Talk:Parable of the Mustard Seed

Older discussion

The Canonical parable of the mustard seed would be a correct title to this page, unless you want to admit the gospel of Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.120.29 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

What we want on this article are transliterable texts, from native alphabets/scripture into Wikipedian English. We have Arabic text, we have English translations, but we don't have the Islamic letters transliterated into Wikipedian English alphabet, so; no primary English source, or English transliteration into Latin/English alphabet, no show - under the hood in talk page (see the Thomas and Quranic discussion).Church of Britain (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've also heard this passage interpreted differently. Supposedly a mustard seed grows into a shrub, not a tree, and it's a very modest shrub at that. This parable was said to mean that the kingdom of heaven was actually not as grand as some people believed. MMX 05:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who holds that interpretation (i.e. which religious group)?Clinkophonist 22:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that the mustard seed is in fact, not the smallest of all seeds?--Andrew c 13:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Luke doesn't say it's the smallest [1]. Mark and Matthew say it is "least" among seeds [2], [3] in the literal translation, although some versions translate it as smallest in the world. Thomas says it is the smallest [4]. It was certainly the smallest seed anyone in the area at the time knew about [5]. Roy Brumback 10:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent info. Should it be included in the article?--Andrew c 20:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Crossan on Parables:

Jesus is most famous, I think, for parables and aphorisms. And both of them are really ways of teaching ordinary people. Now, if you read them in the New Testament, it might take a minute to read; I imagine them as maybe an hour long interaction between Jesus and an audience, who are probably talking back to him, and interrupting him and debating with him and disagreeing with him and fighting with him. And the parable is a way, really, of getting them to think. It's a way of provoking people to think for themselves....

[For example], Jesus tells a parable about somebody who takes a mustard seed, plants it in the ground, and it grows up to be a great tree, or a bush at least, a weed, though, in plain language. Now, imagine an audience reacting to that. Presumably the Kingdom is like this, and you have to figure out, "What's it like? You mean, the Kingdom is big? But you just said it's a big weed. So why don't you say a big cedar of Lebanon? Why a big weed? And besides, this mustard, we're not sure we like this mustard. It's very dangerous in our fields. We try to control it. We try to contain it. Why do you mean the Kingdom is something that the people try to control and contain?" Every reaction in the audience ... the audience fighting with themselves, as it were, answering back to Jesus is doing exactly what he wants. It's making them think, not about mustard, of course, but about the Kingdom. But the trap is that this is a very provocative, even a weird, image for the Kingdom. To say the Kingdom is like a cedar of Lebanon, everyone would yawn, say, "Of course." It's like a mustard seed ... "What's going on here?"

Is this [style of teaching] unique to Jesus???????

The parables are unique only in a very limited sense, in that the primary teaching of Jesus is not taking texts out of the Hebrew scriptures and explaining them, blasting them, commenting on them. What he is doing is telling a perfectly ordinary story. And using that as the major teaching. "The Kingdom of God is like this." Now you have to think, well, I hear the story, but how on earth is the Kingdom of God like that? That's your job as the hearer. So it's open to anyone. And that's, I think, the point of the parable.

So right from the start his teaching depends on interpretation?

If you teach in parables, you give yourself to interpretation. If you really want to tell people what to think you preach them a sermon. If you tell them a parable then you're leaving yourself open, inevitably, to interpretation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.15.220 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of Thomas

In reference to the repeated deletion of the fact that the parable appears in Thomas too, please quit. It's true that the Gospel is not accepted as canonical by most Christians (I don't accept it as canonical), but scholars do use it in historical Jesus research. This page does not endorse it or promote it but simply says is appears in that document as well. It simply states this fact in a NPOV manner. Roy Brumback 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Will need to verify it is indeed in there

πεχα που χε εστντων αυβλβιλε νωλταμ, ΣΣΟΒΚ παρα ΝσΡΟσ ΤΗΡΟΥ, ζΟΤαΝ Δε εΣωαΝζε εχΜ πΚαζ, εΤΟΥΡ ζωΒ εΡΟφ ωαφΤεΥΟ, εΒΟλ ΝΝΟγΝΟσ ΝΤαΡ Νφσωπε ΝΨΚεπΗ ΝζαλαΤε ΝΤπε

pecha pou xe estntoun aublb?le noultau, ssobk para nsrs throy, zotan de esouanze exm pkaz, etoyr zoub eros ouasteyo, ebol nnognos ntar nssoupe nckeph nzalate ntpe

He said to them, "It's like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, but when it falls on prepared soil, it produces a large plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky."

aublbile noultam the kokko sinapeos

Here's how much I've gotten so far

Πεχε ΜΜαθΗΤΗΣ ΝΙΣ ΧΕ ΧΟΟΣ ΕΡΟΝ ΧΕ ΤΜΝΤΕΡΟ ΝΜΠΗΥΕ ΕΣΤΝΤωΝ εΝΙΜ

πεχαφ ΝΑΥ ΧΕ ΕΣΤΝΤωΝ αΥΒλΒΙλε ΝωλΤαΜ

πεχα που χε εστντων αυβλβιλε νωλταμ

ΣΣΟΒΚ παρα ΝσΡΟσ ΤΗΡΟΥ ζΟΤαΝ Δε εΣωαΝζε

εχΜ πΚαζ εΤΟΥΡ ζωΒ εΡΟφ ωαφΤεΥΟ εΒΟλ

ΝΝΟγΝΟσ ΝΤαΡ Νφσωπε ΝΨΚεπΗ ΝζαλαΤε ΝΤπε - Original capitalization ~98% accuracy

Church of Britain (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

πεχα που χε εστντων αυβλβιλε νωλταμ, κοκκο παρα νσροσ τηρου, ηοταν δε εσωανζε εχμ πκαζ ετοθρ ζωβ εροφ ωαφτεθο εβολ ννογνοσ νταρ νφσωπε νψκεπη νζαλατε ντπε - cursive

Church of Britain (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Coptic or Coptic Egyptian (Bohairic: ϯⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ ti.met.rem.ən.khēmi and Sahidic: ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲣⲙ̄ⲛ̄ⲕⲏⲙⲉ t.mənt.rəm.ən.kēme) is the latest stage of the Egyptian language, a northern Afro-Asiatic language spoken in Egypt until at least the 17th century.[2

Google doesn't do Egyptian language. Although it's cool Thomas provided us with a Greek alphabet to Egyptian hieroglyphics through Rosetta cipher.

One day!

XHMI-Pω Cymru Welsh hempsmen

Found a source/transliteration, whole website with multiple viewing options, nice, http://gospel-thomas.net/x_transl.htm Will add to article

Qur'anic similarity

I just thought that this ayah of the Qur'an seemed to be quite similar to that of the Bible:

048.029
YUSUFALI: Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.
PICKTHAL: Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. Thou (O Muhammad) seest them bowing and falling prostrate (in worship), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) acceptance. The mark of them is on their foreheads from the traces of prostration. Such is their likeness in the Torah and their likeness in the Gospel - like as sown corn that sendeth forth its shoot and strengtheneth it and riseth firm upon its stalk, delighting the sowers - that He may enrage the disbelievers with (the sight of) them. Allah hath promised, unto such of them as believe and do good works, forgiveness and immense reward.
SHAKIR: Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.

Moiz Amjad cites the Parable of the Mustard Seed when explaining the verse of the Qur'an.[6] 195.229.236.216 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Surah 31, Luqman, also mentions a Mustard seed. What we want on this article are transliterable texts, from native alphabets/scripture into Wikipedian English. We have Arabic text, we have English translations, but we don't have the Islamic letters transliterated into Wikipedian English alphabet, so; no primary English source, or English transliteration into Latin/English alphabet, no show - under the hood in talk page (see the Thomas discussion). Church of Britain (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Original research removed

Original research is banned on Wikipedia, and its important to properly reference to reliable books and journals, with page numbers. I've just reverted a paragraph which was mostly original research. There was indeed a reference for one claim (the birds are evil), but an anonymous study Bible isn't really a reliable reference. However, since the birds being evil does seem to be a legitimate minority view, I've added a book reference on it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

parable of the mustard seed

The entire entry is from the perspective of traditional discussion and use of parables in sermons . It really makes Jesus look pedestrian when in fact he used startling (at least in those times) irony. Why do you think he made such an impression? The cultivation of the mustard was banned by the Roman government because it cut into the profits of the landowners, as the mustard plant was highly invasive and threatened crops. The landless were deprived of a tiny income they could derive from the lowly weed. This is similiar to laws that prohibited making of salt by the poor in India by the British. The mustard seed was a symbol of the landless jews in contrast to the powerful, worldly power of the Roman empire. The symbol of Rome was the indestructible cypress tree as was the heavy cedars were for others (or oaks by the english,etc.).What the lowly mustard has over the cypress or cedar or oak is that it is a ubiquitous weed that defeats all efforts of eradication and grows just about anywhere.It eventually prevails over the powerful. The kingdom of God is everywhere and eventually defeats the trappings and allure of worldly values. The mustard is barely a bush, not a mighty tree and the idea of birds making a nest in it is just a further mocking of the symbolism of power by Jesus. Mr. dilatan té (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sinapeos, Sinapis, Hurdle, Cannabis

Going to have to do something about this, the connections are too strong to ignore.

People clearly where not putting brassica nigra into their schnapps.

When the "authority" sources are so clearly in conflict with common sense, knowledge and reason, seeing as how brassica nigra is a little yellow bush, that burns the eyes, and the heavens are not, being high as a hurdle

https://www.scribd.com/document/39764335/Aramaic-New-Testament-Peshitta-Transliterated CTRL+F dhrdla, being the Aramaic word used by Jesus, khardal, translated into modern Arabic as brassica nigra, whereas in English as hurdle, a fence, something that is High.

From which we get words like (hur)deli cakes, or eclaires, and ultimately eucharist, Chrizle tree.

Church of Britain (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The Evenagelists are the AUthority on this matter, and they use the Greek word sinapeos, Latin sinapis, to translate hurdla, the word the final authority, Jesus, used. Therefore the Evangelist's attribution of cannabis to the Heavens are more reliable sources than what is offered in the Interpretation section.

How can they be reliable when they don't know what mustard is?

It comes from grape paste mixed, musted, with sinapis.

Mustapis

mustapaste

The Oils of the tree, natural preservative, sweetener and non-alcoholic alternative to Eucharistic Wine.

Sinapeos is recorded 3 times in the Gospels as the Tree of Heaven/God, therefore Cannabis will have a presence on this page. To do otherwise, is to contradict common sense, reason and knowledge.

Hemp was the #1 cash crop for western Christians, age of discovery, sails and ropes, right up until the 1961 UN ban, IT WAS CLEARLY USED BY CHRISTIANS!

So you can't say there isn't enough evidence. it was our entire lives untill the cultural revolution of the 60s.

I offered see also links to show this evidence without adding orignal research, thousands of different recipes, originally including cannabis, enjoyed on consumer shelves in the 21st Century, but with the cannabis infused past editted out.

Schnaps, spirits, etc. all based on hemp cocktails

kokko Sinapeos

Cocktail

Coke

Everything you eat and drink used to have hemp in it in some form.

Commonly known fact.

Either that, or it was in a hempknap sack container.

Church of Britain (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

However, a real brassica nigra plant is unlikely to attract nesting birds,[2]

Even the sources provided for Brassica nigra, negro brush, admit it makes no sense.

It's small, burns the eyes, birds don't nest in it therefore it IS NOT THE TREE OF GOD/HEAVEN/LIFE

Cannabis cures cancer, amongst other things, and its in the Torah as knhbs, and it's here in the Synoptic Gospels, thrice, as Sinapeos.

They are Synoptic because they have Sinapis, whereas the Gospel of John, which is not Synoptic, does not mention the Sinapeos or narrate the Parable of the Red Must Paste Plant. Church of Britain (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Church of Britain (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinions of other editors needed

@MMX, Clinkophonist, Andrew c, Roy Brumback, Radagast3, and Mr. dilatan té: Yesterday I removed a lot of nonsense and off-the-subject material, and now it has been restored by the person who put it there, User "Church of Britain" (see his edit). Do others agree with me, or with him? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The original Greek Gospel accounts of the Parable of the Mustard Tree, ON TOPIC, SUBJECT MATERIAL OF THE ARTICLE ITSELF, in it's purest form, how is that nonsense?

And further, a short section on the history of mustum in Western Europe, what it was used for, eucharist celebration, and where the word mustard comes from.

How is this nonsense?

3 Gospel quotations of the article's subject matter and a short section on the history of the use of the word mustard and a see also section with links to must based, sinapis based, beverages.

Forget other users opinions, this is the facts of the matter, the facts of this article.

Allen parabolen parathakin autois, legin,

Gospel itself, and you call it nonsense?

It isn't a question of other users agreeing with me or you, it's the Gospel texts themselves you removed, NOONE agrees with you on that matter.

The only thing you would have grounds for removing is the See Also links;

although how, in an article concerning the Sinapeos Tree, are you going to remove a reference to Schnapps the drink?

How, in a Mustard Tree article, are you going to remove references to the Must drink?

How, in a Gospel text reference article, are you going to remove the Gospel texts themselves?

THE PRIMARY SOURCES! Church of Britain (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Church of Britain: You answered your own question: they're primary sources. Articles need to be based on scholarly research and other secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fred, then we have to eliminate the English translations too.

just eliminate all primary sources?

Illogical.

No Gepsel texts but secondary/tertiary and quartiary interpretations of the texts are good to go?

I'd love to tell you the Parable of the Mustard Tree, but that would involve quoting the Bible, and that's not allowed....

Gospels are secondary sources, to Jesus Christ (the Primary), valid, Stay in. Interpretations of these secondary evangelical accounts are tertiary.

Should actually delete the whole interpretation sec tion, seeing as they are not secondary sources but beyond. hearsay they might aswell be. but that would mean there would be nothing on this article.

Nonsense. Church of Britain (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Church of Britain: I don't agree with the policy on primary sources. That's not my argument. When I said "nonsense" I was referring to the stuff like the word "Bastille" ("Wikipigeon Hyperlinked English transliteration"?). The stuff about the etymology of the word mustard is off topic. I think it's a good idea to put the Greek, but in Greek letters and the whole passage, not just one line at a time. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Say so next time. Also, leave in what is good, when your pulling the weeds, it makes sense to keep the sinapeos.

Don't delete the Greek text.

Would need an alphabet cipher for English speakers if we're adding original transcriptions.

And a Coptic one for Thomas which, another topic, should be in, "noultam" the Seed is called there. See Thomas section for earlier discussion.

However with an English international alphabet transliteration that links to original transcriptions, such as is the case as is, saves space and makes it easier for the end user.

Bible hub interlinear link has the original alphabet transcription at a click of button, may not be best to have on article page.

Maybe keywords, such as the Sinaibush Seed itself, and words used for God, Kingdom and Heaven, also pigeons!

Sivapewc

Church of Britain (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary & Secondary sources

Words and actions of Jesus - Primary Source (Turn Shroud for example, aswell as words quoted in Gospels.

Aramaic/Greek Gospels - Secondary

Latin - Tertiary

English - Quarternary

Interpretations of the English - ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Church of Britain (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The Original greek text is repeatedly being editted out of the article.

However the original Greek is the secondary source to Jesus' words.

the English translations are much later, most translated from the Latin which in turn is translated from the Greek, so at least quartiary source.

Interpretations of quartiary sources shouldn't be on this article.

No evidence to suggest Mustard, the plant that is used in the production of must paste, is brassica nigra. Whereas all mentions of must and sinapeos are in some way related to alcohol or non-alcoholic drink production.

Don't assume your assumptions are everyones assumptions or even truth.

If you believe the Mustard Tree being referred to is brassica nigra, that says more about your limited knowledge of the world than anything. Heinze says it's brassica, therefore all MUST PASTE HAS TO NOW BRASSICA!

Must is a paste, not all mustard is mustard, but all mustard is mustard.

Language.

Snap.

Knew.

Wine.

Kanabis Wine

Sinapeos Vino

Snappy Wine with a bit o' kick.

The Greek stays in, Sinapeos stays in, Must paste as a part of wine making process stays in, and Schnaps as a part of distillate spirit production stays in.

Why?

That's what it is, that's what all the sources say.

Pliny the Elder calls the brassica plant brassica, not sinapis. The Gospels call the plant Sinapeos. the Latin translations use the word Sinapis, not brassica, which was in use by the Romans to refer to the brassica nigra. Therefore the Latin translators specifically chose not to use the word brassica when translating Sinapeos.

They dropped the EO for I

That is all

Sinapis to hoenip, hemp to schnap, schnap to canvas, canvas to canopy, canopy to cannabis, which is sinapis.

If Sinepos is brassica, then the Latin translators would have said so, they didn't, therefore Mustard is sinapis.

Attribution of sinapis to brassica is modern invention. Only 6 species of "sinapis" brassica exist, all named in the last century, and none of them nigra!

Complete made up nonsense that has no place in this article.

Church of Britain (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Further, the attribution of the prefix Synoptic to the Gospels being mentioned in the introductory pragraph stays.

Synoptic meaning Gospels containg Sinapeos.

John is not Synoptic because it does not have the parable of the Mustard Tree, it does not have Sinapeos specifically mentioned like the Synoptic Gospels.

This is important and relevant supplementary information helping to explain the the religious and cultural context of the parable. Church of Britain (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Heaven is like the seed of, and I quote, 'White mustard (Sinapis alba) is an annual plant of the family Brassicaceae. It is sometimes also referred to as Brassica alba or B. hirta. Grown for its seeds, mustard, as fodder crop or as a green manure, it is now widespread worldwide, although it probably originated in the Mediterranean region. White mustard is an annual, growing to 70 cm high with stalkless pinnate leaves. Similar to Sinapis arvensis.[1]'

Only 4 sinapis brassica left, hope one of them reaches over a meter. They don't have links because the taxonomic method used is ridiculous, if your just throwing cool Latin sounding words at new sub species, it makes it very confusing for anthropologists and humanities in general. Brassica schnaps, schnaps alba, it is indeed like Kazakh Kingdom, Scoo'ish

Quantum mustard seed here, can be any one of nigra or alba. Church of Britain (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Church of Britain (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced and incorrect additions - reverted

@Church of Britain: If you think that in Matt 31 basileia equates to Bastille, and ouranos to Uranus (mythology or Rain, it is very clear to me that you have no knowledge whatsoever of Greek and that you have no idea of what you are talking about. Please stop making these unsourced WP:OR additions. I don't even know classical or Biblical Greek, but it is bleeding obvious to me that basileia means "kingdom" and ouranos means "Heaven". Narky Blert (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You admitted you don't know Greek, ancient or modern, and yet you criticize my use of uranus, how ironic.

Church of Britain (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Doubts on the actual plant species

Mustard plant refers to this page, stating that this parable is about the mustard tree Salvadora_persica. That seems plausible and coherent with the parable itself. However, this page unconditionally cites black mustard as the plant being given as an example, which seems to contradict the parable if taken literally (black mustard being a rather small plant, while there are pictures of birds perched on Salvadora_persicabranches on that page. Which one is which? More information is needed, it might be worthy of mention in the article itself as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayeulc (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)