Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"eye of the needle" refers to a small gate or passage in ancient city walls, used after the main gates were closed at night. A camel could only pass through this narrow opening if it was unloaded of its baggage and possibly crawled through on its knees.

Not as hard or impossible as it first appears but still harder.



From what I understand, this is actually highly debated among biblical scholars.

This idea that he meant "it's hard but not impossible" seems to generally be pushed by wealthy religions and "prosperity gospel" types.

Reading everything else Jesus said, I find it more likely that he literally meant the "eye of an actual needle". He did not seem to be a fan of the rich or powerful in any way.


It's not impossible for a rich person to develop spiritually and attain heaven. They just have to give up all their riches. So functionally it is easier for a camel to do this other equivalent nearly-impossible thing.


In a Catholic and the way those verses are interpreted is that it’s not that you have to give up all your money but give up greed, it basically means that you should not worship your wealth but place your highest of high towards God, then and only then you can use your wealth towards the Good as you have no more attachments.

I think Protestant have similar interpretations but I could be wrong as they have many denominations.


>I think Protestant have similar interpretations

Lol, I see you've never heard of the prosperity gospel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

"Protestant" is such a broad group of beliefs it's nearly impossible to make any sort of board assertion.


> They just have to give up all their riches.

Well, then they aren't rich anymore, and the camel doesn't need to pass through the eye of the needle. Problem solved.


Yeah, Jesus clarifies as such a few verses later:

> Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26, CSB, emphasis mine)


To be fair, needles at the time probably weren't as fine as they are these days, so you may still have a gap a millimeter across instead of a fraction of that.


That's still too small for the average camel.


> "eye of the needle" refers to a small gate or passage in ancient city walls,

There's a lot of discussion on this verse. Apparently, the gate interpretation didn't exist until the 11 century.

It was rethought to be Rope for a while but this blog post discredits that. https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2023/11/camel.html


A common myth! No, no gate or passage was ever referred to as "the eye of the needle" in antiquity. [1] That verse is intended to be taken literally. Jesus Christ was quite outspoken on his feelings about the wealthy, but of course, wealthy Christians need a way for him to have meant something figurative when he told them to surrender their worldly riches.

[1]: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studie...


There is a hypothesis the Greek word means rope instead of camel, that the parable means we cant thread a rope through a needle.

Arabic word for camel and rope are same in a similar verse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle


Jesus literally told his followers to give up their worldly possessions, but… sure. He intended to give a free pass to those who came after, that hinged on a quirk of city planning that would not exist until centuries later.


No when he said "worldly possessions" he mostly just meant funkopops.


This is categorically false: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTYveLPTC/

Also it just doesn’t make sense.


there are better citations than tiktok, please.


In this case the video is a bona fide Biblical scholar who does public outreach on TikTok. It's a good source.


Oh yeah, I just clicked the link and it's Dan McClellan. Maybe TikTok isn't the best place to cite, but he's highly credible in terms of Biblical scholarship and history.


The source is Dan Mccllelan, not TikTok. TikTok didn’t publish this, Dan did. TikTok is the medium, not the author.

Otherwise it’s like complaining about citing “words printed on paper” when citing a book or journal.


It's just an unsuitable, attention-zapping, toxic format for sharing information. It would be best to link to an article that can convey the full message. not a 15 second jolt which is what TT is all about.


The opposite. It would be unsuitable to link to a long-form article when a 15 second TikTok video would convey the relevant information just fine.

What exactly was incorrect about Dans video? (He’s great BTW)

These new information medium was invented for a reason, in particular, the economic efficiency of conveying information.

I would suggest people learn to use them.


why are you on a written forum right now? why aren't you making 15 second videos with rapidly changing frames?


It’s because I am posting lower effort content here than on TikTok.

Want higher quality content? Then go to TikTok.

The best part is you couldn’t answer what was wrong with Dan’s content.


I broadly agree with you, but why be so black and white? Can't people consume multiple types of media?


Tiktok is particularly dangerous. And not because of the oft-repeated Chinese FUD (some of which may be true), but (my opinion here) it's the "crack" version of cocaine, or the "heroin" version of opium. Everything TT does goes straight to our psychological weaknesses.

Matters of religion (as well as philosophy) simply can't be covered in bite-size 2-minute "shorts".


They certainly can be covered in 15-second shorts. There is no rule in information theory stating information has to be of a certain depth.

It’s dangerous to argue that you need long-form articles to explain ideas.


If you prefer, he does a long form podcast called Data Over Dogma that is skeptical and informative. He uses TikTok because there are loads of people on the platform spewing misinformation about the Bible. He's meeting people where they are with empirical information


No one asked for your opinion on TikTok.


I never knew that. Makes the metaphor a lot more applicable.


Even better, thanks for that explanation


It's not true though (and no evidence that such a gate existed with that name).

It's more likely exaggeration referring to actual camel (the large animal of the area) and the eye of a needle (an example of the smallest hole one would be readily familiar with at the time).

If it was reffering to a named place, the very capable in both Jewish and Greek authors of the New Testament wouldn't have translated it as "τρυπήματος ῥαφίδος" (needle's opening) or "τρυμαλιᾶς ῥαφίδος" (needle's hole), as opposed to something like "narrow gate" or similar that would convey to people unfamiliar with Jerusalem the point.


Except it’s not true, that’s a myth.


[flagged]


No, more so.


The line absolutely exists in the Bible.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: