Talk:harrowing of hell
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
- What? Even if we suppose that an appropriate sense were added to harrow, I can't imagine how this could ever be decoded from its parts to refer to this specific hagiographical event. Or are you suggesting that the new sense at harrow should be: "(of Jesus) To free the souls from (a place) between one's death and resurrection"? -- Visviva 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
this nominatn=haitof stupidity,butrealy.
- stuf urattribtns,opn dabibl[y,wt'd covrthat2,regrdls of1's views onlife!],ridiklesbunch[dc+glvs]--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is, in any event, encyclopedic. Simiilar events in Christianity: Resurrection, Assumption, Second Coming, Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Apocalypse, Ascension, Armageddon, Annunciation, End of Days, Last Judgment.
- I suppose that they all fit into one of Pawley's "systems" of terms. Any long-standing religion would have such a system. The Roman Catholics have names for every day and some other Christian religions have something similar, for example, on a different calendar. Of course there are at least three liturgical texts using each so they would probably be readily attestable.
- Other systems of events might be battles: Thermopylae, Gettysburg, Antietam, First Battle of Bull Run.
- Considering this should lead to either a whole nuther class of potential entries or a sharper determination of our role relative to an encyclopedia. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not one of those who goes around banning people, as a rule, but IMO this kind of language in a community discussion is really far, far outside what is acceptable. That you choose to cloak your personal attacks in a nearly incomprehensible garble does not make them any more acceptable. Please knock it off, permanently. -- Visviva 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1.IDIDNT'CHOS'2V RSI,NI'L CITE U4THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2.newbis get rv 4'stupidity' aldatime here,get ur doublstndeds sorted,disgustin'comunity'.--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 01:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have cited and revised the entry. After actually taking a look at the data, I would have to revise my judgment above. This is (or can be) a generic term, so attributive use need not enter into it; it can refer to any sort of incursion into the underworld. Which brings us back to the sum of parts issue. I believe there is sufficient reasonable doubt to justify keeping this entry. To wit:
- The verb harrow is simply never, ever, ever used in this sense in normal modern English (if at all), except in this phrase. Thus any claim of sum-of-partsness would have to be based on historical rather than modern usage.
- The common noun appears to be a genericization of the proper name Harrowing of Hell (not at issue here). Prior to 20th century, AFAICT, that term referred solely to the Son's little postmortal escapade. Thus the common noun is also not historically derived from its parts. -- Visviva 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- As an aside, Wikipedia cites the OED that "harrowing" in this sense is a "by-from of harry", used in the military sense of a raid. Though the farmer's use of the harrow wouldn't seem a bad metaphor, dragging blades through the underworld to pull out things that don't belong. Wnt 18:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)