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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
I deleted it as it was massively unenclyclopedic, someone put it back almost the same with "So and so says..." in front. I really don't think Biblical scholarship should be quoted, unless specifically under a heading "Scholarly Interpretations" or something. ChrisKnott (talk)
Hi, I am the someone who put back the referenced text you deleted. First: what you and I think matters not in Wikipedia. What matters are references. If you look at various other articles, whenever there is a Biblical item, some people even put tags that say they require "scholarhip". A valid reason you could have had for questioning that paragraph would have been if the author were a "nobody", but Daniel J. Harrington is a well known scholar. The only other issue could have been relevance, and this paragraph is clearly relevant because the key element of a parable is the lesson it includes and those lessons are the subject of much discusion and scholarship. It is hence essential to have that type of information within Wikipedia so readers do not need to go and buy the book and read it. That is the goal of Wikipedia, educating readers in a hurry, so they do not need to read 300 pages and dig through 12 books. That text must remain in the article since it is referenced and relevant. Furthermore, you can not delete it again while this discussion continues. History2007 (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems you have solely based this on the sentence "Faith, especially as embodied by the bleeding woman, can exist in seemingly hopeless situations", so I think it is best to just have this quoted directly. I don't see where the other stuff is from...? I will move it to an 'interpretations' section as with Feeding of The 5000. ChrisKnott (talk)
I must have seen that somewhere else, but no worries, I added a few more quotes, expanding that point. Would you like more quotes? I am sure we can find a few more for you .... All you need to do is ask ... History2007 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
While on the subject of being encyclopedic... even though the sources are identified in the footnotes, it seems to be they should be identified by first and last name when first mentioned. Academics in Biblical studies may know who "Donahue" is, but the average Joe doesn't. I'm going to add first names, if you feel the need to revert them out, please let me know why. - Elmarco 21:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Why the [sic] on disastrous? That is the correct spelling (maybe someone thought it should be "disasterous") - Elmarco 21:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)