That story is only tracked back to the 1400's, so not credible. The currently favoured theory is that this was a translation error. Apparently in Aramaic (the language of Judaea and Galilee), the word for "camel" is very close to the word for "rope". As with all parables (and this does qualify as a parable) it may be intended to reward some thought - e.g. the only way of getting a rope through the eye of needle is to strip away almost all of it, rather than being a flat negation.
Is your source on this that 90s era website I’ve seen passed around for 20 years? You truly think that thousands of theologians over hundreds of years never noticed this one simple coincidence?
Sorry, I don't know which web site you are referring to. However this is a primarily a matter of linguistics. Checking in to it, it wasn't Aramaic that was the issue, but Greek: κάμηλον (kamēlon, “camel”) versus κάμιλον (kamilon, “rope”).
If by theology, you mean the possible interpretation of "strip away almost everything", while it is debatable whether this particular parable actually means that, it is always accepted that a rich person can give up what they have. This is literally the words of Jesus (Mark 19:16-22), the context in which the parable is given.
Francis of Assisi is an example of one person who made this decision.
Much nicer interpretation than the simple impossibility.
Plus takes into account that in text criticism the more difficult spelling is usually the more correct, then rendered into the more common through lapsus calami/scribe error.
thousands of theologians over hundreds of years probably passed it around until the '90s, when a few learned HTML and put it online. I doubt the website's authors were the first.
This meaning seems somewhat contrary to readings in the OT (Ecclesiastes 4:12), about how a person alone is defeated, but two can fight back-to-back, and how three are a braided cord. I think given how other verses speak about not serving God and Mammon (money), that the rich are asked to give their riches to follow Jesus is a direct appeal to that given rich man, so that he could braid his cord with theirs, and have the man and his money work toward spreading the Good News. These braiding metaphors are similar to comparisons of Gentiles being grafted as a new vine onto the covenant with Abraham.
The parable of the talents and the connection between investment skill and being blessed by the master show that being rich or good with money is considered a good thing that can be used poorly or toward evil, not simply evil in itself. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not that money is evil in and of itself. Money is simply a tool fit for a purpose, as Jesus shows with the miracle of the fish with a coin in its mouth which was used to pay their temple taxes, so that Jesus could keep the legalistic Pharisee and Sadducee busybodies off their backs for a little while longer.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Or something like that.
I don't see this as an issue. There are only so many images to use in a subsistence agriculture society, hence sheep and grain coming up over and over. Sometimes similar images will be used to make different points.
If you want something genuinely difficult, have a look at the alternative explanation of the parable of the talents where the man who does not commit usury is the good guy. One of the gospels (Luke) has additional detail about the "nobleman" who goes off to which suggests this is Herod the Great, (bad guy - see Lk 19:27), so the original meaning is up for debate. Personally I believe that a large part of the point of parables was to spark debate, so we should not assume that the meanings are obvious.
I think there are consistent usages and expressions in the OT and NT that show how God understands money to be a tool to be used, and not and asset to be hoarded or an aspect of vice to be indulged in. It's a fine distinction, you could even say it's threading a needle.
So basically it says “you can’t take it with you, so do something good with it while you’re alive instead of hoarding it like you can take it with you.”
Up to a point, but there are other parables which make death explicit, e.g. the rich farmer who tore down his barns to build bigger ones, and was told he would die that night. This parable doesn't link this to having limited time, it's just about "sell everything, give to the poor" to be saved.
The key of the teaching comes after that metaphor, when the disciples ask how one can be saved and Jesus answers that “with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
These words eventually became the foundation of Christian charity in an Ancient world that until then despised and rejected the weak and infirm.
Many of our modern day institutions trace their origin to that Christian charity, to those few enigmatic words.
(Peter Brown's “Through the Eye of a Needle” is a great book to know more about this process.)
