Talk:Adynaton

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Book of Matthew 19:24
Hmmm, there is a problem with the biblical quote used there - the "eye of the needle" was a very narrow passage in Jerusalem, and the implication of the saying is that one must cast off their material wealth, as a camel must cast off their packs to pass through the passage. So perhaps this is only really adynaton if taken literally, rather than figuratively as Jesus meant. - HughJampton 12th December 2005
 * The problem here, although this possible interpretation has existed since the 9th century, is that there is no historical evidence that any narrow gate called the Eye of a needle existed in Jerusalem. An alternative interpretation is that the Greek for cable was mis-transcribed as camel; however it is still clearly impossible for a cable to pass through the eye of a needle, and in any case biblical scholars give little credence to this intrepretation. The consensus view is that camel and needle both mean exactly that. --BillC 20:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I ran a google search for "eye of a needle" and this image came up in the top three (although I was searching for pages, not images). This interpretation of "eye of a needle" confirms what I was taught by educated Christians: That the "eye of a needle" was a colloquialism for the narrow part of an arched gate, the colloquialism being based on a literal eye of the needle. Since it is difficult to make a camel lower his neck (due to pride or stubbornness), it is difficult - though not impossible - to make a camel pass through this narrow portion of a gate. This interpretation renders the meaning of the verse differently:  Due to pride or stubbornness, rich men will find it harder to bend their necks for the humility necessary to enter heaven. The other interpretation just claims it is outright IMPOSSIBLE for a rich man to enter heaven, and this is a popular opinion for anyone who wishes to demonize wealth. But the explanation of a gate makes sense for use with a camel - for the imagery of an actual needle, why a camel? Why not a dog or cat, or even a person? Perhaps because in the comparison used, these animals COULD pass through what was being described. A camel could as well, in fact it would be easier than for a rich man to enter heaven. --Jason R. Peters 17:36 October 11 2007 EST  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.105.50 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Check out the two external links in the comment above yours, which address this issue. &mdash; BillC talk 16:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, this discussion has to do with adynaton, not with Scripture. Matthew 19:24 seems to be a poor choice as an example given the history of ambiguity going back to at least the 13th century.  People who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the "eye of the needle" is a low gate going into Jerusalem do not read the example as intended.


 * The next point is that the example does not satisfy the requirement of adynaton to imply impossibility, as follows. Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting, especially as applied to the Bible.  One principle of hermeneutics is "interpret according to the known purpose of the author ."  So did the author purpose this example as something impossible?  No, we know from Matthew two verses later (Matt 19:26) that "with God all things are possible."  Going through the eye of a needle is purposed as something that is possible.


 * Thirdly, the example does not seem to satisfy the requirement of adynaton to be hyperbole. Nor does the example seem to be exaggeration.  RB 66.217.118.201 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the text that was just deleted from the Article: RB 66.217.117.90 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Book of Matthew 19:24

misquote?
seems like the order of philosophers and clocks in the Sneneca quote should be reversed, in order for the quote to be humorous and a proper adynaton, but I can't find the quote anywhere else so i'll leave it. Peligro 21:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The quote is to be found in the satire The pumpkinification of Claudius (traditionally ascribed to Seneca). I was working from a translation by Robert Graves to be found at the back of the book Claudius the God in which the wording was as in the article. This site translates the passage as: What hour it was I cannot certainly tell; philosophers will agree more often than clocks, but the meaning is the same. Written today, the saying is less pithy since clocks are highly accurate, but in AD 54, the year of Claudius's death, water clocks kept poor time and differed widely. --BillC 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

got it, thanks. i mistook the quote as commenting on philosophers and not clocks. --Peligro 05:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-literary examples
Why must all of the example be literary? Surely the expression "when hell freezes over" is also an adynaton?--Pharos 23:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no reason, though I think the usage would have to be something like "hell would freeze over before xxxx would happen". --BillC 00:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this a real word???
I am unable to find any citations for this word in any other line media include Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam Webster. The only other pages I find copy the Wikitionary entry. Where I will also be posting a request for any citation. Would love for this word to be real but just don't see that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.12.21 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a real word.
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica entry
 * American journal of Philology, 1965
 * Petrarch's genius, Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle
 * &mdash; BillC talk 03:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not Quite an Adynaton.
I would argue that the example provided, about growing beards, isn't quite considered impossible by the writer (Shakespeare) or at least its intended audience. Growing hair on the palms was considered a consequence of masturbation, so this is also an example of one of Shakespeare's famous dirty jokes, and isn't quite an Adynaton because the speaker wasn't giving an impossible example, simply one considered unlikely and vulgar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.64.34 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Adynaton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410011323/http://www.vanderbilt.edu:80/AnS/english/plummerj/adynaton.htm to http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/english/plummerj/adynaton.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Another non-adynaton

 * See the Portuguese line : a cow CAN cough, if it has bovine tuberculosis, if James Herriot was right. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)