Talk:Parable of the Leaven

The entry is incomplete because it doesn't include the traditional church's teaching about this parable. So, basically i don't want to delelte anything, but add stuff. MichelleSwartz 22:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)MichelleSwartzReply

The first paragraph states in two places "the discredited and apocryphal Gospel of Thomas." "Discredited" is an overly subjective modifier possibly having ideological motives. Discredited by whom? In what sense? Its authenticity is not disputed or debated; ancient manuscripts exist. Its tone is different from that the synoptic gospels but the factual claims it contains (Jesus said...) have not been shown false. Similarly, "apocryphal" is a disparaging term with no meaning in modern scholarship. "Noncanonical" would be the appropriate descriptor here. Bstorage (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just reverted a lenghty interpretation that didn't cite any sources whatsoever and in part contradicted the sources we have, such as "leaven means corruption" (not here, per Marshall). I also removed excessive amounts of Biblical text; currently the article gives one version of the parable and provides all places in the gospels where it appears; there's no reason to have multiple similar versions or to add the surrounding paragraphs. Huon (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Original research is banned on Wikipedia. If there are minority opinions which view the leaven negatively, we should of course include them, but all claims should be properly referenced to reliable books and journals, with page numbers. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Having found a reference for such a minority viewpoint, I've added it, and reworded appropriately. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply