10 Christian Urban Legends (add more!)

[fatpie42]

Okay, I started a thread earlier called "Lies For Jesus" where I came up with two claims which I had been told about Christianity when I was younger by my Religious Education teacher at school. The were a number of replies, so I made a bigger list and posted it (http://community.livejournal.com/atheism/1722044.html) in the LJ Atheism Blog (http://community.livejournal.com/atheism/).

Now the list has 10 different examples on it. What is important about this list is that it isn't the ordinary religious claims like "Jesus was the son of God and died to save your sins" or "Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt by parting the red sea". What I am interested in is actual factual claims which one might be tempted to believe even if one did not follow the religion, but which the actual facts lead us to reject.

For example, in the case of Moses hearing God's commandments on Mt. Sinai, a claim which is completely unimportant for this list is "God spoke to Moses on Mt. Sinai". If we don't believe in God then naturally we consider it false. A better claim to dismiss on this list might be "Moses chisled the ten commandments in Hebrew and put them in a golden ark" (this one isn't actually on the list yet because I haven't checked it out properly). In Michel Onfray's book he claims that at the time Moses is believed to have lived, Hebrew writing had not yet developed. If Moses was writing, he'd be more likely to be writing in hieroglyphics. Also, (and this just occurred to me now), if the Israelites have just had to run for their lives from the Egyptians, where did all this bloody gold come from? Seriously! No discussion of supernatural claims here, just plain facts.

Okay, without further ado, here's the list:

1. "Men have one less rib than women"
Related to the Adam and Eve story. Oh dear.

2. "The reference to someone stuggling out of their clothes and running away in the 'gospel according to Mark' was actually describing the author himself."

The gospels were not written by direct eyewitnesses. Every single one of the gospels was written anonymously and their authorship was guessed about a century later at the earliest. Even if the author of "Mark" was including an account from one of the actual disciples (as seems more likely) the chances that it was the disciple Mark whom it refers to (seeing as the gospel of Mark does not specify which disciple it was) are pretty low.

3. (a) " There was a gate in Jerusalem known as the "needle's eye gate", named so because when it shut at night there was still a small gap underneath. People would have to get their camel to go through the gate on its knees in order to get through at night."

or alternatively some say:

(b) "Needle's eye refers to a small gap in a mountain pass which travellers would go through rather than taking the longer route around the mountain." (Same principle of leading camels through as before.)

Another variation is:
(c) "Ropes were made of camel hair, so the image Jesus is putting forward is of putting the rope through the needle as opposed to the other way around." One person even claimed to have been told that the words for 'camel' and 'rope' are the same in hebrew.

Needless to say, there is no evidence for any of these.

4. [Referring to Christians in 1 AD] "When two strangers met and thought maybe they were fellow believers, one of them would draw, on the ground, the upper half of the fish symbol. Recognizing the symbol, the stranger would add a second curved line and complete the drawing of a fish."

Maybe someone can correct me on this, but as far as I know there is no evidence to back up this claim. We don't really know very much about the practices of Christians during this period, so the likelihood is that this is an urban legend.

5. "There is historical proof of Jesus' existence."

Ah, now here's a classic. References I've heard mentioned are Josephus (whose documents are clearly altered in the relevant sections concerning Jesus), the Talmud (which mentions Jesus - which was a fairly common name - being stoned to death), Tacitus (who makes the claim as late as 116AD that 'Christus', not Jesus, was crucified and this information may well have originated from Christians). In the end, the best evidence for Jesus' existence is the gospels and Paul's letters and neither are terribly satisfactory.

6. "The money-lending in the temples was a sign of corruption there."

Money lending took place there because it was a convenient service for people. They were going to need to change money somewhere if they were to buy the relevant items for the rituals they partook in, so it was best for everyone if they could do it at the actual temple. Jesus, being far from a major economic planner, gives no explanation of what he thought should replace this system.

7. "Peter was made bishop of Rome and died in Rome, most likely during the persecutions by Nero."

Actually Peter may well have never even been to Rome, never mind been given the title 'bishop of Rome'. The following quotations come from this article:
"Evidence for the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome" F. J. Foakes Jackson, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 46, No. 1/2. (1927), pp. 74-78.

That Peter never went to Rome was asserted even in the uncritical days of the fourteenth century. But there is an epigram which may be even earlier. In the days when offices were bought and sold some one wrote:

An Petrus Romae fuerit sub inudice lis est,
Simonem Romae nemo fuisse negat.

Peter ne'er was at Rome there are some who declare,
But no one denies that a Simon (sc. Magus?) was there.

The same obscurity hangs over the whole history of the Roman church. What we know of any of its bishops down to the peace of the church is from outside. Not one martyr's name in the Neronian or Domitian persecution is known, and few indeed before the days of Decius, 251. How the church rose to power is as doubtful, as that it did attain to a supremacy is certain.

8. "The fire God uses is a purifying agent. Remember he appeared to Moses in a burning bush. He also sent the tongues of fire down at Pentecost to the apostles. The Apostles weren't screaming in pain. They were overjoyed that the "fire of God" was consuming them. At the end times, the wicked will be purified using fire and be reconciled unto God. There are plenty of times God uses fire throughout the Bible and it's all for purification, not for burning."

The quotation above comes from an actual online discussion. I'm not sure how common this view is, but the claim that the Bible doesn't really refer to hell is common enough. Oddly enough though, the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment is pretty much an invention of Christianity. Neither the Jewish belief in Sheol nor the Hellenistic belief in Hades envisage something so horrific as the hell found in Christian mythology.

There are plenty of references to hell in the gospels, but I think for our purposes here this quote will suffice:

"The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

"This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Matt. 13:41-42, 49-50

9. "While the fruit in the garden of Eden is not actually described, it was probably a pomegranate."

No, not at all. It's a variation on a Babylonian myth and the fruit is 'the fruit of knowledge of good and evil'. So not only is it not an apple, but it's not any kind of fruit. It's a non-existent metaphorical/mythical fruit, end of story.

10. "A woman called Lady Hope was with Darwin as he recanted evolution and converted to Christianity on his deathbed."

I thought it was a good idea for me to have at least one example which wasn't about Bible history. Lade Hope was an evangelist, otherwise known as Elizabeth Cotton, but Darwin's daughter Henrietta doubts that he even saw her. Naturally Henrietta was with him when he died and she along with the other members of family insist that he remained convinced of his scientific views and that his religious position did not appear to have changed either.

Can anyone help me add to this list? :)

[purple_kathryn]

The flood must have happened because lots of cultures have flood stories.

Really?

Even though they were all drowned?

I don't know how it fits but I've heard both christians and atheists make that comment

[fatpie42]

The flood must have happened because lots of cultures have flood stories
.....
I don't know how it fits but I've heard both christians and atheists make that comment



Well on the one hand it is true that flood myths are almost inevitably based on real floods (and there are no shortage of those all around the world). Nevertheless, what certainly did not happen was a global flood.

It occurs to me that perhaps we should exclude claims which are already found on talkorigins, otherwise my list is going to suddenly get ridiculously long:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

The rebuttal of your particular urban legend of choice is found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html

Many cultures around the world have flood myths, indicating the universality of the Flood.

1. Flood myths are widespread, but they are not all the same myth. They differ in many important aspects, including
* reasons for the flood. (Most do not give a reason.)
* who survived. (Almost none have only a family of eight surviving.)
* what they took with them. (Very few saved samples of all life.)
* how they survived. (In about half the myths, people escaped to high ground; some flood myths have no survivors.)
* what they did afterwards. (Few feature any kind of sacrifice after the flood.)

If the world's flood myths arose from a common source, then we would expect evidence of common descent. An analysis of their similarities and differences should show either a branching tree such as the evolutionary tree of life, or, if the original biblical myth was preserved unchanged, the differences should be greater the further one gets from Babylon. Neither pattern matches the evidence. Flood myths are best explained by repeated independent origins with some local spread and some spread by missionaries. The biblical flood myth in particular has close parallels only to other myths from the same region, with which it probably shares a common source, and to versions spread to other cultures by missionaries (Isaak 2002).

2. Flood myths are likely common because floods are common; the commonness of the myth in no way implies a global flood. Myths about snakes are even more common than myths about floods, but that does not mean there was once one snake surrounding the entire earth.

[fatpie42]

It occurs to me that perhaps we should exclude claims which are already found on talkorigins, otherwise my list is going to suddenly get ridiculously long:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html


Damn, that means I'm going to have to scrap point 10.

"Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

[HaRaAYaH]

I know you like to be accurate so I would like to point out two inaccuracies in your post.
Also, (and this just occurred to me now), if the Israelites have just had to run for their lives from the Egyptians, where did all this bloody gold come from? Seriously! No discussion of supernatural claims here, just plain facts.
Israelites got their booty from the Egyptians (Exodus 12:35-37)


5. "There is historical proof of Jesus' existence."

Ah, now here's a classic. References I've heard mentioned are Josephus (whose documents are clearly altered in the relevant sections concerning Jesus), the Talmud (which mentions Jesus - which was a fairly common name - being stoned to death),

Most Talmudic scholars feel the reference you are speaking about where they speak of the hanging of a person is Jesus. Adin Steinsaltz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adin_Steinsaltz) in his monumental translation and commentary on the Talmud disputes your assertion. I can't put my hands on the citation right now. The trouble you run into is this: never use the Talmud as a history book.

You are correct about Josephus, it appears to have had information added at a later date.

[fatpie42]

Israelites got their booty from the Egyptians (Exodus 12:35-37)


And they carried away enough gold to make a large statue of a calf, melt it down, and still have enough left for a golden ark? Seriously?!!

All I can say is the Egyptians were seriously generous to let them have that much gold... and the Israelites are pretty frivolous with it too....

[HaRaAYaH]

Israelites got their booty from the Egyptians (Exodus 12:35-37)


And they carried away enough gold to make a large statue of a calf, melt it down, and still have enough left for a golden ark? Seriously?!!

All I can say is the Egyptians were seriously generous to let them have that much gold... and the Israelites are pretty frivolous with it too....

That is an entirely different discussion. I just want you to be accurate.

[Matt Stone]

And they carried away enough gold to make a large statue of a calf, melt it down, and still have enough left for a golden ark? Seriously?!!

When I'm running for my life, I always go out of my way to carry large quantities of obscenely heavy valuable materials... I know that if/when the CIA comes to get me for my crimes against humanity, I'll be sure to grab my grand piano. Can't leave home without it.

;)

[NZSkep]

re: the rope/camel one, I think it is supposed to greek, not hebrew, but I have a link that claims the words are this:

rope (ka' mi los) and camel (ka' me los)
(clearly very similar)

Anyone here know ancient greek and so confirm that these translations are accurate?

[Joe Bloe]

re: the rope/camel one, I think it is supposed to greek, not hebrew, but I have a link that claims the words are this:

rope (ka' mi los) and camel (ka' me los)
(clearly very similar)

Anyone here know ancient greek and so confirm that these translations are accurate?
It's been a while since I've done anything with Greek, but that matches my memory. A quick check of the Perseus Digital Library (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/) and its lexical tools confirms it: one Greek word for rope is quite similar to the Greek word for camel.

Years ago when I first heard this explanation, it made a whole lot more sense of the passage: trying to thread a rope through the eye of a needle is an effective way to illustrate the idea of something being exceedingly difficult; putting a camel through the eye of a needle is just bizarre.

[makerowner]

re: the rope/camel one, I think it is supposed to greek, not hebrew, but I have a link that claims the words are this:

rope (ka' mi los) and camel (ka' me los)
(clearly very similar)

Anyone here know ancient greek and so confirm that these translations are accurate?

I've read something similar, and it makes sense to me. It still doesn't really change the meaning of the metaphor though: it's really hard for rich people to go to heaven.

[JragonFli]

Yeah...so they should give all their money to the church, then put on their new Nike shoes and drink the cool aid before the comet comes and takes them to heaven.

[fatpie42]

I've read something similar, and it makes sense to me. It still doesn't really change the meaning of the metaphor though: it's really hard for rich people to go to heaven.

Okay, let's get this straight. On what basis can someone presume that, of all the words in the gospels, this one in particular is an error, and that somehow none of the gospel writers came to correct it when they were compiling their stories?

The only reason for asserting that such a mix-up has taken place is apologetics.

[peanutaxis]

What is even more disturbing than the tale about Darwin rcecanting is that there are people out there who actually think that if it were true it would make a
GODDAMNED DIFFERENCE!

:mad::mad::mad:

[NZSkep]

I've read something similar, and it makes sense to me. It still doesn't really change the meaning of the metaphor though: it's really hard for rich people to go to heaven.

Okay, let's get this straight. On what basis can someone presume that, of all the words in the gospels, this one in particular is an error, and that somehow none of the gospel writers came to correct it when they were compiling their stories?

The only reason for asserting that such a mix-up has taken place is apologetics.
yes, that, and of course the fact that the words are extremely similar.

Also, you make it sound like all the rest of the gospel is all completely true, free of mistranslation, and this is the only error.

[fatpie42]

yes, that, and of course the fact that the words are extremely similar.

That the words are similar is an interesting piece of trivia. However, it doesn't demonstrate that all three writers, who actually speak greek, all managed to get mixed up on which word was which, does it?


Also, you make it sound like all the rest of the gospel is all completely true, free of mistranslation, and this is the only error.

It is true that the gospels are several pieces of writing which were compiled and edited by real people for real reasons. It is also true that the stories will sometimes make reference to real places and historical figures. Whether the stories are actually 'true' is another matter entirely.

As for how good the translation is, I don't think Bible translators do that bad a job.

[Theophage]

How about Joshua's Long Day (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-a001.html)?

[NZSkep]

yes, that, and of course the fact that the words are extremely similar.

That the words are similar is an interesting piece of trivia. and a huge coincidence that 'rope' just happens to make perfect sense in the context of the phrase, and is almost identical to the word for camel in the language it was originally written, when camel seems entirely arbitrary

However, it doesn't demonstrate that all three writers, who actually speak greek, all managed to get mixed up on which word was which, does it?all three writers? :huh: Are you saying that the explanation is that the original gospel writers used the same wrong word for rope when they penned their version of events? you're right. that does make no sense. Lucky that is not what anyone has claimed.

I would have though the simpler explanation is that all the writers used the correct word, but when it was translated into english (or latin or whatever) the translator simply got the word wrong. The greek word for rope may well have been written on the original manuscript, but it was either smudged, or the translator misread it, or simply didn't know the correct translation and so put down what he thought it was.

[djrafikie]

I think pretty much any "miracle" falls under this heading, and there are far too many to list!

[fatpie42]

That the words are similar is an interesting piece of trivia. and a huge coincidence that 'rope' just happens to make sense in the context of the phrase

I disagree. Neither image of impossibility seems more suited to the scenario of a rich man upset that he must give up all he has in order to follow Jesus. Whether it is a rope going through a needle or a camel going through a needle, in either case it is impossible. If the intention of the phrase was to express impossibility, the word 'camel' seems to do the job more effectively.


Are you saying that the explanation is that the original gospel writers used the same wrong word for rope when they penned their version of events? you're right. that does make no sense. Lucky that is not what anyone has claimed.

Well since the gospel writers all had similar sources for their stories, it seems like a much more sensible explanation than the one which you have come up with.


I would have though the simpler explanation is that all the writers used the correct word, but when it was translated into english (or latin or whatever) the translator simply go the word wrong. The greek word for rope was written on the original manuscript, but it was either smudged or the translator misread it, or simply didn't know the correct translation and so put down what he thought it was.

So your explanation is that every single translator of the Bible (continuing to this day) thought (and still thinks) that camel is a better choice of word than rope in the context, but are all mistaken? You also mean to say that they managed to make this mistake when translating Mark, Matthew and Luke? :confused:

You realise that people still study the original greek right?

[fatpie42]

How about Joshua's Long Day (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-a001.html)?

Good one.

I guess the entry in the list would go:
"The 'long day' described in Joshua 10 really happened and this has been proven by NASA computers."

The website's own words are probably pretty good for the explanation too.

Actually, the claim that astronomical calculations proved that a day was “missing” began over a century ago. In the last few decades, the myth has been embellished with NASA computers performing those calculations.

No one who repeats this story has ever provided details of these calculations—how exactly was this missing day discovered? This should automatically make people cautious. How could you detect a missing day unless you had a fixed reference point before this day?

In fact, we would need to cross check between both astronomical and historical records to detect any missing day. And to detect a missing 40 minutes requires that these reference points are known to within an accuracy of a few minutes.

It is certainly true that the timing of solar eclipses observable from a certain location can be known precisely. But the ancient records did not record time that precisely, so the required cross check is simply not possible.

However, I find it hilarious that they finish with:
There is so much good evidence for the truth of creation and the Bible that we don't need to resort to embellishments and urban myths.

[NZSkep]

and a huge coincidence that 'rope' just happens to make sense in the context of the phrase

I disagree. Neither image of impossibility seems more suited to the scenario of a rich man upset that he must give up all he has in order to follow Jesus. Whether it is a rope going through a needle or a camel going through a needle, in either case it is impossible. If the intention of the phrase was to express impossibility, the word 'camel' seems to do the job more effectively.
why stop at camel. wouldn't 'house' have been even more effective :rolleyes:
Camel makes no sense in the context of threading needles. rope makes perfect sense. you put thread through the eye of a needle. what would be the most difficult kind of 'thread' to fit through the eye of a needle? Why, a great big thick rope.




Well since the gospel writers all had similar sources for their stories, it seems like a much more sensible explanation than the one which you have come up with.


I would have though the simpler explanation is that all the writers used the correct word, but when it was translated into english (or latin or whatever) the translator simply go the word wrong. The greek word for rope was written on the original manuscript, but it was either smudged or the translator misread it, or simply didn't know the correct translation and so put down what he thought it was.

So your explanation is that every single translator of the Bible (continuing to this day) thought (and still thinks) that camel is a better choice of word than rope in the context, but are all mistaken? One possibilty:
Just the first one. Other early translators may have used that as a guide. Modern day translators would be too concerned about changing a phrase that has been so widely accepted to go back on it. (biblical innerrancy and all that bollocks)

Another possibility: the word was written Kamelos, but was smudged or just faded through age to make it look like Kamilos. the translators simply translated what they saw.


look at donkey Kong vs Monkey Kong for a modern day version of almost the exact scenario.
Monkey was misread/misprinted into Donkey, despite donkey making no sense
(the character was a gorilla!) and it just stuck over the years.

according to this site, some 11th century manuscripts did in fact translate it as the word 'rope'.
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm


You also mean to say that they managed to make this mistake when translating Mark, Matthew and Luke? :confused:

You realise that people still study the original greek right? if the translator makes the mistake on one manuscript because they don't know the correct translation then it would make sense they would make the same mistake on all three.


Just to be clear, I'm not claiming this is definitely true, but rather that it is plausible because it does at least make sense in the context of what was being said (about threading needles) and has some evidence to back it up.

[fatpie42]

why stop at camel. wouldn't 'house' have been even more effective :rolleyes:

I don't see why not, but the fact is that the word in the manuscript means 'camel' and we have absolutely no good reason to say that this was an error.

That the words for camel and rope are similar is a nice piece of trivia, but it doesn't mean that the synoptic gospel writers had intended to convey the alternative word. Even less likely is the idea that every single translator of the Bible has misread all three gospel accounts.

In the end, that you think it would have sounded better if they'd said rope (even coupled with the similarity of the words in Greek) does not make that the word they used.


One possibilty:
Just the first one. Other early translators may have used that as a guide. Modern day translators would be too concerned about changing a phrase that has been so widely accepted to go back on it. (biblical innerrancy and all that bollocks)

Doesn't work I'm afraid. Bible translators are quite happy to propose alternative translations of the Bible. In fact it would get them quite a bit of attention in the media if they proposed an alternative translation of a well known biblical phrase. The members of the Jesus Seminar, for example, are not adverse to controversial claims.


Another possibility: the word was written Kamelos, but was smudged or just faded through age to make it look like Kamilos. the translators simply translated what they saw.

Like I said, that would suppose that it was smudged in the same way in all three gospel accounts. This phrase is found Mark, Matthew and Luke, so we would have to be working on a scenario where all three accounts were equally misleading.


according to this site, some 11th century manuscripts did in fact translate it as the word 'rope'.
http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm

From the same website:
Mainly 11th century or later, and in one 9th/10th century manuscript, however all early manuscripts and quotations in the church fathers from the 3rd through to the 8th centuries have 'camel' not 'rope'.

This means that some Christians in medieaval times shared your annoyance at the word 'camel' being used and made a similar decision to change the meaning on the basis of the similarity of the words in ancient Greek. However, the 11th century is 1000 years later than the original text was written. Considering that changes were made to the texts during 1AD, pointing to an alteration made 1000 years later seems to be clutching at straws....


If the translator makes the mistake on one manuscript because they don't know the correct translation then it would make sense they would make the same mistake on all three.

As has been mentioned earlier, there are many different translators and in every version I have seen, they decided on the word 'camel'. I find it rather daft of you to suggest modern translators would stick with a faulty translation for the sake of tradition.


Just to be clear, I'm not claiming this is definitely true, but rather that it is plausible because it does at least make sense in the context of what was being said (about threading needles) and has some evidence to back it up.

No, it has some conjecture to back it up. There's no actual evidence to be found. The similarity of two words in ancient Greek is not really a good reason to replace the word 'camel' with 'rope'.

[fatpie42]

I think pretty much any "miracle" falls under this heading, and there are far too many to list!

Actually I think we could probably have an entry on that.

The claim would go along the lines of:
"Jesus miracles prove that he was the son of God"

The problems would be as follows:
(i) Prophets throughout the old testament are also claimed to perform miracles.
(ii) Many people during Jesus' time were believed to have performed miracles too.
(iii) Even the gospels admit that not all observers were very impressed with Jesus' miracles. This suggests that Jesus' miracles were not as spectacular as they are claimed to be and/or the kinds of miracles Jesus was performing were not any more impressive than those people saw elsewhere (most likely both).

I kinda rushed this, so if anyone can think of a better way of phrasing some of this stuff and perhaps has some more problems to add to the list, that'd be cool.

[Mediancat]

A non-Biblical one would be the infamous "She said yes" of Columbine.

Rob aka Mediancat

[fatpie42]

A non-Biblical one would be the infamous "She said yes" of Columbine.


Summary of Rumor
Widely circulated reports and emails tell the story of high school student Cassie Bernall being a Christian martyr in the Columbine high school shootings of 1999 in Colorado. It was reported that one of the killers asked her if she believed in God. Cassie said, "Yes" and then was then killed.
bullet

The Truth
There are witnesses and investigators who say that there was no verbal exchange about God between Cassie and her killer and that it was actually a different girl who was near Cassie who was asked about her belief.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm

I'd never heard that before.

[Joe Bloe]

Like I said, that would suppose that it was smudged in the same way in all three gospel accounts. This phrase is found Mark, Matthew and Luke, so we would have to be working on a scenario where all three accounts were equally misleading.
Since Matthew and Luke copied Mark, all it would take would be for Mark to have made the error.

As has been mentioned earlier, there are many different translators and in every version I have seen, they decided on the word 'camel'. I find it rather daft of you to suggest modern translators would stick with a faulty translation for the sake of tradition.
Given the uproar among the flock when some modern English translations tried to correct the traditional mistranslation, based on the Septuagint's mistranslation, of "young woman" as "virgin" in Isaiah 7, I'd say that Bible translators have some reason to stick with tradition over truth.

Which is not to say that an accurate translation of the actual Greek in this passage would be "rope" instead of "camel." The word in the Greek manuscripts is clearly "camel," and the translators are right. But the similarity of the words and the difference in how "rope" and "camel" fit in this context make it reasonable to posit that the writer of Mark (or a very early copier of Mark) made a mistake which was then copied by the writers of Matthew and Luke.

No, it has some conjecture to back it up. There's no actual evidence to be found. The similarity of two words in ancient Greek is not really a good reason to replace the word 'camel' with 'rope'.
But it is good evidence to support the claim that Mark made a mistake which was perpetuated in Matthew's and Luke's retellings of Mark's story. It's not just an urban legend; it's a reasonable, though unprovable, hypothesis to explain why there is such a bizarre passage in the Bible as it has come down to us.

Of course, biblical inerrantists wouldn't like the implications of this -- a Bible writer made a mistake, and other writers copied that mistake -- but we know this has happened before, as with Matthew's virgin mother. So I don't know why some of them like to use this explanation of the passage. I suppose it sounds neat and they just don't think of the implications of the explanation -- and that supposition is certainly no stretch.

[dettus]

The flood must have happened because lots of cultures have flood stories.

Really?

Even though they were all drowned?

I don't know how it fits but I've heard both christians and atheists make that comment

LOL you are right and I never thought if it that way before. Silly me. /bonk

[fatpie42]

Like I said, that would suppose that it was smudged in the same way in all three gospel accounts. This phrase is found Mark, Matthew and Luke, so we would have to be working on a scenario where all three accounts were equally misleading.
Since Matthew and Luke copied Mark, all it would take would be for Mark to have made the error.

I must admit that I thought this was the best argument, but NZSkep doesn't have that as an option as he has dismissed such a possibility as a straw man:

Originally Posted by NZSkep
Are you saying that the explanation is that the original gospel writers used the same wrong word for rope when they penned their version of events? you're right. that does make no sense. Lucky that is not what anyone has claimed.

I would have though the simpler explanation is that all the writers used the correct word, but when it was translated into english (or latin or whatever) the translator simply got the word wrong.

I hope that explains why I am balking at the absudity of every single early manuscript having a smudge on the word camel/rope in all three synoptic gospels.

With your (to my mind) stronger argument, the problem remains that we don't have the pericopes from which Mark compiled his gospel. As such, we aren't in any position to say that the original word is meant to be 'rope'. It is pure conjecture. It seems to only be worth putting forward as a hypothesis for the purposes of apologetics (edit: though even then it seems deeply problematic - well noted! :)) and, as such, I think scepticism is the most sensible response.


Given the uproar among the flock when some modern English translations tried to correct the traditional mistranslation, based on the Septuagint's mistranslation, of "young woman" as "virgin" in Isaiah 7, I'd say that Bible translators have some reason to stick with tradition over truth.

At very least we'd expect to see some prominent writers out there proposing that the phrase ought to be different. Uproar is good for sales after all....


Which is not to say that an accurate translation of the actual Greek in this passage would be "rope" instead of "camel." The word in the Greek manuscripts is clearly "camel," and the translators are right. But the similarity of the words and the difference in how "rope" and "camel" fit in this context make it reasonable to posit that the writer of Mark (or a very early copier of Mark) made a mistake which was then copied by the writers of Matthew and Luke.

The thing is that this is best of a bad bunch of very odd claims. Others include the claim that the original text referred to a "camel hair" rope and then there's the ridiculous references to a special gate in Jerusalem. (However, I must say that I wasn't about to accept NZSkeps proposition that it is a matter of poor translation of the gospel manuscripts and neither, it seems, were you.)

I will accept the hypothesis that Mark made a mistake and, as you rightly note, this would cause serious problems for some Christians. It would thoroughly demonstrate that the synoptic gospels are working on a process of chinese whispers. Nevertheless, I will not accept that it is a hypothesis with strong backing (no matter how much it might make Christians squirm if it were).

[Newfie]

And they carried away enough gold to make a large statue of a calf, melt it down, and still have enough left for a golden ark? Seriously?!!

When I'm running for my life, I always go out of my way to carry large quantities of obscenely heavy valuable materials... I know that if/when the CIA comes to get me for my crimes against humanity, I'll be sure to grab my grand piano. Can't leave home without it.

;)

In Exodus 12:37, Moses left with 600,000 Hebrew men and "A mixed multitude also went up with them" of non-Hebrews (Exodus 12:38). Add to that the proportionate number of women and children and the total number involved may have been over a couple of million of people. Numbers 1:46 specifically gives the total as 603,550, but that might be referring to just the men.

It’s not difficult to imagine that crowd carrying enough gold to plate a statue, especially if the lot of them were escaping a region recently hit by “natural” disaster. Wouldn't you at least grab your wallet while fleeing?

Looting by the Hebrews is always a possibility too, but I seem to recall a theory I must have heard about twenty-five years ago that the Hebrews had not been enslaved as we understand the term. The idea was that the Hebrews were pressed into public building projects, like the native Egyptian farmers themselves were during the non-growing, flood season or times of drought, in exchange for supplies from the granaries during these lean times. The Hebrews, being nomadic herders, were not use to this kind of labor and, in the retelling, equated it with slavery as we understand the term.

It’s been a long time since I read this view, and I’m sure it has probably been debunked since then, so I’d appreciate any links to that effect if anybody knows of any.

[Will.L]

Thinking this may fit better over in BC&H.

[NZSkep]

Since Matthew and Luke copied Mark, all it would take would be for Mark to have made the error.

I must admit that I thought this was the best argument, but NZSkep doesn't have that as an option as he has dismissed such a possibility as a straw man:

What? So because I didn’t mention it (I did think of it couldn’t remember who copied who, or how strong the evidence was that they were copied) that means I ‘dismissed it as a strawman’? I think you have no idea what a strawman is, or how it is used.
Pleas explain how me failing to mention an argument that supports my case would be ‘dismissing it as a strawman’.



I hope that explains why I am balking at the absudity of every single early manuscript having a smudge on the word camel/rope in all three synoptic gospels.

Why would every single copy have to have a smudge? Only the first would have to have a smudge/misprint then all copies would have the incorrect translation.
It wouldn’t even have needed a smudge. It could have been, amongst other possibilites, that the translator simply didn’t know the correct translation of ‘rope’ and put down the closest thing he thought, or that he was was wrong about the spelling of ‘camel’ and genuinely thought that the word for camel was spelled differently.



With your (to my mind) stronger argument, the problem remains that we don't have the pericopes from which Mark compiled his gospel. As such, we aren't in any position to say that the original word is meant to be 'rope'. It is pure conjecture. It seems to only be worth putting forward as a hypothesis for the purposes of apologetics (edit: though even then it seems deeply problematic - well noted! :)) and, as such, I think scepticism is the most sensible response.



At very least we'd expect to see some prominent writers out there proposing that the phrase ought to be different. Uproar is good for sales after all....


Which is not to say that an accurate translation of the actual Greek in this passage would be "rope" instead of "camel." The word in the Greek manuscripts is clearly "camel," and the translators are right. But the similarity of the words and the difference in how "rope" and "camel" fit in this context make it reasonable to posit that the writer of Mark (or a very early copier of Mark) made a mistake which was then copied by the writers of Matthew and Luke.

The thing is that this is best of a bad bunch of very odd claims. Others include the claim that the original text referred to a "camel hair" rope and then there's the ridiculous references to a special gate in Jerusalem. (However, I must say that I wasn't about to accept NZSkeps proposition that it is a matter of poor translation of the gospel manuscripts and neither, it seems, were you.)

I will accept the hypothesis that Mark made a mistake and, as you rightly note, this would cause serious problems for some Christians. It would thoroughly demonstrate that the synoptic gospels are working on a process of chinese whispers. Nevertheless, I will not accept that it is a hypothesis with strong backing (no matter how much it might make Christians squirm if it were).


I know there is no strong backing for this (and I wouldn’t expect there to necessarily be any hard evidence given the time spans and uncertianties around authorship etc) but it just seems plausible (i.e. possible, not probable).

To simply dimsiss it out of hand as apologetics seems absurd, as if it were the correct translation then it would actually weaken the christian case – because it shows that errors are made in gods word, and if errors can be made then god is not ‘perfect’.

[Joe Bloe]

then there's the ridiculous references to a special gate in Jerusalem.
Yea, I've heard a few versions of that one, and it is really odd. I don't know where that story came from or when/where it originated, but as far as I know it doesn't fit anything real.

[Solitary Man]

why stop at camel.
Because oikia wouldn't complete the pun.

[John Kesler]

and a huge coincidence that 'rope' just happens to make sense in the context of the phrase

I disagree. Neither image of impossibility seems more suited to the scenario of a rich man upset that he must give up all he has in order to follow Jesus. Whether it is a rope going through a needle or a camel going through a needle, in either case it is impossible. If the intention of the phrase was to express impossibility, the word 'camel' seems to do the job more effectively.

"Camel" is probably correct. See my post on the subject (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2587118) from July, 2005.

[Newfie]

look at donkey Kong vs Monkey Kong for a modern day version of almost the exact scenario.
Monkey was misread/misprinted into Donkey, despite donkey making no sense
(the character was a gorilla!) and it just stuck over the years.


I thought that the story went that the Japanese creator of the game thought that "donkey" meant "stupid" in English, and that he was trying to make the main character look like a dumb ape. Do you have a source for the Monkey-Donkey mixup explanation?

[Amaleq13]

I thought that the story went that the Japanese creator of the game thought that "donkey" meant "stupid" in English, and that he was trying to make the main character look like a dumb ape.

Close. The word he allegedly wanted was "stubborn". The phone mix-up is popular but thought to be an urban legend while the stubborn/donkey mix-up is supposed to be the true story.

That is the origin story repeated during a recent TV show on video games. :D

[squiz]

Which is not to say that an accurate translation of the actual Greek in this passage would be "rope" instead of "camel." The word in the Greek manuscripts is clearly "camel," and the translators are right. But the similarity of the words and the difference in how "rope" and "camel" fit in this context make it reasonable to posit that the writer of Mark (or a very early copier of Mark) made a mistake which was then copied by the writers of Matthew and Luke.
Has anyone considered that it might be a play on words? You know: you think it is difficult to put a rope through the eye of a needle, then what about a camel (which has a similar sounding name)? If this is the case, then it would be another example of a saying that could not have arisen in Hebrew, but must have been originally Greek, like the "born again" story.

I would be interested in hearing what the various Greek words for thread are too, in this context.

[fatpie42]

Okay, if everyone has finished with the discussion on the needle/eye/gate/rope discussion, do you reckon anyone can think of any new additions to the list in the OP?

[Huon]

kalos (with an omega) means a rope.
kamelos (with an eta and an omicron) means a camel.
kamilos is not in my dictionary.

[Tars Tarkus]

Okay, if everyone has finished with the discussion on the needle/eye/gate/rope discussion, do you reckon anyone can think of any new additions to the list in the OP?

Ok, I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I was taught both in my fundamentalist christian school and church, that when Jesus turned the water into wine at the wedding, that it really didn't become wine but grape juice. This let them declare consumption of any alcoholic drink in any amount a sin. Must have been a fun wedding.
They were also against long hair on men and denied Jesus had long hair, as depicted in most pictures. You see, Jesus would have worn the style that was in vogue in Rome at the time and that style was set by the emperor Tiberius, who had short hair. Did they think Jesus went to a barber with a Roman sesterce and told him "I wanna look like this guy!"?

[NZSkep]

I thought that the story went that the Japanese creator of the game thought that "donkey" meant "stupid" in English, and that he was trying to make the main character look like a dumb ape.

Close. The word he allegedly wanted was "stubborn". The phone mix-up is popular but thought to be an urban legend while the stubborn/donkey mix-up is supposed to be the true story.

That is the origin story repeated during a recent TV show on video games. :D

according to wiki (the fount of all knowledge) the origin is actually in dispute (or rather, unknown)


The story of exactly how Miyamoto came up with the name Donkey Kong varies. A popular urban myth says that the name was originally meant to be Monkey Kong but was misspelled or misinterpreted due to a blurred fax or bad telephone connection.[17] Another story claims that Miyamoto looked in a Japanese-English dictionary for something that would mean stubborn gorilla[18] or that Donkey was meant to convey silly and that Kong was common Japanese slang for gorilla.[5] A rival claim is that he worked with Nintendo's export manager to come up with the title, and that Donkey was meant to represent stupid and goofy.[19

[fatpie42]

kalos (with an omega) means a rope.
kamelos (with an eta and an omicron) means a camel.
kamilos is not in my dictionary.

Probably a good thing this thread was moved here then. I must admit that I personally can't read Greek. Anyone want to clear up this little issue?

[fatpie42]

Ok, I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I was taught both in my fundamentalist christian school and church, that when Jesus turned the water into wine at the wedding, that it really didn't become wine but grape juice. This let them declare consumption of any alcoholic drink in any amount a sin. Must have been a fun wedding.

That's a good one. I haven't heard it before though.

Anyone else heard of this one? It's be good if anyone else who has heard it could speak up so that we can gauge how widespread it is.

I'm going to put the claim in bold here:
"Jesus turned water into grape juice, not wine."

Do they get around the whole holy communion issue by saying that during the ritual it isn't really wine anymore? Or do they use grape juice there too? If they don't use wine in communion do they suppose that Jesus only drank grape juice at the last supper too? :D


They were also against long hair on men and denied Jesus had long hair, as depicted in most pictures. You see, Jesus would have worn the style that was in vogue in Rome at the time and that style was set by the emperor Tiberius, who had short hair. Did they think Jesus went to a barber with a Roman sesterce and told him "I wanna look like this guy!"?

The Tiberius angle sounds like a load of rubbish. Jews would not be encouraged to look like Roman figures as they deeply resented the influence that Rome had over the area. (Although it's probably worth noting that the area Jesus lived in wasn't technically 'occupied' by the Romans. The king was allowed to rule so long as he kept the people under control and conceded to any of Rome's demands.)

Nevertheless, I was of the impression that the common image we are used to was based on an image of Zeus. Rather than risking simply spreading another urban legend, I'm going to use information on wikipedia and leave you guys to correct anything which seems out of place. This way, if I do make any mistakes at least it will because someone writing on wikipedia has made a mistake and not because I am spouting off things I don't understand properly.

So here goes.

The first Christian depictions of Jesus were rare and it is unlikely that they had an image of Jesus to work with:
The earliest Christians did not often depict Jesus, if they did at all, using instead symbols such as the Ichthys (fish), the Labarum (or Chi-Rho), or an anchor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Images_of_Jesus

The similarities between the ikons at a later stage is very probably because some holy relic which was believed to actually depict Jesus. The tradition of ikons would have been arisen relatively late, so it still remains that the earliest images of Christ were not based on any particular image.

French scholar Paul Vignon has listed fifteen similarities (like tilaka) between most of the icons of Jesus at the time, particularly in the icons of "Christ Pantocrator" ("The all-powerful Messiah"). He claims that these are due to the availability of the Image of Edessa (which he claims to be identical to the Shroud of Turin) to the artists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Images_of_Jesus

The wikipedia page on ikons gives a more detailed explanation:

...the first depictions of Jesus were generic rather than portrait images, generally representing him as a beardless young man. It was some time before the earliest examples of the long-haired, bearded face that was later to become standardized as the image of Jesus appeared. When they did begin to appear there was still variation. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)[12] said that no one knew the appearance of Jesus or that of Mary, though it should be noted that Augustine was not a resident of the Holy Land and therefore was not familiar with the local populations and their oral traditions. Gradually, paintings of Jesus took on characteristics of portrait images.

At this time the manner of depicting Jesus was not yet uniform, and there was some controversy over which of the two most common icons was to be favored. The first or “Semitic” form showed Jesus with short and “frizzy” hair; the second showed a bearded Jesus with hair parted in the middle, the manner in which the god Zeus was depicted. Theodorus Lector [a historian of sixth century Constantinople] remarked that of the two, the one with short and frizzy hair was “more authentic.” To support his assertion, he relates a story (excerpted by John of Damascus) that a pagan commissioned to paint an image of Jesus used the “Zeus” form instead of the “Semitic” form, and that as punishment his hands withered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon

It seems that the preference for a Jesus with long hair prevailed, but perhaps the best sign that it would not have been culturally accepted where Jesus actually lived is the following quotation from St. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians:
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15

So it actually seems pretty likely that Jesus would not have had long hair as a part of his cultural heritage and that the image we commonly see today is based on the depictions of Zeus of the time.

Please feel free to challenge this if I'm making a mistake here. :)

[fatpie42]

I've got some new ones. I've been reading Michel Onfray's book recently and in it he names Jean Meslier as the first atheist philosopher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier

I decided to have a look at his Testament, which appears to be translated here:
http://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/meslier/1729/testament.htm

He writes:
Here are a few examples of contradictions. The Gospel writer Matthew has J. Ch. descend from King David through his son Solomon until Joseph, the at least putative father of J. Ch. Luke has him descend from the same David by his son Nathan down to Joseph.

Speaking of Jesus, Matthew says that the word had been spread around Jerusalem that a new king had been born, and that the Magi had come seeking him so as to adore him. King Herod, fearing that the so-called new king would some day take the crown from him, had had all the babies born within the last two years in the area of Bethlehem killed, for it was there he was told this new king was going to be born. Joseph and the mother of Jesus, having been warned in a dream by an angel of this evil plan, had quickly fled to Egypt, where they remained until Herod’s death, which occurred a few years later.

On the contrary, Luke says that Joseph and the mother of Jesus peacefully remained for six weeks in the place where their child Jesus was born, that in keeping with the law of the Jews he was circumcised there eight days after his birth. And when the time prescribed by that law for the purification of the mother had passed, she and Joseph her husband took him to Jerusalem to present him to God in His temple and also to offer a sacrifice, which was commanded by the law of God. After this they returned to Galilee to their city of Nazareth, where their child Jesus every day grew in grace and wisdom, and his mother and father went every year to Jerusalem on the solemn days of Passover. Luke makes no mention of their flight to Egypt, nor of Herod’s cruelty towards the children of the province of Bethlehem.

As for Herod’s cruelty, since the historians of those times don’t speak of it at all, and neither does Josephus, the historian who wrote the life of Herod; and since the other Gospel writers make no mention of it, it’s obvious that this voyage of the Magi led by a star, this massacre of little children, and this flight to Egypt are nothing but absurd lies. For it is not credible that Josephus, who condemned the vices of this king, would have passed silently over so black and detestable an act, if what this Gospel said were true.


Now I was told by my RE teacher at school that there was no conflict between Matthew and Luke. Being fairly impressionable (in other words 'gullible') as we tend to be as children, I was quickly convinced by being shown that in Matthew's account the wise men discover Jesus in a house, not a manger. As such I quickly conceded to the argument that Luke's account took place first (shepherds visiting the manger on the night of Jesus' birth) and then later on when Joseph and Mary have a place of their own the 'wise men' (who have a much further distance to travel) turn up.

However, what I hadn't noticed was that in Luke's account there is a very detailed account of the rituals the parents had to perform with the child. They circumsise him on the eighth day, they take him for purification in Jerusalem and they offer a sacrifice for him. Finally Luke 2:39 claims "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." That pretty thoroughly rules out any fleeing to Egypt, doesn't it?

And of course the other classic one is that one of the family trees traces Jesus on his father's side while the other traces Jesus on his mothers side. Naturally the idea that anyone back then would trace a family tree from the mother's side is clearly nonsense. Oddly enough those who claim that one of the family trees is traced from Mary seem to claim that it is the one in Luke which does this, however Luke's genealogy names only men while it is Matthew's account which mentions several women.

As for the claims about Herod, I have heard it said that Herod was actually quite a savage figure and that he therefore might well have committed many atrocities like (though most probabaly not including) the massacre of innocents.

Herod was certainly guilty of many brutal acts, including the killing of his wife and two of his sons, no other source from the period makes any reference to such a massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

What do people think?

[Solitary Man]

kalos (with an omega) means a rope.
kamelos (with an eta and an omicron) means a camel.
kamilos is not in my dictionary.

Kamilos is listed in the online Lewis and Short, but with the note that it's possibly coined from the Matthew phrase!

A. rope, Sch.Ar.V.1030, Suid. (Perh. coined as an emendation of the phrase eukopôteron esti kamêlon dia trupêmatos rhaphidos dielthein ê plousion eis tên basileian tou theou eiselthein Ev.Matt.19.24 : but cf. Arab. jummal 'ship's cable'.)

[Solitary Man]

That's a good one. I haven't heard it before though.
I have. It's a southern American thing, I think.

[fatpie42]

kalos (with an omega) means a rope.
kamelos (with an eta and an omicron) means a camel.
kamilos is not in my dictionary.

Kamilos is listed in the online Lewis and Short, but with the note that it's possibly coined from the Matthew phrase!

A. rope, Sch.Ar.V.1030, Suid. (Perh. coined as an emendation of the phrase eukopôteron esti kamêlon dia trupêmatos rhaphidos dielthein ê plousion eis tên basileian tou theou eiselthein Ev.Matt.19.24 : but cf. Arab. jummal 'ship's cable'.)

Now that's classic. :rolling:

[Minimalist]

What is even more disturbing than the tale about Darwin rcecanting is that there are people out there who actually think that if it were true it would make a
GODDAMNED DIFFERENCE!

:mad::mad::mad:



The highly quotable Robert G Ingersoll had this to say on the subject.

Orthodox Christians have the habit of claiming all great men, all men who have held important positions, men of reputation, men of wealth. As soon as the funeral is over clergymen begin to relate imaginary conversations with the deceased, and in a very little while the great man is changed to a Christian -- possibly to a saint.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Religious Belief of Abraham Lincoln"

[JamesABrown]

As for the claims about Herod, I have heard it said that Herod was actually quite a savage figure and that he therefore might well have committed many atrocities like (though most probabaly not including) the massacre of innocents.

Herod was certainly guilty of many brutal acts, including the killing of his wife and two of his sons, no other source from the period makes any reference to such a massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

What do people think?


I thought it was Josephus who carefully cataloged all the atrocities of Herod, with the exception of the Bethlehem slaughter of innocents, of course, arguably the worst atrocity in the list.


Here's another Christian Urban Legend I can think of:

Peter was crucified upside down because he didn't feel himself worthy of dying the same way that Jesus did.

Another one I heard runs along the line of:
Husband forbids wife to practice Christianity. He locks her Bible in a lockbox and throws the key into the river. Wife goes to market and buys fish. Inside fish is key. Husband converts to Christianity.

And another along the same line:
Husband forbids wife to practice Christianity. He throws her Bible into fireplace. Next morning, all of Bible is ash except for one scrap. Husband looks at scrap which reads, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but My word shall not pass away." Husband converts to Christianity.

And another:
Young rebellious man listens to sermon in Church. He decides against converting to Christianity. Young man exits church and is run down by a truck.

[Amaleq13]

Anyone else heard of this one? It's be good if anyone else who has heard it could speak up so that we can gauge how widespread it is.

I believe it is Protestant in origin and possibly specifically Methodist. The church of my childhood served grape juice for communion.

[ConservativeAtheist]

How about Joshua's Long Day (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-a001.html)?

Good one.

I guess the entry in the list would go:
"The 'long day' described in Joshua 10 really happened and this has been proven by NASA computers."

The website's own words are probably pretty good for the explanation too.

Actually, the claim that astronomical calculations proved that a day was “missing” began over a century ago. In the last few decades, the myth has been embellished with NASA computers performing those calculations.

No one who repeats this story has ever provided details of these calculations—how exactly was this missing day discovered? This should automatically make people cautious. How could you detect a missing day unless you had a fixed reference point before this day?

In fact, we would need to cross check between both astronomical and historical records to detect any missing day. And to detect a missing 40 minutes requires that these reference points are known to within an accuracy of a few minutes.

It is certainly true that the timing of solar eclipses observable from a certain location can be known precisely. But the ancient records did not record time that precisely, so the required cross check is simply not possible.

However, I find it hilarious that they finish with:
There is so much good evidence for the truth of creation and the Bible that we don't need to resort to embellishments and urban myths.

All they rely on is embellishments and myths. :devil1:

[Toto]

There is an essay by Bobbie Kirkhart in Everything you know about God is Wrong: the Disinformation Guide to Religion on her Methodist childhood and the alcohol question. It can be browsed on Amazon.

BRIDGING THE LEAP OF FAITH

I grew up in a teetotaling Methodist Church in Oklahoma. This presented a problem, as the Bible is virtually soaked with wine. The miracle at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine, was a particular enigma. Why would a nice young god like Jesus turn pure sweet water into the Devil's drink? Some opined that while he turned water into wine, he didn't drink it. For most, this was not a good enough explanation, as he still enabled others to ruin a perfectly good wedding reception when everyone knows that orange juice concentrate with lemonade, canned pineapple juice, and ginger ale is just perfect for the occasion. . .

[Joe Bloe]

Kamilos is listed in the online Lewis and Short, but with the note that it's possibly coined from the Matthew phrase!



Now that's classic. :rolling:
I just looked into it more closely, and I think that is right. 'kamilos' is similar to 'kalos', but it doesn't look like there is evidence that it was a real word. It appears to be (almost) the name of a person briefly mentioned in Appias's "The Civil Wars" ('Kamilon', transliterated as 'Camillus'). But Perseus Project didn't turn up any other uses, nothing that uses it to mean "rope."

[Joe Bloe]

Anyone else heard of this one? It's be good if anyone else who has heard it could speak up so that we can gauge how widespread it is.

I'm going to put the claim in bold here:
"Jesus turned water into grape juice, not wine."

Yea, growing up among Southern Baptists I heard that a few times.



Why do you always take two Southern Baptists with you on a fishing trip?
Because if you took just one, he'd drink all your beer.

[Newfie]

If we are talking about Christian urban legends then one of the bigger ones has to be the War in Heaven. Many believe this tale, that Satan tried to stage a coup against God by leading one third of the angels into revolt, which is retold in Paradise Lost, but not in the Bible. Descriptions of Hell’s levels are also widely taken as articles of faith, even though they are also accepted as fictional.

Another famous mistranslation resulted in Michelangelo's Moses having horns because one of the biblical translations of "rays of light" became "horns" in Italian.

I grew up Catholic and (bless their little hearts) the nuns renounced the whole “grape juice” theory about the wine. In their opinion, the wine had to be alcoholic because it was mixed with the drinking water in order to kill the microbes and other nasty stuff that would make you sick otherwise. That ordinary wine was alcoholic does not seem to be in dispute. Why caution people against drunkenness otherwise? At the wedding ceremony where Jesus changes the water into wine his creation is regarded as much finer wine then what the guests had been enjoying up to that time, which definitely doesn’t suggest that it was watered-down.

I also heard that Jesus’ hair being long had more to do with his association with John the Baptist than Zeus. John’s image was well known to be a bit ragged, and his “religious look” may have been handed down to Jesus and even his disciples. I remember a professor once mentioning that the first “crucifix” image of Jesus actually had the head of a donkey, and was meant as a put down. Finally, one interpretation has Joseph being more like a modern-day contractor than a humble carpenter.

Comments?

[anders]

I'm normally not too impressed by any claims that Syriac rules, but on the camel question, I think that item 3 here (http://aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/outside/3_SemiSplitWords.pdf) makes good points. No need to resort to Greek; Aramaic in the Syriac font makes the confusion understandable.

[anders]

Finally, one interpretation has Joseph being more like a modern-day contractor than a humble carpenter.
His Greek title could mean anything from a possibly poor stonemason through carpenter to a possibly wealthy architect.

[andrewcriddle]

If we are talking about Christian urban legends then one of the bigger ones has to be the War in Heaven. Many believe this tale, that Satan tried to stage a coup against God by leading one third of the angels into revolt, which is retold in Paradise Lost, but not in the Bible.
This is based on Revelation chapter 12
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: .................................................
..............................................................................
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Andrew Criddle

[Solitary Man]

I'm normally not too impressed by any claims that Syriac rules, but on the camel question, I think that item 3 here (http://aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/outside/3_SemiSplitWords.pdf) makes good points. No need to resort to Greek; Aramaic in the Syriac font makes the confusion understandable.

What's the evidence again that GML meant camel's hair rope? An anonymous 10th century lexicographer?

[Newfie]

Finally, one interpretation has Joseph being more like a modern-day contractor than a humble carpenter.
His Greek title could mean anything from a possibly poor stonemason through carpenter to a possibly wealthy architect.

Isn’t it interesting, however, that the Church chose to interpret the title as middle or lower class? I wonder how well Jesus’ message would have been accepted if it were thought that he came from a privileged family?

[Newfie]

If we are talking about Christian urban legends then one of the bigger ones has to be the War in Heaven. Many believe this tale, that Satan tried to stage a coup against God by leading one third of the angels into revolt, which is retold in Paradise Lost, but not in the Bible.
This is based on Revelation chapter 12
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: .................................................
..............................................................................
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


Andrew Criddle

Revelation 12 foretells a future event according to Christian tradition, unless I am mistaken, but it is commonly misunderstood to also refer to Satan’s fall from Heaven as referenced by Jesus when he said "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" in Luke 10:18. There’s also been a lot of mythology added to the tradition that Satan is presently ruling Hell.

[Solitary Man]

His Greek title could mean anything from a possibly poor stonemason through carpenter to a possibly wealthy architect.

Isn’t it interesting, however, that the Church chose to interpret the title as middle or lower class? I wonder how well Jesus’ message would have been accepted if it were thought that he came from a privileged family?

Chances are that Jesus was not wealthy. It's not wise to retroject 21st century Western class distinctions on a 1st century situation.

[Toto]

His Greek title could mean anything from a possibly poor stonemason through carpenter to a possibly wealthy architect.

Isn’t it interesting, however, that the Church chose to interpret the title as middle or lower class? I wonder how well Jesus’ message would have been accepted if it were thought that he came from a privileged family?

Geza Vermez IIRC claims that tekton can mean a skilled craftsman, and was used to refer to scholars skilled in arguments.

Dennis MacDonald claims that Odysseus was also a tekton - a skilled craftsman.

But it was part of Christian theology from the earliest record, that Jesus humbled himself. The "lowly carpenter" fits in with this doctrine.

If Jesus had come from a privileged family, as the Buddha did, that would be incorporated into the legend - "rich young prince renounces the false comforts of material wealth and goes on spiritual journey."

[graymouser]

One interesting source of Christian urban legends is the idea that someone who was around in Jesus's day has lived on uninterrupted ever since. This is usually set up to deal with the obvious problem that the Gospels have Jesus making numerous statements about how "this generation" or the audience he is addressing will not die before the second coming. I've heard variants that it was a Jew who spit on Jesus and is now cursed to wander the earth forever, or perhaps it was the "beloved disciple" (usually imputed to be John). I don't think there is any solid evidence in the texts, but it's out there.

Of course, ancient and medieval stories of saints -- particularly their miracles -- are an entire genre that consists of almost nothing but Christian urban legends, some of which are still held to be true by the Catholic Church to this day. We've got an entire genre, hagiography, loaded with these stories.

[fatpie42]

One interesting source of Christian urban legends is the idea that someone who was around in Jesus's day has lived on uninterrupted ever since. This is usually set up to deal with the obvious problem that the Gospels have Jesus making numerous statements about how "this generation" or the audience he is addressing will not die before the second coming. I've heard variants that it was a Jew who spit on Jesus and is now cursed to wander the earth forever, or perhaps it was the "beloved disciple" (usually imputed to be John). I don't think there is any solid evidence in the texts, but it's out there.

Where did you hear this? I've never come across that one.


Of course, ancient and medieval stories of saints -- particularly their miracles -- are an entire genre that consists of almost nothing but Christian urban legends, some of which are still held to be true by the Catholic Church to this day. We've got an entire genre, hagiography, loaded with these stories.

Yeah, that are some great ones, like St. Brendan holding mass on the back of a whale which they convert to Christianity:
http://scribalterror.blogs.com/scribal_terror/2007/03/st_brendan_and_.html

There's also the case of Brigid of Ireland who was actually a pagan goddess who was appropriated as a saint for the purposes of converting people to Christianity.
http://www.goddessgift.com/goddess-myths/goddess-brigid.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Brigid#Connection_with_pagan_Brigid
(The wikipedia entry rather dodgily claims that "most historians" think she was a real person who was exaggerated to encompass aspects of the goddess, but fails to name any historians or give any references.)

[graymouser]

Where did you hear this? I've never come across that one.

I heard most of them in college (so 5-9 years ago), hanging out with a mix of friends who were Xian or intrigued by prophecy. There are Wikipedia entries about the Wandering Jew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_jew#Origin_of_the_legend) and the Beloved Disciple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved) that reference these beliefs. One interesting character who has been peripherally connected with these is the Count of St. Germain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_of_St_Germain).

[Amaleq13]

One interesting character who has been peripherally connected with these is the Count of St. Germain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_of_St_Germain).

From the article:
"Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, who has written more than 20 intensively-researched historical novels about the Count (casting him as a vampire), included in her short story collection The St. Germain Chronicles (1983) a chapter on the historical man. In it she provides an overview of established details about the Count as well as her own opinion as to his actual identity (the son of a wealthy, probably Jewish, diamond merchant)."

I really like these books.

[Minimalist]

If we are talking about Christian urban legends then one of the bigger ones has to be the War in Heaven.


If memory serves this was actually a fairly common motif in ancient religion. Gods always seemed to be having little palace revolts spring up (Zeus and the Titans, for instance.)

Perhaps this is just one more idea that the christians borrowed?

[Newfie]

Where did you hear this? I've never come across that one.

I heard most of them in college (so 5-9 years ago), hanging out with a mix of friends who were Xian or intrigued by prophecy. There are Wikipedia entries about the Wandering Jew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_jew#Origin_of_the_legend) and the Beloved Disciple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved) that reference these beliefs. One interesting character who has been peripherally connected with these is the Count of St. Germain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_of_St_Germain).

There is actually a series of pulp fiction novels created by Barry Sadler called Casca about the Roman soldier who pierced Jesus’ side being the cursed one who, of course, has a series of “Highlander” like adventures throughout history as a soldier of fortune who cannot be killed. Yet another expression of this myth. See the link here (http://www.casca.net/)

[Newfie]

Isn’t it interesting, however, that the Church chose to interpret the title as middle or lower class? I wonder how well Jesus’ message would have been accepted if it were thought that he came from a privileged family?

Geza Vermez IIRC claims that tekton can mean a skilled craftsman, and was used to refer to scholars skilled in arguments.

Dennis MacDonald claims that Odysseus was also a tekton - a skilled craftsman.

But it was part of Christian theology from the earliest record, that Jesus humbled himself. The "lowly carpenter" fits in with this doctrine.

If Jesus had come from a privileged family, as the Buddha did, that would be incorporated into the legend - "rich young prince renounces the false comforts of material wealth and goes on spiritual journey."

So the word that people have based the belief that Jesus was a simple carpenter could have been a reference to his skill as a rabbi and debater?

Were the OT prophecies not expecting a messiah coming from the more humbler corners of society? I don’t think that a Jesus coming from a rich and privileged background (although he had to be of the line of David) would have fulfilled the prophesies. It would also have countered many aspects of his message that warn of the dangers of wealth.

[dr lazer blast]

how about most of the wars were caused by religion?

[Dogfish]

The topic is urban legends, not facts.

:wave:

[WVIncagold]

How about everything created has a creator. That is a popular myth.

[Fenton Mulley]

how about most of the wars were caused by religion?

How about he one where you are so secure in your religious beliefs that you'd never be seen hanging around a non-religious message board taking angry potshots at everyone?

[Keith&Co.]

How about everything created has a creator. That is a popular myth.
Well, every building has a builder.
Every painting has a painter.
Every bridge has a bridger.
Every mountain has a mountaineer.
Every sausage has a sausager.
Every myth has a myther.
Every chair has a chairer.
Every pen has a penner.
Every bee has a beer.
Every beekeeper has a beekeeperer.

Seems logical to me...

[WVIncagold]

How about everything created has a creator. That is a popular myth.
Well, every building has a builder.
Every painting has a painter.
Every bridge has a bridger.
Every mountain has a mountaineer.
Every sausage has a sausager.
Every myth has a myther.
Every chair has a chairer.
Every pen has a penner.
Every bee has a beer.
Every beekeeper has a beekeeperer.

Seems logical to me...

:D
Biker has a Biker
Smoke has a Smoker
Toke has a Toker
Great Argument! need to use it with some people.

[Keith&Co.]

Biker has a Biker
You mean bike has a biker. But then, biker has a bikerer. And a bikerer must have a bikererer.

[Sheshbazzar]

One interesting source of Christian urban legends is the idea that someone who was around in Jesus's day has lived on uninterrupted ever since. This is usually set up to deal with the obvious problem that the Gospels have Jesus making numerous statements about how "this generation" or the audience he is addressing will not die before the second coming. I've heard variants that it was a Jew who spit on Jesus and is now cursed to wander the earth forever, or perhaps it was the "beloved disciple" (usually imputed to be John). I don't think there is any solid evidence in the texts, but it's out there.

Of course, ancient and medieval stories of saints -- particularly their miracles -- are an entire genre that consists of almost nothing but Christian urban legends, some of which are still held to be true by the Catholic Church to this day. We've got an entire genre, hagiography, loaded with these stories.

This idea is somewhat founded upon "harmonizing" and "understanding" the statement of Heb. 9:27

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

Thus the logic would be that any individual that died, -and was brought back to life from the dead- would not die again (at least until the Judgement Day) but would remain ever alive to be a "watcher" and ultimately be revealed as first-hand "witness" to all of the important events in human history in The Day of Judgement.
A prime example would be "Lazarus", who by that teaching is still alive, and living amongst us, observing, and being a present "witness" to whatever affairs of humanity YHWH deems to be of critical importance in The Day of Judgement.
"Lazarus" and all other such "hidden ones" being "The Watchers" and "The Witnesses" will remain unrecognised and undetected until The Day of Judgement when YHWH will call His witnesses to the witness stand.
Then, and only then, will they be revealed, in The Day that they are called forth; "Lazarus come forth" Then they shall give their sworn account as witnesses for The Prosecution.

This is a short summary of the ideas that are inherent in that beliefe, and is presented here for information only. I will not debate its validity.

[Amaleq13]

Well, every building has a builder.
Every painting has a painter.
Every bridge has a bridger.
Every mountain has a mountaineer.
Every sausage has a sausager.
Every myth has a myther.
Every chair has a chairer.
Every pen has a penner.
Every bee has a beer.
Every beekeeper has a beekeeperer.

Seems logical to me...

Good point. Referring to the universe as a "creation" begs the question.

There is no good reason to assume such a thing about it.

[Keith&Co.]

Good point. Referring to the universe as a "creation" begs the question.

There is no good reason to assume such a thing about it.At least, not until we can see the lower left corner of the Unvierse and see if He signed it...

[Casper]

And they carried away enough gold to make a large statue of a calf, melt it down, and still have enough left for a golden ark? Seriously?!!


Especially if one source was guilded objects. Unless maybe they peeled the leaf. But that would take a lot of gold leaf and a lot of peeling.

Source aside, the hidden absurdity is the fashioning of such objects in the amount of time allotted, by a fairly nomadic band so large it was dependent on miracles just for basic food and water is what requires a real stretch of faith.

Was the calf truly solid metal, or a gilded icon? The ark?

What tools were available? Beeswax and refined clay for the mold? Fuel for the kiln?

How about the smelter? Similar questions, but you also need a crucible. And your fuel should be charcoal, not just wood. Your tools would not be iron, but bronze. That makes it a little bit tougher.

And was it pure gold? Egyptian gold was not purified, but a silver-gold amalgam (electrum). Refining of gold to remove the silver was a Persian practice introduced maybe 6th cent BCE. Silver was considered more scarce and valuable by the egyptians, and electrum with higher silver contents were more precious (to them) than pure gold.

Here is the rub; the tools and technology required by the assumptions in the traditional story, as well as the whole idea in the old testament that gold itself is of the highest value, hint at a much later authoring of the text than ~1300 BCE. Centuries later. In spite of the absurdities.

The argument I guess could be made that the gold came from leaf off of Egyptian gilded artwork, but that really only works if you accept a gilded, not solid, calf.

[jules?]

you may want to reconsider no6, money changers at the temple?

The money changers exchanged 'dirty' worldly real money for temple money, a bit like Itchy&scratchy fun park money [like real money but fun] and obviously there was commission so the poor sods could by an inflated pigion somewhat more expensive than if they brought their own. from the the Jesus the social reformer pov his actions are honorable.

[jules?]

And they carried away enough gold to make a large statue of a calf, melt it down, and still have enough left for a golden ark? Seriously?!!


Especially if one source was guilded objects. Unless maybe they peeled the leaf. But that would take a lot of gold leaf and a lot of peeling.

Source aside, the hidden absurdity is the fashioning of such objects in the amount of time allotted, by a fairly nomadic band so large it was dependent on miracles just for basic food and water is what requires a real stretch of faith.

Was the calf truly solid metal, or a gilded icon? The ark?

What tools were available? Beeswax and refined clay for the mold? Fuel for the kiln?

How about the smelter? Similar questions, but you also need a crucible. And your fuel should be charcoal, not just wood. Your tools would not be iron, but bronze. That makes it a little bit tougher.

And was it pure gold? Egyptian gold was not purified, but a silver-gold amalgam (electrum). Refining of gold to remove the silver was a Persian practice introduced maybe 6th cent BCE. Silver was considered more scarce and valuable by the egyptians, and electrum with higher silver contents were more precious (to them) than pure gold.

Here is the rub; the tools and technology required by the assumptions in the traditional story, as well as the whole idea in the old testament that gold itself is of the highest value, hint at a much later authoring of the text than ~1300 BCE. Centuries later. In spite of the absurdities.

The argument I guess could be made that the gold came from leaf off of Egyptian gilded artwork, but that really only works if you accept a gilded, not solid, calf.

Most late bronze-age finds of bull cult objects are palm sized so therefore a few ear-rings and alike could have been melted down in a campfire. Shit I am defending the bible. :Cheeky: again.

[Casper]

Especially if one source was guilded objects. Unless maybe they peeled the leaf. But that would take a lot of gold leaf and a lot of peeling.

Source aside, the hidden absurdity is the fashioning of such objects in the amount of time allotted, by a fairly nomadic band so large it was dependent on miracles just for basic food and water is what requires a real stretch of faith.

Was the calf truly solid metal, or a gilded icon? The ark?

What tools were available? Beeswax and refined clay for the mold? Fuel for the kiln?

How about the smelter? Similar questions, but you also need a crucible. And your fuel should be charcoal, not just wood. Your tools would not be iron, but bronze. That makes it a little bit tougher.

And was it pure gold? Egyptian gold was not purified, but a silver-gold amalgam (electrum). Refining of gold to remove the silver was a Persian practice introduced maybe 6th cent BCE. Silver was considered more scarce and valuable by the egyptians, and electrum with higher silver contents were more precious (to them) than pure gold.

Here is the rub; the tools and technology required by the assumptions in the traditional story, as well as the whole idea in the old testament that gold itself is of the highest value, hint at a much later authoring of the text than ~1300 BCE. Centuries later. In spite of the absurdities.

The argument I guess could be made that the gold came from leaf off of Egyptian gilded artwork, but that really only works if you accept a gilded, not solid, calf.

Most late bronze-age finds of bull cult objects are palm sized so therefore a few ear-rings and alike could have been melted down in a campfire. Shit I am defending the bible. :Cheeky: again.

That would take more than a campfire and more than a few earrings I think. And what of the ark?

I have limited experience playing with gold, but I definitely had access to a wealth of tools and knowledge that they did not. Still, supposing it could be done with resources at hand, in the time frame specified, the imagery seems awfully iron-age to me. Note that this is not from any kind of expert opinion, just a personal observation subject to correction. This place corrects me all the time, I'm not ashamed to admit it.

[jules?]

Casper, considering the whole exodus thing is improbable the meaning is in the myth. Sure a gold worker could probably work miracles and some of the stuff produced in Egypt is stunning so I would not dismiss the ability of ancient smiths too quickly. Oddly the Jewish god starts out as a bull cult to morph into the alter with horns so what is the message behind the myth? as for the Ark the theft of an Egyptian ark would solve the problem as would the war tent of the Pharaoh who ever he was

[Casper]

Casper, considering the whole exodus thing is improbable the meaning is in the myth. Sure a gold worker could probably work miracles and some of the stuff produced in Egypt is stunning so I would not dismiss the ability of ancient smiths too quickly. Oddly the Jewish god starts out as a bull cult to morph into the alter with horns so what is the message behind the myth? as for the Ark the theft of an Egyptian ark would solve the problem as would the war tent of the Pharaoh who ever he was

Agreed. And I think this is commonly noted by many that the symbolism involves a metaphoric "dethroning" of El to be replaced by Yaweh, at least that is my take on some of the comments I've read. Not to mention the combining of the various septuagint sources, which throws some sand into the gears.

I guess my original point was, and I strayed too much, that the fleeing hebrews having all this gold did not strike me as real conundrum, but the time and effort involved in creating these objects, in the context of what they were doing, was more absurd from a literal standpoint.