Slashdot Mirror

The first of those is misunderstood, the 'eye of the needle' was a term that described that back door to a walled city - the door that would be used after dark when the main gate was closed.

Another version of this myth still being perpetuated upon the innocent by Sunday school teachers and holy land tour guides. It used to be said (as early as the C15th) that there was a gate in Jerusalem that was called the eye of the needle. Unfortunately the historical and archaeological record reveals no such gate (if memory serves me correctly there were 5 gates in Jerusalem in Jesus' time).

What you are actually dealing here is either a simple translation error or perhaps a pun and a pun which surprisingly works both in Aramaic (and Hebrew) as well as Greek. GML is both the name for the Hebrew letter (equivalent of G), for a camel and for rope. In Koine Greek the word for 'camel' is kamelos while the word for ship's rope is kamilos. Considering that vowel shift was occurring between iota and eta, the ambiguity was greater in speech.. See also here.

In Aramaic GML is pointed the same way for both as gamla, so when Jesus spoke he literally said "it is easier to thread a ship's rope through the eye of a needle" and "it is easier to force a camel through the eye of a needle," at the same time.

Moreover if we take this statement together with Luke 6:25; Matt 6:24 (also Luke 16:13); etc. there can be no doubting the import of Jesus' words: If you are rich, if you pursue wealth even, you are fucked for all eternity. ... unless you're like Warren Buffet or something and leave the sweets for the little kids ...

The Wikipedia entry disputes this story, saying that while the tale is centuries old, it is unlikely to be true. The source material agrees with this and explains that it really meant the eye of a needle. The camel likely meant the animal, but it could have meant a rope made of camel hair. In either case, it was intended to be an impossibility of getting something through an opening a fraction of an inch in size.

I have to wonder how they reconcile the whole "it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" bit.

That's a very good question, and unfortunately one that I know the answer to.

Many modern Christians believe in a fairly modern and contrived myth that the "eye of a needle" is referencing a gate in Jerusalem called "The Eye of the Needle", which for enigmatic reason was made to have a fairly short entrance. This entrance was too tall for a burdened camel to pass through. Travelers with a camel would have to first "remove their burdens" to enter this gate. Some will even make reference to the camel has to "get down on it's knees" first as well.

Of course, the problem is that it's a myth that only began appearing in the last 2 centuries. That doesn't matter though, because it's quite popular among fundamentalist Christians. They choose an interpretation that makes them feel better. Now they can ignore the poor and feel comfortable being rich because all they have to do is pray and make themselves believe that they have rid themselves of their burdens. In their defense, looking after the poor is quite a burden.

It's kind of like how when Jesus is quoted as saying, "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me" is interpreted to only refer to children. It's used to attack those who are pro-choice. However, it is never used for the poor, immigrants, criminals, Muslims, or democrats. ;-)

http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/camelneedle.htm
http://www.debunker.com/texts/needleye.html

Yeah, well that is the classic American Jesus interpretation of the "eye of a needle" story, but it's wrong.

And where do you get the idea that Jesus was wealthy? That's another silly Americanism I guess. What was the source of his supposed wealth? Carpentry? I've never heard any evidence of that, it is likely that he and his disciples lived off the charity of his followers.

Both of these are easily explained if you understand previous langauges and translations. Instead of me explaining the first passage in Luke 14:26, I'll give you a link http://www.biblicalhebrew.com/nt/lovehate.htm.

As for the second passage, and I'm sure you've been told this before, Jesus is not saying everyone needs to sell everything they have. Jesus knew the heart of this particular person and therefore asked him to give up the most important thing(s) in his life. Jesus is not telling you to give up everything, He's asking if you are willing to do so, there's a difference. This passage could have easily have been about sex or any other thing that could be or is important to a particular person. It's all about what or who is most important.

your camel-thru-eye-of-needle example (of biblical mistranslation) just doesn't work. sorry. after reading the above link, i think you'll agree that the passage was intended as hyperbole, not a gate. since you're aware of this common myth, i think i can safely peg you as a sunday school refugee. :)

i'm getting even further off topic... but i'll just posit that people's misgivings about biblical translations are pretty much unfounded...

the bible is, BY FAR, the most trustworthy ancient document as far as authenticity is concerned. see the table provided in http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg. html.

people don't seem to be too concerned about the authenticity of plato's writings but we've only got 7 manuscripts that are of the same quality/date-delta as the 24,000 manuscripts of the greek new testament. the way i understand things... the new testament is the most historically authentic ancient document that we've got. more info at http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.ht ml.

further... it's not as though there's any short supply of greek and hebrew scholars. our seminaries pump them out at huge rates. heck, even i took a few semesters of greek. my wife knows hebrew fairly well. the mainstream translations we've got, at least the english ones i've had access to... seem quite excellent to my lights.

in short, i think the "bad-translations" argument doesn't really work. at all.