In his book, chapter 6, Kraybill is refering to textual variants and later interpretive traditions, not to a single modern English Bible. Let’s slow it down and identify exactly what he’s talking about.
First, the baseline text.
In all earliest and best Greek manuscripts of Luke 18:24–25, the wording is unambiguous:
κάμηλον διὰ τρήματος ῥαφίδος
“a camel through the eye of a needle”
This reading is found in early Alexandrian witnesses such as:
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Alexandrinus
It is also reflected consistently in early translations like the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, and Coptic versions. In other words: camel + needle is the dominant and earliest reading.
Now, what Kraybill means by “later versions” is not “modern Bible translations” like NIV or ESV. He is referring to later manuscript traditions and interpretive glosses.
There are two main softening attempts he’s pointing to.
1. “Rope / cord” instead of “camel”
This comes from a Greek spelling variant, not from Jesus changing metaphors.
The Greek word for camel is kámēlos (κάμηλος).
The Greek word for thick rope or cable is kámilos (κάμιλος).
They differ by one vowel.
Some later Greek manuscripts (mostly medieval, Byzantine-period copies) contain this spelling change. It almost certainly arose because scribes:
found the image too extreme or absurd, and
replaced it with something still difficult, but less ridiculous.
This variant does not dominate any major textual tradition, and most critical editions of the Greek New Testament reject it. Modern translations almost universally reject it as well.
So Kraybill is not pointing to a specific Bible like “the KJV” or “the NIV” here. He’s referring to minor medieval Greek manuscript variants.
2. “A small gate called ‘the Eye of the Needle’”
This is not actually a manuscript variant at all.
This idea comes from much later church tradition, probably medieval preaching, not from ancient textual evidence. There is:
no archaeological proof of such a gate in Jesus’ time
no reference to it in early Jewish or Roman sources
no mention of it in any Greek manuscript
It functions as a homiletical explanation, not a textual one. Preachers used it to say, “It’s hard, but not impossible,” which neatly blunts the force of Jesus’ statement.
Kraybill is right to dismiss this as inauthentic. It is an interpretive invention, not a textual reading.
So which “Bible versions” is Kraybill talking about?
Strictly speaking:
No major modern English Bible teaches “rope” or “small gate” as the main meaning.
He is referring to:
later medieval Greek manuscripts with the kámilos spelling, and
post-biblical interpretive traditions, not Scripture itself.
The earliest manuscripts, across textual families, preserve the harder saying.
Why the hard reading is almost certainly original
This is where textual criticism and theology line up beautifully.
There is a well-known principle: the more difficult reading is usually original. Scribes soften; they rarely make things harsher.
Jesus routinely used shocking exaggeration:
gouging out eyes
cutting off hands
swallowing camels (Matthew 23:24)
A literal camel and a literal needle fits his rhetorical style perfectly. The disciples’ reaction in Luke 18:26—“Then who can be saved?”—only makes sense if Jesus meant something humanly impossible, not merely inconvenient.
Bottom line
Kraybill is not accusing modern Bible translators of corruption. He is pointing out that:
The earliest manuscripts say “camel and needle”
Some later scribes and teachers tried to tame the saying
Those softer readings lack strong textual or historical support
In short:
Jesus meant exactly what it sounds like—and that’s why people kept trying to explain it away.
This passage is a textbook example of why comparing manuscripts matters and why the hardest saying is often the truest one.
No comments:
Post a Comment