The Origin of the ‘Needle's Eye Gate’ Myth: Theophylact or Anselm?

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION New Testament Studies Pub Date : 2022-06-09 DOI:10.1017/s0028688521000448
Agnieszka Ziemińska
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“针眼门”神话的起源:茶树属还是安塞姆属?
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》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
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.
期刊最新文献
What is Reception Study? A Proposal for Terminological Definitions Based on Christina Hoegen-Rohls’ Article The Second Teacher's Story in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas: A Contribution to the Recent Discussion on the Developmental Interpretation NTS volume 69 issue 3 Cover and Back matter Rezeptionskritik und Rezeptionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments: Eine methodologische Skizze Why ‘Reception History’ Is Not Just Another Exegetical Method: The Case Of Mark's Ending
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1