Talk:Jesus healing the bleeding woman

habitual deletion of link to Christianity and fringed garments

The episode of "Jesus healing the bleeding woman" brings up the issue of Christianity and fringed garments because of the use of a word generally translated into English "fringe" as used by the account of the Gospel of Matthew. I'm not saying this should be a major point of discussion in this article, but why do editors continue to think there should be no discussion of this issue or not even a link to the discussion of this issue here? Why the need to dumb down and censor wikipedia? 75.14.209.160 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no "dumbing down" or censorship. When you first added the sentence, I thought "touched his cloak", "touched the fringe of his cloak", what's the difference? If someone touches the edge of my jacket, it is still touching my jacket. No explanation on the significance of the fringe of the cloak was provided. Therefore, as it was originally worded, the addition of "fringe of cloak" was redundant and unnecessary. With the wiki-link to Christianity and fringed garments, I left it alone. The linked article contains at last provides some explanation, although a fairly weak one in my opinion, as to why the fringe in Matthew's account deserved some mention. For the article to be complete, there should be an explanation as to why the fringe of the cloak was significant in the text of this article. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Really a minor detail in the article, either say. History2007 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a "fringe" doesn't seem that significant, but then why would Matthew and Luke specify a "fringe"? If the "fringe" is really a tzitzit, that is very significant to a difference between Greeks and Jews in the first century. Read the wikipedia article on tzitzits and you should be able to see it's not just a "fringe". Or google the term. Or google tzitzits and christianity. 75.14.215.61 (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to google any of it, that's why I'm reading the Wikipedia article. Look, I didn't know why the Gospels would mention the fringe, because it didn't seem that significant. You can't just make an assertion, and assume the significance is obvious. If you had asked me what fringe was earlier, I would have said it was a fashion choice in the 1980s. But more information was added about the tzitzit, and it's good now. It explains why the old lady went for the fringe of his cloak: She thought that's where Jesus' magic powers were stored. And she was right. So relax, I don't know why you're still worked up over this. Boneyard90 (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

çîçîth

What's the point of "çîçîth (tzitzit)"? Everybody, including the article linked to, uses tzitzit. --142.163.195.61 (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The Veil of Veronica as a Western rival to the Image of Edessa

Hi Johnbod. I see you introduced the sentence "This Western rival to the Image of Edessa or Mandylion...", but it has no source by itself, only the next sentence is sourced. Schiller is not available online, so I can't check: may I give it at the source for the statement that

the Veil of Veronica is a rival to the Image of Edessa?

It's a very interesting point, and it's not made elsewhere, such as in the Veil article. So, can I use it, with Schiller (1972) pp. 77-78 as the source? Thank you! Arminden (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Just about, as a metaphorical rather than literal point. She does mention both as "related", but doesn't exactly say they were "rivals". Few medieval people were aware of both, I expect. It's pp 78-79. Schiller is of course originally in German, and she refers to her section on the "Holy Face" in her Vol 3, which has never been translated. Probably more there. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Johnbod. It sounds a bit like it were your own point of view, and as you can see, that can proliferate as accepted mainstream research :) Also, the refs list only mention volumes 1 and 2, with pp. 78–79 indicated as part of vol. 2 of the English translation. Coincidence, or a mistake which needs to be fixed? I have no problem with German, I'll try to see if vol. 3 is accessible online. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"pp. 78–79 indicated as part of vol. 2 of the English translation" is correct. All those refs have been fiddled about with, & changed (probably illegally) to sfn, but I checked today. All major old relic traditions developed Eastern and Western versions - often several of each. The "original" Image of Edessa seems to have been destroyed by the time the VofV got into its stride. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I can't access it... Arminden (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I see. That wasn't fully my point though. You wrote, referring to the Veil of Veronica, "This Western rival to the Image of Edessa or Mandylion...". I understand that that's your own interpretation, not a paraphrase to what Schiller has written. Correct? I arrived on this page while editing the Veil of Veronica. The conclusion is that I cannot write there that the legend of the veil arose as a reaction (another word for rival) to the Mandylion based on Schiller. Correct? The conclusion seems to be: two traditions, with several variants, sometimes borrowing from each other, but independent; not one as a reaction to the other. Right? Many thanks, Arminden (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)