Talk:Lesson of the widow's mite

External links

http://www.TheWidowsMite.net/ Informative site dedicated to the widow's mite coin Iraweissman (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Ira Weissman

http://widowmites.com/ Description, scriptures and history of the widow's mite coin —01:36, 11 July 2005‎ 69.239.125.179

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20050313032512/http://www.widowmites.com:80/html/scriptures___history.html —173.68.139.31 (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Racist groups???!?

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?

I'd favor deleting the stuff about antisemitism until and unless someone finds a convincing source for it. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

1611 Context?

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.65.123.167.8 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

worst article i've ever read. 1611 is when the KVJ was completed. 71.174.157.134 (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 195.88.15.80 (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 71.249.196.188 (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 193.63.86.128 (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

While I realise that this is an old argument, and the para has stayed in the article for some time, it has still attracted no citations. It appears to be original research of the author, so I've deleted it - fine for a sermon, but not for Wikipedia Matruman (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What does Jesus teach?

Currently the page says:

"Jesus explains to his disciples that the small sacrifices of the poor mean more to God than the extravagant, but proportionately lesser, donations of the rich."

I'm not sure this is true, since Jesus never mentions God:

I'm positive that this is true because it says this in the bible and everything in the bible is true. This is true also because in the bible it says that when rich people give their money, they are stingy and save all their money on everything else. Widow's and poor people, give all they can give because they have nothing to spend their money on. I am not saying that rich people and poor people are always bad about what they spend their own money on, but they can be depending on who they are and their character. —20:35, 17 December 2016‎ 99.196.213.68

In the Mark passage (NIV) he says:

"Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."

And in the Luke passage he says:

"Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

In this, it shows that the widow gave everything to God and trusted in him to protect her even though she did't have any money. She trusted in God while the rich people did't give all they had, and were scared to give all there money away. Do not change this text please because this is the right revision. (Done by an anonomous person.) —20:35, 17 December 2016‎ 99.196.213.68

Nowhere in here does it say that it meant anything to God.

I would say that the teaching for this passage is just that her gift was more significant to herself, than the gifts given by the rich people (but for a more interesting teaching, you need to look at the context of the passage... I'm not sure that this level of interpretation is suitable for wikipedia though).

—165.228.8.124 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC) (Andy)

The anonymous author of the comments in the above deleted previous comments by a previous poster querying the sections quoted from teh actual article. That's not how Talk pages are meant to work, as I understand it, we're meant to leave the previous comments and add our own.

The problem with the article is not so much whether the comments are "true" (on which subject Pilate raised a good question...) but on whether they reflect the encyclopaedic style of Wikipedia, which they don't because they are inadequately referenced and worded as theology rather than an analysis of what theologians have said. I'll try to have a go at rewording and finding references later. Matruman (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

For completeness, I just restored the improperly deleted comments from Andy, above. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Addison Wright

Who is Addison Wright and why is his interpretation covered so much? 2600:1702:2420:2040:4076:9AC:BAAF:43E6 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)