveal the variant ΚΑΜIΛΟΝ which some call Rope. Will come back to this.
5th century AD Latin/Greek manuscript (side by side) Referenced as GA05. https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/Group/GA_05?OSIS=Luke.18.1
All of the Latin words that have some form of meaning close to Rope: funis, vinculum, corda, restis, copula, ceruchus, vinclum, chorda, tumicla, resticula, tormentum, linum, cupla, ligo, necto.
The direct translation for camellum from Latin to English is “Camel”.
Same GA05 text, but now showing the Greek from which the Latin came.
As it stands so far, the earliest Greek manuscripts with the usage of “Camel” date from the 300’s and Latin in the 400’s.
Some say there is an Aramaic word for “Rope” or “Thick Rope” that is transliterated as Kamilon. I haven’t found the evidence for that. Open for the evidence please.
I read something on a website that was not favorable to Christianity that says the following:
He ended his blog entry with the third time saying, “the bible is not the word of god.” There is a deep presupposition or bias there, largely to disprove the Bible. Take it for what it’s worth. I have bias too, so there’s that. But I would just like to get to the truth of the matter.
Perhaps there is reason to think that a mistranslation of Gamla – whether Camel or Thick Rope (incidentally made from Camel’s hair) could impact the veracity of the Bible. That’s for you to decide.
So we have our first case for an Aramaic word being translated into the Greek bible some how. Some do think that the gospels were all Aramaic first and then translated into Greek. Let’s talk on that another time for sake of time.
There is also an ante-Nicene Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria (in the early 400’s AD) who reportedly insisted that the usage should be “Rope” and not “Camel”. I wasn’t able to find that thus far.
Jewish Writings: Babylonian Talmud (Berakoth 55b) – One of a couple of instances where the Jewish culture reveals an analogy of an elephant going through the eye of a needle to push the point that it was quite difficult or even impossible to do. https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.55b.21?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
And another instance – Babylonian Talmud (Baba Mezi’a 38b) – instead this instance uses potential sarcasm of actually being able to pass the elephant through the eye of a needle if the person was from Pumbedita. The underlying tone it seems is that they were calling them liars. No matter the reason for the usage, it’s clear that Jews used some sarcastic language of something like an elephant to pass through the eye of a needle. https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.38b.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
Now for the Armenian Bible. The earliest Armenian translation of the Bible is considered to be the work of “Mesrop Mashtots” in the early 5th century AD, with the newly formed alphabet in the early 400’s. (wiki) Within this text it is suggested that the word utilized is preferring the word “Rope”. This is what was provided (Դարձեալ ասեմ ձեզ. դիւրին է մալխոյ մտանել ընդ ծակ ասղան, քան մեծատան յարքայութիւն Աստուծոյ մտանել։), which when translated through “Google” provided this.
I have no background in Armenian, but Google seems to think this isn’t “Rope” or “Camel” or just barely citing part of the verse. Who knows. Even if there is some evidence here to suggest it is “Rope” we are talking about a text written at least 100 years AFTER the Greek texts with this quote, that we have in our possession today.
Peschitta, the earliest Syriac translation is noted as being from the mid 5th century AD – to 464AD. (wiki) There is suggestion that in this translation, it is also “Rope”. Mid to late 5th century.
What do we do with all this information? Let’s deal with the “Rope” in the room first. Commonly today and probably then as well, a very tiny thread would be utilized to run through the eye of a needle. Suggesting that large “Rope” instead of a thread would be enough to make the point to the disciples, right?
Remember, the rich young man said he perfectly followed the commandments of God. Jesus then told him to give all his possessions to the poor, thus unencumbering himself, so that he could enter into heaven. That’s what the text says. That man denies Jesus request to follow him and walks off sad.
When Jesus tells his disciples that it’s hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven, he already explained why. STUFF.
Option 1: Then Jesus says, it is easier for a “Rope” to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man. Ok. There is some support for that. Now what? How do we compare the “Rope” to the rich man? One is just big and won’t fit through the eye of a needle? (Or just really difficult to?)
Option 2: Then Jesus says, it is easier for a “Camel” to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man. Also support for this text. A “Camel” that is used for carrying around stuff and carrying people around with the rich man. Perhaps has the meaning that an encumbered “Camel” would be easier to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man who is encumbered would enter into heaven.
“Rope” or “Camel” Do I know for certain? Nope. After looking at the evidence, I have my opinion. You go and make yours.
What I would challenge anyone reading this though is what does this “perceived” mistranslation do for us? Does it help us accept that the New Testament is nothing but an old mistranslated book? Does it help us push back the notion that Jesus is real, because the texts are “proven” to be wrong? To me, this doesn’t challenge my confidence in the New Testament. I have studied countless “issues” like this one and I push through until I get as close to the truth as I can get. And then I make a decision. Does this “fact” fly into the face of what Jesus taught? Does this “fact” reveal that the Bible is false? Does this “fact” change my understanding of how Jesus lived, died and was resurrected? Either word, camel or rope, being utilized, shows that something large passing through whatever the “eye of a needle” means, simply is pointing out that it’s difficult for that rich young man to follow God, because of his desire of belongings.
***What started the write-up above…..
SO – on that day, I ran across the claim from some random person that I don’t know, that Camel is a mistranslation in that Biblical text. Then someone who I care about deeply said, “I love learning about popular mistranslations in old text…” and thanked that other person.
I wrote this for that one person who I know and care about. He poured his heart and training into me and my son and prepared us for our black belt in Karate. My son and I are both stronger and more confident men because of him. I love him. THANK YOU SIR!
Note about me: I have no credentials, I have no pedigree, I have no degree to say I know any of what I’m saying. I am however a researcher. For the last 20 years I have personally addressed hundreds of claims that the Bible has tons of errors, contradictions, scribal errors or some other complaint that would dismantle the Bible and thus make it of no effect. Meaning, it would no longer be of use if it had so many problems and therefore Christians (and Jews alike) would have no fundamental written word to stand on. There are issues that have changed my views on various passages or even some more fundamental beliefs. Some good and some that were pretty radical shifts. I have found that there are in fact errors, to which many of the most well known scholars on the planet agree. These errors, whether scribal, translation issues or otherwise – still does not affect whether Jesus lived and presented amazing ethical teachings, whether he died or was resurrected. NO SCHOLAR suggests that the Bible does not present those fundamental truths. Many may say that Jesus is not God, but those who don’t follow Jesus wouldn’t think that he is God anyway. There are many issues brought to the Bible, but the Bible speaks back and I find it to be a trustworthy account of the life and teachings of Jesus.
If I spelled something wrong or there is a fundamental issue with some of my research, do please send me a note with some details to let me know….Searching for truth…. https://www.facebook.com/RestoredHeartFarm