|WikiProject Bible / criticism||(Rated Start-class)|
When discussing canonical books of Judaism (Tanakh, in particular), references should as a rule be taken from Judaic sources, and not Christian sources. To justify a remark in a discussion of Judaism by referring to a Christian scholar is ridiculous, particularly since Rabbis have produced volumes of commentary over the years on every single sentence one might read in any Judaic text.
From a scholarly POV, it is also unsound to refer readers to an authority who believes, as Christian thought does, that the Tanakh has been properly translated into the "Old Testament" and then superceded by the "New Testament." Rtelkin (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are simply wrong. The books of the Tanakh may be canonical in Judaism, they are also canonical in Christianity. Judaism has no monopoly on these books. Wikipedia relies on (scholarly) published sources. If Christians have published material on books of the Tanakh or on subjects related to this, this material is used by Wikipedia in the same it uses Judaic sources. This 'rule' you speak of violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. --Lindert (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There are multiple interpretations of this law. Some assert that the central focus of the passage is shame, some don't. Duane L. Christensen argues that the focus is about the unfairness of the attack. Marc Cortez recently argued that the passage is focused on damage to the genitals. I don't think that it's very clear that shame and modesty are the main concerns of the passage. Perhaps we should change this? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)