Talk:Parables of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Bible (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Examples[edit]

Obviously the sections under Examples don't yet add much to what's already in List of New Testament stories, but there's plenty of room for expansion with details that don't belong in that list. In progress. Andrewa 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Now not even a maybe stub IMO. Still lots of room for expansion, and one stub section. Andrewa 18:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization project[edit]

I've just finished a big project of reorganizing all the parables and categorizing them. I've made a new template (Template:Parables of Jesus and moved all the pages to more consistent titles. Also, I did a lot of wikifying. Hope you guys Wikipedia series on the fascinating classic parables of Jesus. — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Stevey, I like the new template and the work you have done. Thanks. Jeremy Conlin 03:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Parables for Wikipedia[edit]

While I think it's very worthwhile to have Wikipedia articles on the parables of Jesus, it's important to remember that all articles on Wikipedia have to follow the Neutral point of view rule. That means that articles have to be accepted as factual by believers and nonbelievers alike. People do not agree on whether the Gospels are a factual account of what Jesus actually said, or even on whether Jesus was a historical figure. People do agree that the Gospels contain these accounts, so that's how the articles should present the parables--as accounts contained in the Gospels.

The interpretations of the parables have to be presented as interpretations, and not as their objective meaning. The parables are clearly not self-explanatory, given that Jesus' closest followers are depicted as frequently unable to understand them. They may seem to have a clear meaning in the light of modern Christianity, but that is not necessarily the meaning that Jesus and/or the original authors of the Gospels had in mind.

The persons or institutions who have these interpretations should be named. In other words, Cite Sources. Wikipedia should not contain the interpretations of Wikipedia editors; that would be Original research. Nareek 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone[edit]

I'm really meaning just the tagged section, not the whole article (the template doesn't have an option to tag just a section). That section reads like a bible-study manual, not like an encyclopaedia article.

And is there any copyright issue over the quotes from Packer and Matthews? Colonies Chris 10:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I confess it was I who wrote the offending section. Frankly this is the first Wikipedia article I have edited so I am still learning. I included that section as I thought others would appreciate it and find it useful. How could it be included and still be appropriate for Wikipedia? Also I belive the quotes from Packer and Matthews fall under the Fair_Use guidelines as only a small portion was quoted and references were given. What do you think?
Jeremy Conlin 00:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no expertise in copyright issues beyond a scan of WP:Copyrights, but I have doubts about whether this would constitute 'fair use' - that's really intended to cover quoting pieces of a work in order to criticise it, review it, or educate about it, and that's not how these quotes are being used here. It would be perfectly OK to rephrase it in your own words though, while continuing to acknowledge it as a reference.
It's mostly item 5 that bothers me. Bear in mind that many readers will not be Christians, so e.g. a recommendation to 'pray for inspiration', is not appropriate. But it would be OK to mention that many Christians feel (with a reference to confirm this assertion) that better understanding of a parable can be gained by praying for inspiration. Colonies Chris 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a good recommendation. I have updated item 5; if you think it is better, let me know and we can remove the inappropriate tone tag. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll work on the copyright issues. Jeremy Conlin 19:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Untagged. Colonies Chris 09:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Re-tagged. You absolutely must not assert an opinion as a fact. Do not insist "this is how you study the bible", because many many different groups and divisions of christianity have wildly different opinions about how it should be studied. The entire section is totally inappropriate.
What you are permitted to do is mention how various different groups of Christians, and scholars (not necessarily Christian ones), study the parables. You should avoid presenting the views of only one side as much as possible - you should present as many major viewpoints as you can find; so that means including the Catholic viewpoints, and those of scholars who don't think Jesus was special but are studying the book as they would any other historic document. Ideally it would also include Muslim viewpoints (remember, Muslims regard Jesus as a valid prophet), and those of the Orthodox church, as well. Clinkophonist 20:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the section title to show it is the opinion of Latter-day Saints. Is this appropriate? I don't know how other Christian denominations may interpret this so I had to limit it to the LDS interpretation. Those from other religions/denominations will have to contribute as well. Jeremy Conlin 12:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

To maintain a more nuetral tone do not use the word truth in the Guidelines for studying the parables section 2ct7 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This lead sentence should be deleted as original research[edit]

They are the best known examples of stories referred to as parables, and so form the prototype for the term parable.

The parables of Jesus are certainly not the prototype for the term parable, it's very debatable that they are the best known examples. Unless this statement can be supported by a Wikipedia: Reliable sources, it should be deleted.

Proposed link[edit]

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appd.html for review. Please, if any reader thinks it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller

Parables of the Holy Spirit[edit]

I have read many parables of Jesus, but I was wondering if, according to Christian teaching, the Holy Spirit would have the religious or social capacity to tell parables. ADM (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Parables and words[edit]

I find the following problematic, so I've moved it here for discussion:

Throughout his ministry Jesus put great emphasis on his words, which along with his miracles, constituted major proof of his divinity (cf John 8:28 and 14:10).[1][2][3]

It isn't clear to me how the passages in John relate to "parables" as Pentecost doesn't explain it, and John doesn't mention parables (nor contain any). Furthermore, the way it is phrased seems POV, in addition to being poorly grammatically constructed. The logic of the phrasing doesn't really follow, and the conclusion (that there is major proof of Jesus' divinity") is not apparent to the reader. It would be better discuss this further down, in the context of Christian belief, and explain how the parables relate to divinity in more detail. I also wouldn't mind a sentence summarizing that in the lead as well. Something like "Christians relate the fact that Jesus taught in parables to evidence of his divinity because... " only I don't have the information to fill in the rest. -Andrew c [talk] 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pentecost actually said "His person" which can start a whole 30 page discussion in Christology. The basic logic of Pentecost is that the miracles and parables of Jesus are key components of the "Person of Christ". The importance of the words of Jesus from John 8:28 does not ONLY apply to parables, but to ALL words of Jesus, since as Eric Francis Osborn, 1993 The emergence of Christian theology ISBN 052143078X page 98 also says: John 8:28 states that Jesus does not say things just himself, but speaks according to the instructions of the father - hence a divine link. An easier way is to just use the "parables are words" argument that Pentecost is implying anyway, and I will add that as such. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm fine with your changes. I saw that Pentecost wrote "His person", and I agree there could be a 30 page discussion stemming from that! -Andrew c [talk] 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Refs[edit]

  1. ^ J. Dwight Pentecost, 1998 The parables of Jesus: lessons in life from the Master Teacher ISBN 0825434580 page 10
  2. ^ Biblegateway John 8:28 [1]
  3. ^ Biblegateway John 14:10 [2]

Unclear items[edit]

Moved from Talk:Gospel harmony#Unclear items
See also Talk:Gospel harmony/BaseTable Carlaude:Talk 04:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cox's book lists these as parables. Are they?

  • Matthew 13:51-52 Storehouse of Treasure
  • Matthew 9:14-17 Old Wine in New Wineskins (I had heard that many times)
  • Matthew 7:3-5 The Speck and the Log
  • Matthew 5:14-15 The Lamp and the Basket

So the real question is how well do books agree on what the "actual list" is? The situation is as follows:

  • The miracle seem to all have pages, based on the 5 books I checked before.
  • Some parables that exist in Cox's book are not in Wikipedia and the red links need to be checked. Please type suggestions below here.
  • The parable of Strong Man etc. from the Template of parables i snot found here. Is it already within one of the red links?

We are getting close, but not there yet. History2007 (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Aland lists those passages under the headers (and verses where different): "134. Treasures New and Old", "94. The Question about Fasting", "68. On Judging" 7:1-5, "53. Light of the World" 5:14-16. Throckmorton agrees with Aland on the first 3 (numbers them differently, 103, 54, and 36), but differs in Matthew 5,: "20. The Parables of Salt and Light" 5:13-16. It appears Aland does not consider any of them parables. From Hultgren, the reason why Matthew 9:16-17 is sometimes considered a parable is a) it does contain a comparative/parabolic narrative/figure of speech and b) Lk (but not Mk or Mt) uses the word παραβολή. I'm not sure the best way to handle such situations. We probably may need to devise a way to denote the disputed parables. I don't believe it is our job to decide definitively whether a passage is or is not a parable, though we can easily identify the (virtually) undisputed passages for sure. For what it's worth, Aland does not list "The Strong Man" by itself, but instead includes it with 117. "On Colusion with Satan". Throckmorton splits up 12:12-29 into two different sections, where the verse 29 about the strong man appears with "86. A House Divided". Hultgren does not seem to discuss it either, and clearly does not list it among his 38, nor does the Jesus Seminar (who clearly have a more exclusive list of 33). But that is not to say other sources (that I don't have access to) don't list it either,, i.e. [3]-Andrew c [talk] 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but some will be there and some not. The advantage of auto-generation is that if the list changes, the tables all get auto-updated. But for now, we MUST select a list. My guess is that we should get the near intersection of these sets and not go out on a limb. So from the items that are in red in the base table, which new parables need to be made, if any? I have seen wine and wineskin for ever, so I think I will build a page for it, but what others? In any case, I can leave the red links out for now, proceed and then add them later. It seems to me that Cox's book has errors.... History2007 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It isn't clear why we cannot have a "sometimes considered" list as well. Maybe I don't fully understand your automated process. Or maybe we should consider a more flexible tool. But we should come up with a list first, and if there ends up with a gray area, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Who knows, we might end up with a neat list. Anyway, as for the redlinks:
  • The Ten Minas is the same as The Talents,
  • the Matthew "fasting" is the same as "Garment & Wineskins".
  • The Speck and the Log is the same as The Mote and the Beam, but not many sources consider it a parable (but there is a famous painting that calls it a parable, and other sources that do).
  • I've mentioned the lamp and the basket above (and sometimes the accompanying "salt" parable is considered separate). Perhaps we could create articles for one or both of those.
  • "The unmerciful servant" is red because the link to Parable of the Unmerciful Servant is bad.
  • "The Wise Steward" I've never heard as a parable, but Aland lists those passages along with "Watchfulness and Faithfulness" which also contains the Faithful Servant
  • The Persistent Widow is the same Parable of the Unjust Judge
That leaves The Lowest Seats at a Feast (sometimes called "Choice of Places at Table"), The Cost of Following Jesus (sometimes called "Tower-Builder & King Planning for Battle"), and The Suddenness of His Coming (sometimes called "The Doorkeeper"). Not sure if we should create articles for these, or discount them as parables, or "gray area" or what. I'll do some more research. -Andrew c [talk] 19:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That clarification actually helped a lot. I can just build 3 pages for Door Keeper, Tower Builder and Lamp and basket later. The ones I am not sure about now are:

  • The Wise Steward
  • The Fig Tree (there is a general page only)
  • Fasting (I do not see whee this connects)

I am not sure if lowest seat qualifies as a parable.... if we discount that and resolve the 3 items above, we may have a "first cut" of a list. Give that the books do not all agree, it is an ok list to start with I think. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed some. I said above that "fasting" is the same as "Garment & Wineskins" based on Matthew 9:14-17 and the parallel verses being grouped under the heading "Question about Fasting" in my parallels. However, now on closer examination, it appears this is referring to the passage preceding the Garment & Wineskins parable. I don't believe the "fasting" passage is a parable. It uses the "guests of the bridegroom" as comparative, figurative speech. But again, my sources don't call the following passage regarding garment and wineskins parables. But we do have Luke 5:36 calling it a parable, which is probably one of the main reasons why some sources consider it a parable, even though it doesn't contain the formulaic language concerning the kingdom of God, doesn't contain a similitude, nor a narrative. I'd say leave fasting out completely.
Wise Steward vs. The Faithful Servant. Hultgren lists them separately. Faithful and Wise Slave is Luke 12:42-46 (with a Mt parallel of 24:45-54), while the "Waiting Slaves" is Luke 12:35-38 (with a Mk parallel 13:34-37). The former is sometimes called "Servant Entrusted with Supervision" or "Wise Steward" while "Faithful Servant" seems more commons than "Waiting Slaves". We are currently combining all of them together in the Parable of the Faithful Servant article. I don't know if we should seperate them out or not (not to mention some sources put a "Burglar" parable between the two). The simple answer would be to just combine them all with redirects to Parable of the Faithful Servant, and if we need to further down the road, create more specific articles (or split one out from the other).
That leaves the fig tree. I've found two: "barren fig tree" only in Luke 13:6-9, and the "budding fig tree" found in Mt 24:32-33, Mk 13:28-29, and Lk 21:29-31. Actually, now that I look, our Figs in the Bible article mentions them both already, but has very little content on them. My personal opinion would be to focus on improving that article before creating more stubs. Anyway, Hultgren and JS both have the "barren fig", so I think that is pretty commonly (perhaps undisputedly) a parable, while the "budding fig" isn't listed in either. With this bit of research, I think we should at least include the "barren fig", and consider not using "budding fig". All of this is just my 2 cents ;O) -Andrew c [talk] 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we move this parables discussion above to Talk:Parables of Jesus and just crosslink to/from this page and Talk:Gospel harmony/BaseTable? I think otherwise it would be hard to find this infomation later from that page.
BTW, I think the way to handle the "true parable" question on the Parables of Jesus page is to have two lists and/or two designations: "true parable" and "items sometimes considered parables." Carlaude:Talk 04:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No big deal really, but can you make a definite suggestion, say 33-37 real parables and then a maybe list.
Now regarding namings, do we really need to use Parable all the time in the table? Seems too heavy to me. In the parables table itself they will be clear and in the large harmony table we could have a column called type with values {Parable, Miracle, Ministry, etc.} That way that table can get sorted also by that column. Then no need to keep saying Miracle of Parable of... Ideas? History2007 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Clear terms[edit]

Moved from Talk:Gospel harmony#Clear terms
See also Talk:Gospel harmony/BaseTable Carlaude:Talk 04:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, those helped clarify various things. Now we have 38 parables, a few more than the conservative 33, and well below the large 60 number quoted some places. And they all have their own pages. The order free harmony gets generated automatically at the top of course, but next I will show how some partially ordered harmonies come out of the parable and miracle sets, or both. History2007 (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to add "BooksOnParables.Wordpress.com" as an external link[edit]

Dear Sirs

I have recently created a website that I believe is pertinent to the subject pages at Wikipedia.

My website lists the -- Largest Source of Parable Books by Author and Title -- on the internet.

I also review Parable Book Topics of Interest to those who may visit the site.

You can review my sites content at ...

BooksOnParables.Wordpress.com

Thank for your consideration in advance.

Mirths (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If the books are relevant they should go into a bibliography section or further reading directly, not externally linked. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency and harmony[edit]

I have been looking at tables that list miracles, parables, ministry, and Gospel harmony etc. to make them consistent. Most of the tables have missing items, incorrect links, etc. as would be expected through manual editing. First, please see: List of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels which I generated from the list of all key episodes in these pages by parsing existing pages in Wikipedia. I am planning to automatically regenerate a consistent and less error prone table here from the list of key episodes.

Help will be appreciated in the following form:

  • Please review List of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels that acts as a central repository for Wikipedia links to miracles, parables, etc. If you see errors or inconsistencies there, please correct them based on the format provided on that talk page, and leave a message to that effect on the talk page there.
  • Please comment here on what episodes should be considered parables. The table here lists 30 parables, the template has 32 items and there are 36 pages within Wikipedia that list Canonical parables, i.e. we do have inconsistency. To achieve consistency across templates and pages, there must be changes.

After comments have been provided, I will just regenerate this table with consistent links and Bibleverses from the key episodes page, and update the template to be consistent. History2007 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the 4 pages not included in the template? -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not gotten around to write the template generator, just because that is the easiest part by far and I left that for last. If you want to hand edit it for now please do, I will generate the template and the pericope links that Carl suggested later. History2007 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I might add some pages to the template if I knew which ones to add. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, looking at the table, these 4 didn't seem to be in the template:

One might also consider Luke 11:11-13 a parable, although I think that might be taking things a little far. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we are getting close. I think that merge proposal will fail anyway on bushel. Then I think the first 3 are parables and the 4th is not. So I will wait a day or two for comments then regenerate the table without the sheep and goat. I think Carl had sheep and goat as a parable on the Harmony page and I just parsed it from there. I will leave him a message and if he does not object we will drop that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone just added The Sheep and the Goats to the template, but with a footnote. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It was Carl, he knows a lot about the topic, so I left him a message and asked for comment. Conclusion: It is not a parable, just as John has no parable, so it was added as a second class citizen. So I think that settles it, it is not a parable, but we list it in the template as a semi-parable just in case someone asks. History2007 (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Themes[edit]

The themes section is interesting, but has no refs and I wonder if there is a complete categorization somewhere. As is, it seems half-complete at best. It should be completed, or shelved until a categorization with referenced is found. History2007 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a work in progress. So far it repeats information already referenced in the linked articles, but you're right, it should be referenced here too. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added the refs, and I'll gradually add other parables to the section as time permits. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if you look on the Miracles page there is a visual guide that provide the whole picture with images and a few categories. I wonder if we can have one like that here. History2007 (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I thought about that, and about several other clever possibilities. It seems harder for parables, though, since many different classifications are possible, though some classifications are ruled out by controversy about what the parable actually means. Not to mention the fact that we are still debating how many parables there are; and some parables on the list (e.g. Rich man and Lazarus) lack a consensus on meaning (and even lack a consensus on whether they are parables).
My plan is to slowly build up the "theme" section (although imho it's still useful in its present incomplete form, which contains most of the really famous ones). Then I'll restructure it as inspiration strikes (or somebody else will). The gallery idea would be easier if we had images for all the parables, but in fact we don't, so that's another thing for volunteers to think about. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
All the miracles have images because I made sure I added an image to each. I can do the same for parables. It is so much fun. As for categories, we can build a 1st cut suggestion of categories here on the talk page, then if no one objects, that will be it. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do add some images to commons for the parables, creating commons-categories as needed (I've added a few myself already). As to parable categorisation, that might be a lengthy debate, and I'd rather hold off a little on that, at least until all the parable articles have been properly referenced. For example, Parable of Drawing in the Net, Parable of the Unjust Steward, Parable of the Growing Seed, Parable of the budding fig tree, Parable of the barren fig tree, Counting the cost, and many others have no referenced discussion of meaning, so we have no grounds for categorising them by meaning. Then again, perhaps the parables should be categorised some other way? Let's just think about it for a while. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, if you look at Denial of Peter and Road to Emmaus you will see that as Johnbod and I worked on these a structure has started to emerge for episode+comment+art. You resurrected (pun intended) the Good Samart and maybe a similar format can eventually apply to key parables as well as key episodes such as Empty tomb, Resurrection of Jesus, Entombment of Jesus etc. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've worked on a few parable articles, generally sticking to a more-or-less consistent article structure, unless that didn't fit with what was already there. Annunciation to the shepherds is a life-of-Jesus article I started; it has a slightly more complex structure than the articles you mention. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually in Annunciation to the shepherds you almost have the same structure: Biblical+ translation, then comment then art+music. So it is again a 3 level structure in effect. By the way, in the meantime I realized it will be very easy for me to write a simple program now to get all the images from all the parable pages, then build a gallery, so we do not need to download 30 images and manage it. I will do that in a day or two when I get to it. As for categories there are two separate steps:
I'm not sure what you mean, but it sounds like a bad idea: a gallery is easy to write, and where there is more than 1 image a manual selection needs to be made, anyway (based on what looks best in the gallery -- this may be a commons image not on the article page -- see below). In addition, many parables have no image. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Naming a few categories
  • Assigning a category to each parable.
Once we have a category called "unknown" then all can be labled and our goal will be to remove the unknown. And as long as it is on a talk page only, no big deal. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Why the rush to categorise? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Once it is all categorized, cleaned up and referenced then I don't have to think about it any more. History2007 (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

List of problem articles[edit]

And quite a few more, lacking (1) references, (2) a commons cat link, (3) images, or all three. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Partial gallery[edit]

These are carefully hand-picked images, but in no particular order. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Many other parables have no associated commons category, so that selecting a good image is impossible. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
However, I've moved the gallery to the article page, with a tentative categorisation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
That is a good start. In general galleries are added to end of articles, as in Miracles, so I will just move it further down. I think in time we can clean it all up like the miracle articles that have an image each and have a structure. History2007 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not a gallery of ART, but a gallery of PARABLES. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I used to put galleries where ever I liked but a few times people pointed to manual of style that says that image galleries go to the end, regardless of if they are artistic or medical or whatever. They all got moved in teh end. So if it is in the middle of teh article sooner or later someone will complain so might as well move it to end now and save time. History2007 (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It's more of a visual index to the parables than an image gallery. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I say tomato you say tomato. It does not make a diff to me but in time someone will complain. And it uses the gallery command so it is a gallery, or maybe it is a tomato who knows. In the meantime, please see Talk:List of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels/gallery, which my program automatically downloaded, using the first image on the article. So it is easier to see which are missing in the harmony altogether. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's try not to argue on the basis of what someone else MIGHT say. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I notice your program sometimes picks up the image in the parables template, and sometimes doesn't. In any case, the first image in the article is often not the best image to use for a thumbnail. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
And there are some duplicates in the list, presumably due to redirects? -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You mean the program is not perfect and has no artistic sense? I will have a serious talk with the programmer and tell him do do better - or else. Actually I never got to test that program, I just wrote it with my eyes shut and that was the very first output. The goal was to uncover the missing images and be a test in automating Wiki-access for general quality checks anyway. I will look at it again. What are the duplicates? And if one orders the images as a harmony, an interesting side effect takes place: one gets one of those pictorial "Life of Christ" sequences. It was an unexpected item actually. I will eventually just post the simple few lines of Perl code that does that somewhere so everyone can use it for building bots etc. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, if you want to replace images on that page, please do, and I will then see if I can make it pick that image, else a default first. That would be nicer. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I converted the image tables to the standardized gallery code and saved 2,000+ bytes! Was there a reason the gallery coding wasn't used in the first place? Am I missing something? -Andrew c [talk] 02:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It was converted from gallery code, in that it's actually a visual index which links to the parables, rather than a gallery which links to the images. That 2,000+ bytes saved also included a lot of mouse-over text. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You are also forcing thumbnail size, which is a big no-no in my book. I don't really see the advantage of your way. Can you cite another wikipedia page (perhaps a featured article) which does this? Where did you get the idea? It's new to me, and I prefer the gallery code, it's simpler, easier for others to edit, doesn't force thumbnail size, takes less space and code, and seem more within our style and layout manuals. -Andrew c [talk] 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The idea was to have a map or diagram of the collection of parables as a whole, which didn't take up too much room, hence requiring a fairly small thumbnail size (the same size as Wikipedia:DYKSTATS, in fact). If your suggestion of gallery code was implemented, it would take up lots more room, generating pressure to have it moved to the end of the article, making it IMHO less useful. Also the gallery code would lose the clarifying mouseover text. And this is Wikipedia: we ARE allowed to experiment with new ways of doing things, surely? -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Parable chart (gallery code version for comparison)[edit]

This puts the full mouseover text in the captions. Vertical space used has more than doubled, so that the "overall view" has been largely lost. And clicking on the images no longer jumps to the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, clicking on images never take you to articles. I don't find that a problem, and I don't think we need twice as much code to hack around how the software works. The size of the icons in galleries is user defined. If you want them smaller change your preferences. If you want them larger, change your preferences. This is an accessibility thing. Forcing them to be 100 would make them too small for many with vision impairments, and a lot of older folk. When one makes such specific code that it looks great on one computer, that doesn't mean it looks great on all set ups. Furtermore, forcing to have 4 images per row could break the page if someone was viewing it on a netbook, in a small browser window, on mobile. On the other hand, someone with a giant monitor would have too short rows. Maybe there is a compromise to be had? But breaking the accessibility is a deal breaker for me. -Andrew c [talk] 18:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The first thing is, it's not an image gallery, but a visual index of parables: something you can click on to jump to a parable (and, given that I used standard table code, your statement "clicking on images never take you to articles" is false by definition). Accessibility has been on my mind, which is why the alt text is there. It may not be perfect, but I'm reluctant to change it unless the alternative is clearly better. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you are making very good progress on the categories and that you guys should agree to "suspend" the question of internal code that the reader does not see for about 10 days until the categories are complete. After that you can debate that. It can always flip back and forth after the fact and will make very little difference to the world. For the record, I do not think it makes much difference which way it gets done and you could ask for a 3rd opinion after 10 days. History2007 (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't work: flipping back and forth would be too much work. As far as I'm concerned, my work on parables is on hold until the issue is resolved. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That is funny - you are going on strike! Ok, you can have a 10% salary increase... else will 15% do? So why not ask for a 3rd opinion now? History2007 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
If my arguments aren't convincing, they aren't convincing. I don't care too much about this. Someone else may in the future. That's all. -Andrew c [talk] 15:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Parables of the Kingdom of Heaven: hearing, seeking and growing[edit]

Parables of loss and redemption[edit]

Parables about love and forgiveness[edit]

Parables about prayer[edit]

Eschatological parables[edit]

The Parable of Drawing in the Net is eschatological. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 19:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but it's hard to update this visual index while the debate about whether to replace the tables by gallery code is going on. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Opinion research question: what % of Wkipedia readers know what eschatological means? The fuuny thing was that there was a knowledge survey about Chernobyl and some college students thought it was the last name for Cher! So if we are to educate that crowd maybe we need to lighten up on terms. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm really hoping people will click on the word when it comes up in the "Themes" section, or that they at least ask themselves "what does this group of parables have in common?" -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't bet on all users thinking too much. You can just say Parables on end of times or end times or something like that. In fact End times is about to get merged with Eschatology and that will make the decision for you anyway. History2007 (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
But not all of them are parables on end of times. Maybe "Parables related to the end times." However, I'm linking the word eschatological to Christian eschatology, which has no merge proposal. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Other parables[edit]

Gallery[edit]

All parable articles have images now (I think) - not perfect images, but reasonable images. I finished the gallery and it is here on a talk page and also on Commons: Gospel harmony gallery. On the talk page all images show, because they are from English Wiki, but on commons they do not all show, because not all images are from commons. The sequence of life of Jesus was fun to see. But I am totally bored with this image project now and will take a break from images - the fun has stopped. So if you guys want to import teh images to commons and fix that, be my guest - it will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Great job! I'll keep chipping away at Commons, but I hope you'll continue to maintain this code of yours. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And I will of course maintain the code (which is simple) and the approach, but if you look at my history of edits on Gospel harmony you will see that I worked on it for a while then stopped for a few months, then restarted etc. It often helps to take a break and start anew. I am actually going to use this approach to write a document modestly titled "a design for Wikipedia2". My real problem is that the ranking of the airports in the world (by passengers) continues to remain inconsistent everywhere in Wikipedia, as did the list of miracles. The Gospels provided a good first case because they are somewhat more stable than airports, although there is a rumor that a Gospel of Ringo is about to be discovered in a earthenware jar in a park in North London. However, until that happens the Gospels and the parables were a good example. Anyway, let us wait and let technology takes its course. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Revised problem list for child articles[edit]

I believe all the stub parable articles have now been de-stubbed, and all outstanding cleanup tags have been handled. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we tackle James now? "The Parable of the Ear of Grain", "The Parable of the Grain of Wheat", and "The Parable of the Date-Palm Shoot". None of those articles exist, but I don't see why they shouldn't be created, assuming enough sources discuss them. -Andrew c [talk] 13:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
We? I think I've just about used up all my energy as far as parables are concerned. Are those three really on anyone's list of parables of Jesus? -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
They appear in both the gospels of James and Ringo, so they are solid, solid... wink. But seriously James is apocryphal at best, and in my opinion, even less reliable than Ringo. The main Google result for "The Parable of the Date-Palm Shoot" is this article itself! Compare that to all the other references for the other parables and these are far-out from side stream let alone main stream. History2007 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Including Thomas in the list may have been justified because of the frequent references to it in literature on parables, but the "gospels" of James and Ringo are out of scope, I fear. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
And not just the main Google result: the only Google result, if you filter out clones of this article! -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I so wish you had not said that. It is going to get me started on computing the reflexivity of how Wikipedia will affect things that will then be used as references in Wikipedia, via multi-level self-refential method.... but I have to stop. You think about it, call Erdos (if you can not reach him, rotate your cell phone 90 degrees, will get an imaginary number) and discuss the theory - I do not want to think about it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you need to belittle noncanonical texts every chance you can get. -Andrew c [talk] 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Apologies if you were offended for some reason, but the fact is that, apart from the book cited in this article, there are simply no sources for the three articles you suggest. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Andrew was referring to my Gospel of Ringo joke. But I joke a lot. Now, at the risk of getting off the charts, was belittle a joke on "infancy"? just kidding.... By the way, I read the 90 degree cell phone joke on Wikipedia - I thought that was funny too. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you're referring to the wrong James. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, what do I know? History2007 (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
But you were right about multi-self-referential Wikipedia. I've even seen (trashy) books with verbatim quotes from Wikipedia, and publication dates after the article was written. Then other people try to use the book in a citation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations for James' Jesus parables[edit]

  • Cameron, Ron. Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon Of James. (2004) Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School, 8-30.
  • Hedrick, Charles W. (1983) "Kingdom Sayings and Parables of Jesus in the Apocryphon of James: Tradition and Redaction" New Testament Studies (1983), 29 : 1-24 Cambridge University Press
  • Stroker, William D. "Extracanonical parables and the historical Jesus". The Historical Jesus: Lives of Jesus and Jesus outside the Bible (2004) Evans, Craig A. ed. Taylor & Francis, 186-209
  • Brakke, David. "Parables and Plain Speech in the Fourth Gospel and the Apocryphon of James" Journal of Early Christian Studies - Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 1999, pp. 187-218
  • Funk, Robert W., Bernard Brandon Scott, and James R. Butts. Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition (1988) Polebridge Press
  • Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels. (1992) Continuum

Possibly this book. Stoker makes use of Sevrin, Hedrick, Cameron, Koester, Malinine, some I have cited above and some not (and most appear to be non-English sources. German, French, etc). I'd be glad to list those as well. My point is, this isn't something that we (wikipedia) invented. Though it does appear to be a very specialized area of study, no doubt, and clearly is not nearly as notable as the gospel parables (or the Thomas parables for that matter). I think it would meet GNG, as multiple, independent, published sources have discussed the topic in a non-trivial manner. I already put in an ILLiad request for the Hedrick paper, which at least I will personally benefit from reading, if not help me write some articles. Assuming I'm not convinced otherwise ;)-Andrew c [talk] 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly won't try to stop you writing the articles, although I wonder what evidence there is that the parables in the Apocryphon are (1) parables of Jesus and (2) independent of the synoptic parables. And please don't call it "James", as that invites confusion with the Gospel of James. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean "of Jesus". Can you elaborate? -Andrew c [talk] 04:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I mean authentic (in the view of at least a notable minority of scholars). There are, after all, doubts about the Apocryphon, which purports to be a Coptic translation of a Hebrew document, but seems more likely to be a Coptic translation of a Greek one. If you do write the articles, though, Craig A. Evans: The Historical Jesus: Lives of Jesus and Jesus outside the Bible is also relevant. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you say that all of the articles we currently have in the parable series are "authentic" or "of Jesus"? Thanks for the reference suggestion. I have that citation in my list (Evans is just the editor, the section dealing with parables in Ap. Jas. is by Stroker, and I believe was previously published in the 1988 in a work edited by Hedrick)-Andrew c [talk] 05:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The issue isn't what's authentic, the issue is what a notable number of people believe is authentic. Traditional scholarship takes the whole NT as authentic. A notable number of scholars, like the Jesus Seminar, add Thomas to the mix (as well as questioning parts of the NT). Far fewer people take the Apocryphon seriously. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I think (and have no proof) that if one stopped 3,000 people on the streets of NY, LA and London and asked them about parables of Jesus, among the 9,000 very few would consider the obscure parables as parables. So those are not "mainstream" and a review of the "major books" on the parables will say the same thing. Wikipedia would be breaking somewhat new ground by considering them on the "same footing" as the other parables. However, pages exist within Wikipedia on the most obscure items ever, so Andrew can of course build pages for them, but on this page WP:DUE will become due. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're right. However, there's no reason not to turn the names in this article into links, although I think including them in the template would be going too far. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
See, once in a while I get something right. And including them in the template is way, way overdue weight. History2007 (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
A random walk in two dimensions eventually gets to its destination. :) And agreed on the last point. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not the real issue. The issue in the real world is "how many investors get fried" while that random walk takes place. History2007 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The blind leading the blind[edit]

Does The blind leading the blind count as a parable? -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is only a simile, a type of analogy. şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 19:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you calling the author of Luke a liar? (in all seriousness, we should base this on scholarly sources, not our on personal interpretation of primary texts... but the P-word is used in Luke... ;) -Andrew c [talk] 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I raise the question because, if it is, that should be reflected in the template and the tables in this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
It is definitely a valid question, especially due to the phrasing found in Luke. We may want to consider returning to a disputed list or "sometimes considered a parable". Charles W. Hedrick in Many things in parables: Jesus and his modern critics argues that in Luke, it is a parable, but to Matthew it is simply a discourse (and this may be related to the surrounding context and how the story is related). A few sources I found on google books consider it a proverb (and one source defined a proverb was a condensed parable), while others listed it as a parable. It looks like a number of other "parables" are called a parable in one gospel, but not in the parallel gospel(s), as is the case with the blind leading the blind: New Wine into Old Wineskins and Parable of the budding fig tree then The Mote and the Beam (which we don't include in our template) and a few minor ones that I could not find articles for (kingdom and house divided). With all this research and information, I still don't really have a strong opinion to offer. Should we note whether the parables in question use the Greek word for parable in the context? And then should we note the ones where the sources are in conflict (or ones that modern scholars generally don't consider parables, even if the Greek authors thought so). It gets rather complicated.-Andrew c [talk] 02:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The p-word is not used in Luke, as Andrew c indicates.
Luke did not even write in English; he used Greek words. Thus he used a Greek word that (to Luke) encompassed what the saying is (a simile) but which is more often used to describe true parables, and is traditionally translated into English as "parable". şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ 06:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean to start an argument. Luke certainly uses the word παραβολὴν. I don't think The blind leading the blind should be treated as a full parable (it shouldn't go into the template, IMHO), but there is a case for this main article to include a list of what one might call "almost parables." -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Parable of the Good Samaritan[edit]

Duplicating an RfC from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible:

There is an ongoing debate regarding Parable of the Good Samaritan#Historical reliability which would benefit from additional input. Issues which are involved include (1) whether Wikipedia should provide concise definitions containing only relevant information, or whether articles should be more detailed; (2) how WP:NPOV should be implemented in practice; (3) whether the section accurately represents the opinions of one scholar (Bernard Brandon Scott); and (4) the best structure for the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Radagast, I will add my comment here since I no longer watch that page. I see two trends:

  • You have done a fantastic job on parables overall. Selected great images, cleaned up, categorized, etc.
  • You have overshot the runway on the Good Samaritan. You have put a huge amount of work into it and improved it, but you are now past the point of diminishing returns. You are on the end part of an asymptote where any additional effort will get back minimal returns.

You can work on whatever pleases you, of course. But I wish that energy would go into improving the "in bad shape" articles, that could use the help of a Good Samaritan editor, for the Good Samaritan article has already been helped. History2007 (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the vote of confidence. I was hoping the Good Samaritan article was stabilising, but, well, if you did watch that page you'd see the problem. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I just took a quick look, and I see what you mean. But that historical debate has NO effect on the meaning of the parable, or its impact. History2007 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
True, but the dispute would soon have spread to those areas too. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, probably so. I was just about to start thinking about Resurrection of Jesus and the redemption issues there, now I will take a look at this one first in a day or two. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Book[edit]

This article and its children are now a book at Book:Parables of Jesus. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Parable of the Guest: Luke 14:7-14[edit]

I added the Parable of the Guest, unique to Luke, at 14:7-14. There is no wikipedia article yet, but I think there should be. 75.14.220.117 (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will build a page. Thanks. But I did a search and "Guest" may not be WP:Commonname, Luke 14:7 is given many titles, it seems. History2007 (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, not sure what "most common" name is. The parable is obscure, but it is in there. UBS calls it "A Lesson to Guests and a Host". Luke calls it a parable. 75.14.220.117 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I just found there is a Parable of the Wedding Feast (ESV's name) but that article currently redirects to Parable of the great banquet which is Luke 14:15-24. 75.14.220.117 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
There are two of them, back to back in Luke 14:7 onwards. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed Parable of the Wedding Feast. 75.14.209.88 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I touched it up and added refs per WP:Primary. If you use Wikisource as Bible link like I did there, it is better because that is the future direction of Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Error?[edit]

The Parables of Jesus#Parable of the Pearl has an incorrect verses reference: it should be Matthew 13:45-46 instead of Matthew 13:44-46. Was there a reason for the inclusion of verse 44? Bjones410 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)