Talk:Lesson of the widow's mite
|WikiProject Women's History||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
http://widowmites.com/ Description, scriptures and history of the widow's mite coin
Who are "Brown, et al"? With no further citation than that, it's impossible to judge the relevance of the point, but on the face of it it seems implausible that this passage is widely used to justify antisemitism--after all, the widow is Jewish too, and giving faithfully to the Temple, and Jesus approves of her doing so. No?
This seemed to be very confusing to me. Is whoever wrote this implying that the parable was written in 1611, or that the translation is poor because the translators were framing their view of the parable in relation to current social norms?
- This whole article could use some clarification...I'd imagine that the summary of the story (quote the passage?), then interpretations, then any cultural notes.18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- worst article i've ever read. 1611 is when the KVJ was completed. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
How can you say there was no "mite" in Jesus' day then show a picture of one minted 70 or 80 years earlier? Sounds like an attempt to discredit Scripture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm not correctly using "Talk," but my response to the preceding is that a little editing could clarify that even if mites didn't exist then lepta did, although "mite" would be in the story if King James' translators wrote it. I think it's clear that the translators used current vocabulary, even while social norms might or might not have changed. Certainly, we can assume that widows were generally poor all throughout history, at least until the era of women's equal rights to inherit, work and own property.
As to the invitation in the article to Talk about the tone, I like that the article explains what the contemporary readers of the KJV would have known and understood, and explores other aspects of how Jesus' parable is relevant to Christian teachings. A purely scientific or technical article, strictly limited to proving the facts stated regarding the parable, would be of far less utility to people who consult encylopedias. I'd love to know what a survey of Britannica-type publications of recent decades might reveal in this regard, but I suspect that they're not dissimilar in tone from this article. It gave me what myself came to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
A superbly well written and informative article that told me exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you. John H, Selkirk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)