{"title":"The Origin of the ‘Needle's Eye Gate’ Myth: Theophylact or Anselm?","authors":"Agnieszka Ziemińska","doi":"10.1017/s0028688521000448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Jesus’ hyperbolic saying that ‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven’, present in the synoptic tradition (Matt 19.24; Mark 10.25; Luke 18.25), has long been subject to the suggestion that the ‘eye of a needle’ does not refer to an actual needle but is the name of a small gate in the Jerusalem wall. Today, most biblical scholars are convinced that this theory is incorrect, but no study identifies the sources of the error and traces the history of this myth. This note focuses on tracking the origins of the flaw and points specifically to the sources of the misconception that the term ‘eye of a needle’ should not be taken literally. The earliest note that mentions a gate called the ‘eye of a needle’ seems to be a gloss attributed to Anselm of Canterbury (11th cent.). This gloss can be found in the thirteenth-century work of Thomas Aquinas Catena aurea. What is false, however, is the oft-repeated belief that the source of the information is the eleventh-century Gospel Commentary of Theophylact.","PeriodicalId":19280,"journal":{"name":"New Testament Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Testament Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0028688521000448","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Jesus’ hyperbolic saying that ‘it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven’, present in the synoptic tradition (Matt 19.24; Mark 10.25; Luke 18.25), has long been subject to the suggestion that the ‘eye of a needle’ does not refer to an actual needle but is the name of a small gate in the Jerusalem wall. Today, most biblical scholars are convinced that this theory is incorrect, but no study identifies the sources of the error and traces the history of this myth. This note focuses on tracking the origins of the flaw and points specifically to the sources of the misconception that the term ‘eye of a needle’ should not be taken literally. The earliest note that mentions a gate called the ‘eye of a needle’ seems to be a gloss attributed to Anselm of Canterbury (11th cent.). This gloss can be found in the thirteenth-century work of Thomas Aquinas Catena aurea. What is false, however, is the oft-repeated belief that the source of the information is the eleventh-century Gospel Commentary of Theophylact.
耶稣夸张地说“骆驼穿过针眼比财主进天国还容易”,出现在对观福音传统中(马太福音19.24;马克10.25;路加福音18:25),长期以来,人们一直认为“针眼”并不是指真正的针,而是耶路撒冷城墙上一扇小门的名字。今天,大多数圣经学者都相信这个理论是不正确的,但没有研究确定错误的来源,并追溯这个神话的历史。这篇笔记的重点是追踪缺陷的起源,并特别指出了“针眼”一词不应该从字面上理解的误解的来源。最早提到一扇被称为“针眼”的门的注释,似乎是坎特伯雷的安瑟伦(Anselm of Canterbury,公元11世纪)的一篇注释。这种注释可以在13世纪托马斯·阿奎那的作品中找到。然而,错误的是,人们经常重复认为这些信息的来源是11世纪的《Theophylact福音注释》。
期刊介绍:
New Testament Studies is an international peer-reviewed periodical whose contributors include the leading New Testament scholars writing in the world today. The journal publishes original articles and short studies in English, French and German on a wide range of issues pertaining to the origins, history, context and theology of the New Testament and early Christianity. All contributions represent research at the cutting edge of the discipline, which has developed a wide range of methods. The journal welcomes submissions employing any such methods in recent years. The periodical embraces exegetical, historical, literary-critical, sociological, theological and other approaches to the New Testament, including studies in its history of interpretation and effects.