Talk:Eye of a needle

message: I've added a paragraph explaining a possible solution for the broken context of this parable, as explained by a Greek lecturer at my university. Unfortunately I do not know Greek myself so if somebody who does could verify it and maybe add the relevant Greek samples, that'd be much appreciated.
This is not true, it is just a widespread Fable that has been around so long that people are starting to believe it.  There is no historical backing the statement and to this day a camel still cannot call on his knees. The whole idea of the eye of the needle being an entrance and exit to a wall Kingdom come from a Biblical scripture that says it's harder for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven is for Camel to fit through an eye of a needle..  so people Conjuring up this fable to say that an eye of the needle was a small gate and a wall Kingdom that was used commonly for camels to enter and exit. If that was the case then the Bible would not say that it was impossible for a rich man to get into heaven but With God all things are possible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.109 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Context

message: A quotation in article:
:The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and [camels?]
IMO there is something screwed up with translation. There is an old Arabic say along the lines that if you let a camel's nose into a tent, then you will get the whole camel inside. Where can one find the original text? It is quite possible that the original author made a witty allusion on both says: the needle/camel and the tent/camel ones, which was not understood by the translator (or translators, if the translation with thru a chain of languages )mikka (t) 00:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tents and camels 

message: From this article.
"Meyers, who personally excavated the village of Nazareth where Jesus lived during a 19-year-period, says there is absolutely no evidence of an "eye of the needle" gate in Jerusalem."
--A Non ymous
::That's a very odd statement. Why would a guy excavated Nazareth know anything about Jerusalem? (not to mention that the reference may be generic idiom and not be referencing any specific gate) Jerusalem has been built over and over again so that it would be almost impossible to know about any specific tiny gate. Do not forget, also, that Nazareth is in a entirely different area of Israel than Jerusalem. Two entirely different cities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.42.193 (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So likewise, how can anyone know about the existence of such a gate if no-one has ever seen it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.172.25 (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye of Needle Gate

message: It is also important to note, that in Hebrew culture of the time of Christ, the "Eye of a Needle" also refers to doors that lay beside the main Gates in the city wall.  At night main gates were closed to stop people from rampaging in and out of a city, but you did not wish to keep travelers completely barred from the city, thus when looking at most gates of the period you will see two smaller doors to either side of the main gate, these were left open and guarded at night.  When a traveler needed in or out of the city, his camel would actually drop down on its knees and crawl through the smaller doors called "eyes of needles".
:So you say. But there is apparently no credible evidence for this, or any evidence that the term 'eye of a needle' might have been used for such a thing. Jooler 02:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contextual Meaning of Eye of a Needle

message: Neither does there seem to be any evidence that such gates did not exist. - Nor any evidence that talking dragons didn't exist either. Honestly who put this in here? Jooler 02:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: prove a negative?

message: Why is this even added in here? That little theory was conjured up by people who felt uncomfortable with being wealthy and Christian or who wanted to attain wealth and remain a Christian. Point is, there is no evidence for this strange gate BECAUSE the Isrealites were not stupid enough to build a tiny gate where they had to shove their giant camels through. Inf fact if their little gate explanation is true then it wouldn't fit into the remaining verse about how with God all things are possible. The point of the parrable is that it is supposed to be impossible not improbable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.201.69 (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The stupid gate theory

message: The so called "historical evidence" given in the article is in reference to the "needle's eye" of the Jaffa gate in the wall of Jerusalem, found in the zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary under needle's eye, with a picture of a small door in the gate. The size of the door is about 4x6 foot and the bottom of the door appears to be about 3feet off the ground. We can can discern this by the reference of the man standing directly in front of the gate.Due to the size of this door in the gate it must be a modern one for use of convience and not for security in times of danger.With these dimentions a camel would not have to crawl through it. It would only have to step over the bottom of the door while walking upright,and throuth the door as there is ample room due to the height and width of the overall door.The Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dic.states that this gate was in common usage in ancient cities.This is stated without any historical evidence being cited . W. E Vine in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words notes: "The idea of appling the 'needle's eye' to small gates seems to be a modern one; there is no ancient trace of it. The Lord's object in the statement is to express human impossibility and there is no need to endeavor to soften the difficulty by taking the needle to mean anything more than the ordinary instrument.  Mackie points out(Hasting's Bible Dic.) that "an attempt is sometimes made to explain the words as a reference to the small door, a little over 2 feet square, in the large heavy gate of a walled city. This mars the figure without materially altering the meaning, and receives no justifaction from the language and traditions of Palestine"
29January 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedbuck (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The authorities and the Gate. 

message: Um... how is the so-called secular interpretation secular? I think maybe you need to either include it in the 'alternative interpretations' rather than giving it a section to itself, or you need to change its name. There's nothing secular about it. 26th April 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.193.6 (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Secular interpretation

message: The image :File:The Obama Family by Willard Wigan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:The Obama Family by Willard Wigan.jpg

message: Perhaps we should have something on it in the main article, if only presented as a controversy. Seriously, I thought there would be information on it in here. ZtObOr 18:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The gate controversy 

message: A paragraph in the Christianity section now reads:
:Some commentators[who?] have found it incredible to speak of a rich man's chance of being saved as being harder than threading a camel through a literal sewing implement. Consequently the phrase has inspired various interpretations.
As noted, a citation is clearly needed. But as an expositor of scripture who woke up this Sunday morning and decided to look up where the camel gate was in ancient Jerusalem, and found out to his surprise that the gate's existence is a legend -- I discovered that something I was holding stock in as true was untrue. I remember where I heard the gate's existence presented as fact; it was in a sermon years ago.
I think the process by which this kind of thing spreads among all kinds of groups is akin to Lexical diffusion and Trans-cultural diffusion. Which makes sourcing some widely-held ideas up to Wikipedia standards problematic.
One thing that can be easily sourced are examples of the "various interpretations" of Jesus's statement. Most commentaries deal with it as it sits, without the legendary gate. --ô¿ô 14:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing and "Diffusion" 

message: These sections were removed in June 2009 due to lack of references. I think some of the information- particlyarly the gate stuff- is relevant and perhaps with some references it should be restored. I thought I'd put them in the talk page to save people the bother of looking for them. These were under the Christianity section,
===General interpretation===
The most common Christian interpretation is that Jesus uses the physical impossibility of a camel passing through a needle (compare the similar Talmudic expression involving an elephant) to hyperbolically express the difficulty of entering heaven. A rich man would not ordinarily be able to enter the kingdom of heaven (and the disciples interpreted this to mean that no one can be saved, since wealth was considered a sign of God's favor); but God can achieve what would be impossible without his help.  Jesus spoke in response to the rich man's unwillingness to give up his worldly possessions; through the grace of God, he might be able to give up his attachment to them.  Christians also typically use the account of the rich young ruler, including this phrase, to teach about the deceitfulness of wealth and worldly prestige.
Some scholars have suggested that the word camel (κάμηλον) is in fact a mis-reading of the Greek original, and should instead read rope (κάμιλον). On the weight of this, some English versions read "cable" instead of "camel".Midrash Rabbah, The Song of Songs, 5.3; cf. Pesiqta R., 15, as cited in the online essay 'The camel and the eye of the needle', Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25  This explanation is also based on the notion of physical impossibility: neither a camel nor a rope can pass through the eye of a needle.
In any event, it should be pointed out that in Luke 3:2-11, John the Baptist in seeming accordance with this more literal view made the renunciation of wealth for the sake of the needy not only a primary condition of avoiding being "cast into the fire," but a clear condition of preparation for the coming of Christ (Luke 3:4).  In addition, it is not frequently mentioned by religious authorities that what Christ demanded of the rich, young ruler, he demanded of all his disciples (Luke 12:33; Luke 14:33).  So Christ was not unfairly singling out the rich so much as he was stressing another famous teaching of his: that one cannot serve both God and mammon.
The argument is also asserted that just because someone or his ancestors has successfully violated the Ten Commandments by coveting and stealing property from another party does not entitle the thief and his descendants to keep what God intended for or what belonged to others and their descendants. This argument recalls the Mosaic Year of Jubilee wherein all debt was canceled and all property was returned every fifty years to the original owners and their descendants.
From these and other passages too numerous to mention here, it cannot be denied that a certain equality and avoidance of unchecked political power is espoused in the Bible from cover to cover. Therefore, this literal interpretation regarding the camel or rope and the "eye of the needle" seems to be in accordance with many if not most principles espoused by both the Old Testament and New Testament. Though this interpretation may appear to be a new religious ideal of the time, it is arguably not the case.
===Alternative Interpretation 1===
Another common explanation of the figure, is that Jesus was referring to a certain gate in Jerusalem called Needle's Eye.  This entry-point was built like the eye of a needle and so low that a camel could pass only if it entered kneeling and unencumbered with baggage.  The lesson would then be that an eternal inheritance awaits those who unburden themselves of sin, and in particular, the things of this world.  Also, kneeling represents submission and humility, which are required to enter into heaven.  Although there is no historical evidence that such a gate ever existed, through frequent repetition the idea has attained the status of virtual dogma in some circles."The Hard Sayings of Jesus"; F.F. Bruce; pg. 181
"Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Dictionary" has a picture of a large city gate with a small door in it about four feet high and makes the following claim in the caption: "The Jaffa Gate in the wall of Jerusalem, showing the 'Needle's Eye.' Small doors such as this were common features of the gates of ancient cities; humans could pass through fairly easily, but large animals, such as camels, had to be unloaded and then had to kneel to get through, even then with difficulty." 
According to InterVarsity Press's Bible Background Commentary (Craig S. Keener ed., 1993), those who support this interpretation are mistaken because the gate in question was not constructed until the Middle Ages — well after the Gospels were written."Mark 10:25," IVP Bible Background Commentary, (InterVarsity Press, 1993) Craig S. Keener, ed.
If you look up the Jaffa gate on Wikipedia and elsewhere you'll see it was indeed built in 1538. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 05:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sections 

message: Another common explanation of the figure, is that Jesus was referring to a certain gate in Jerusalem called Needle's Eye.  This entry-point was built like the eye of a needle and so low that a camel could pass only if it entered kneeling and unencumbered with baggage.  The lesson would then be that an eternal inheritance awaits those who unburden themselves of sin, and in particular, the things of this world.  Also, kneeling represents submission and humility, which are required to enter into heaven.  Although there is no historical evidence that such a gate ever existed, through frequent repetition the idea has attained the status of virtual dogma in some circles."The Hard Sayings of Jesus"; F.F. Bruce; pg. 181
"Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Dictionary" has a picture of a large city gate with a small door in it about four feet high and makes the following claim in the caption: "The Jaffa Gate in the wall of Jerusalem, showing the 'Needle's Eye.' Small doors such as this were common features of the gates of ancient cities; humans could pass through fairly easily, but large animals, such as camels, had to be unloaded and then had to kneel to get through, even then with difficulty." 
According to InterVarsity Press's Bible Background Commentary (Craig S. Keener ed., 1993), those who support this interpretation are mistaken because the gate in question was not constructed until the Middle Ages — well after the Gospels were written."Mark 10:25," IVP Bible Background Commentary, (InterVarsity Press, 1993) Craig S. Keener, ed.
If you look up the Jaffa gate on Wikipedia and elsewhere you'll see it was indeed built in 1538. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 05:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Interpretation 1

message: It is easier for a camel/needle . . . than a rich man to enter heaven . . . but it is not Impossible (inferred).
Setting all hypothetical word definitions aside, when Jesus is first questioned by the young rich man, his first response is only (paraphrased) "You know of the commandments, adhere to them and you will find heaven."  If the rich man had left at this point, it could be inferred that wealth is not an obstacle to paradise. It is only when the rich man approaches Jesus a second time and asks again (paraphrased) "I have done these things since my youth, is there nothing more I can do to ensure my place in heaven?" that Jesus tells him to give up his wealth.
If the rich man was performing for his watching friends and trying to extend his contact with Jesus, then the additional requirements to dispose of wealth could be considered a punitive action directed more toward the rich man's insolence than to his wealthy status.  Otherwise, giving up wealth would have been the first answer. Jesus did not say, "your wealth shows that you covet possessions, and you risk trespass of that commandment." At this point, one must consider that Jesus was teaching his followers at the expense of the rich man.
Along with the eye of the needle analogy, Jesus says "by man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." This statement, when considered along with the lesson "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God, what is God's", shows that Jesus believed a clear separation of secular honestly earned material wealth and non-secular Mosaic Law could co-exist. The focus of this parable may be that the more wealth you have, the more honest you must strive to be.
- - - "If the rich man was performing for his watching friends and trying to extend his contact with Jesus, then the additional requirements to dispose of wealth could be considered a punitive action directed more toward the rich man's insolence than to his wealthy status."
The rich man could have been trying to impress his friends and Jesus was making stuff up on the spot in that instance, but that would mean ANY previous statement he made could be interpreted as context based veracity, only referring to the individuals to whom he spoke.  This provides an interesting take on the New Testament, but doesn't a religion make.  
"the more wealth you have, the more honest you must strive to be."  Perhaps the first step in being honest could be to avoid creating random hypothetical situations in a text and instead focus on the meaning of a statement in the context of the rest of the speaker's teachings.  Remove all the thread of a rope but one, drop your burden of materials and kneel, either way, stop hording money.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.56.178 (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Interpretation 2

message: After the part about its meaning in Christianity, there is a section on the possible derivation from a gate. This section ends with a paragraph saying:
  These interpretations also ignore the explanation given in Matthew 19:26 :“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Additionally, such an especially cruel reading would infer that the rich may take back anything they had just given to the poor."
This seems like it came at one point from the section on Christianity, but doesn't fit anywhere now. It isn't apparently relevant to anything else on the page. What cruel reading? There is nothing about such a thing in the section on Christianity, and it clearly isn't referring to the notion that the saying is derived from a small gate. Therefore, I'm going to delete it for the time being. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned paragraph? 

message: Whether or not the reference is metaphorical or literal is a contested claim. Yet this article uses strong wording in the intro to insinuate it isn't. I want to put a "may refer to" in there, but that seems to be against the Weasel Word policy taken literally, so I'll abstain, for now. Qe2eqe (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction blurb is debatable