The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin recently linked me to a blog that I had seen before (though not very recently), but whose owner I was unaware was our own Tenorikuma. While browsing around, I found an intriguing post I had not read before on the parable of the talents or pounds, which got me thinking in some interesting directions.

Basically, Tenorikuma responds to Mark Goodacre's case that Luke copied from Matthew in this pericope and winds up arguing for something close to the opposite, namely that Matthew copied from proto-Luke. His beautiful diagram is well worth linking to from here (but note that the references to Luke 9 are typos for Luke 19).

I have found that many arguments for priority or posteriority are reversible, but that the argument from editorial fatigue as presented by Mark Goodacre is, done correctly, less reversible than most. It seems that Tenorikuma agrees on the merits of editorial fatigue for such determinations, and it is mainly on that basis that he attempts to reverse Goodacre's conclusions. Other, more eclectic arguments sometimes come into play, as well.

Let me start by presenting the Matthean parable of the talents alongside the Lucan parable of the pounds (minas) for comparison and contrast:

Matthew 25.14-30
Luke 19.11-27
-11 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.
14 "For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.12 So He said, "A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. 13 And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, 'Do business with this until I come back.'
-14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'
16 Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. 17 In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. 18 But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.-
19 Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.15 When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.
20 The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'16 The first appeared, saying, 'Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'
21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'17 And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'
22 Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'18 The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'
23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'19 And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'
24 And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. 25 And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.'20 Another [or: the other] came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief; 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'
26 But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.22 He said to him, 'By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?
27 Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.23 Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?'
28 Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.24 Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'
-25 And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'
29 For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.26 I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
30 Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."

So which came first? Let us bring in the arguments.

Does the Lucan version of the parable show editorial fatigue?

Goodacre had argued as follows for Matthean priority and Lucan posteriority in this pericope:

For a second example from double tradition, it will be fruitful to turn to the Parable of the Talents/Pounds (Matt 25.14-30 // Luke 19.11-27). The Matthean version of the parable is deservedly the more popular of the two, for it is simpler, more coherent and easier to follow. There are three servants; one receives five talents, one two and the other one. The first makes five more talents and is rewarded, the second two more and is rewarded; the other hides his talent and is punished.

The Lucan version begins with ten servants and all receive one pound. When the nobleman returns, he summons the servants and we hear about 'the first' (19.16), 'the second' (19.18) and amazingly, 'the other', ὁ ἕτερος (19.20). It turns out, then, that Luke has three servants in mind, like Matthew, and not ten after all.

Further, in Luke's parable, the first two servants receive 'cities' as their reward (19.17, 19), the first ten and the second five, whereas in Matthew they are 'put in charge of much' (25.21, 23). It is striking then that Luke seems to share Matthew's story-line towards the end of the parable:
  • Matt 25.28: 'So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents.'
    Luke 19.24: 'Take the pound from him and give it to him who has the ten pounds.'
The account lacks cohesion: the man in Luke actually has ten cities now, so a pound extra is nothing and, in any case, he does not have ten pounds but eleven (19.16: 'your pound made ten pounds more'; contrast Matt 25.20).

Luke's version of the Parable, then, does not hold together well and there is a straightforward explanation to hand: Luke has attempted to reframe the parable that he found in Matthew but his ambition, on this occasion, exceeds his capability. Editorial fatigue soon drags the plot of the parable back to Matthew, with its three coherent servants, the first earning his five coherent talents.

Tenorikuma summarizes the two arguments involved as follows:
  1. Luke’s parable started out with ten slaves but ended with three, like Matthew’s has.
  2. Giving the third slave’s money to the first slave seems like a trifle when the first is already being rewarded with ten cities.
Tenorikuma responds to Goodacre's first argument as follows:

In fact, the number of slaves isn’t such a problem after all. When Luke introduces ten slaves, are we supposed to think he intends to have all ten of them report to the nobleman in the parable, one after another in tedious fashion? Not at all; it makes perfect sense to show just a sample. The text mentions the first one, the second one, and another one (or “the other one”, depending on the manuscript). Furthermore, this would explain who “those standing by” in verse 24 are: the remaining slaves who haven’t been interviewed yet.

My agreement or disagreement with him on this depends in great deal on the manuscript evidence. As he points out, some manuscripts have "another" (ἕτερος) while others have "the other" (ὁ ἕτερος). LaParola cites the evidence as follows:

ὁ] ‭א B D L Θ f13 579 892 1241 pc WH CEI Nv
omit] A W Ψ 0182 f1 33 Byz ς NR ND Riv Dio TILC NM

On the one hand, there are quite a few witnesses which omit the article. On the other, those which include it comprise a pretty powerful cadre: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, Regius, and Coridethianus, with some important minuscules as escorts. Most modern critical texts seem to accept the article (which is probably why Goodacre included it in his argument without even referring to the manuscript testimony). If the article was present in the Lucan form of the parable that we are evaluating, then I would have to agree with Goodacre here: to mention one servant, a second servant, and then "the other" implies that the writer had only three servants in mind, despite having introduced ten, and having only three in mind would definitely look like a dependence on the Matthean version (or on any version with only three servants). To mention one servant, a second servant, and then "another", however, is a different story. The introduction of ten servants might seem unnecessary and superfluous, but it is no longer a matter of editorial fatigue; and, as Tenorikuma rightly points out, the presence of 7 additional servants on top of the 3 described in detail would explain the bystanders of verse 24.

Tenorikuma responds to Goodacre's second argument as follows:

As for the slave receiving money in addition to cities, this is just my own observation, but doesn’t Matthew’s version have the same problem? Sure, being put “in charge of many things” and “entering into the joy of the master” are more vague rewards than being given authority over cities, but they still render monetary rewards unnecessary.

Unfortunately, I do not really agree that Matthew shares the same problem as Luke here. Adding one talent to ten talents is a pretty decent upgrade (I for one would welcome a 10% return on or addition to my monetary worth, especially given that even one talent is a lot of money, whereas adding a pound/mina to my 10 cities is truly nothing). As for the intangible rewards in Matthew, being put in charge of many things is hardly the same thing as increasing one's personal wealth, and "entering into the joy of the master" may mean no more than we already knew, to wit, that this servant is on his master's good side. The incorporation of the lesson of Mark 4.25 ("for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him") into the parable may itself be a sign of editing (more on this later); but, even if so, it is not the same thing as pointing out the disparity between the third servant's ten cities and his extra mina in the Lucan account, a dissonance which is at the very least considerably muted in Matthew. Furthermore, even if Matthew did share this problem with Luke, it would not excuse Luke, who may still be incidentally tipping his hand that he is following a source here; it would just mean that the source is less likely to be Matthew.

So the first example of Lucan fatigue depends on a single article which is present in some manuscripts but absent from others; I personally think the article is probably more original than its lack (the combination of Vaticanus + Bezae impresses me quite a bit), but I admit there is no smoking gun here; nevertheless, the rest of this post will treat the article as original, with the proviso that, wherever an argument depends on this particular example of fatigue, there may be extenuating circumstances. The second example probably also shows something along the lines of fatigue going on with Luke, but it is not quite as clear as the first example would be if we could be certain of the correct text.

Tenorikuma also, however, points to verse 25 in Luke: "And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already.'" This verse actually interrupts the nobleman's speech, which continues, unmarked, in verses 26-27: "I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." Had the parable ended at verse 26, we might have supposed that Jesus himself was summarizing things with the parallel to Mark 4.25; but this idea does not work because of verse 27, which is obviously the nobleman commanding his minions to slay his enemies. Verse 25, then, looks like an awkward insertion into the parable; indeed, some manuscripts do omit this verse:

omit] D W 69 1230 1253 l211 l384 l387 l770 l773 l1780 itb itd ite itff2 syrc syrs copbo(ms) Lucifer Cyril

Tenorikuma also identifies a pair of verses in Luke which seem to go together and do not really fit the landscape of the rest of the parable very well:

Now, his subjects hated him, and they sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to rule over us!’ (v. 14)
‘However, these enemies of mine who did not want me to rule over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me!’ (v. 27)

To these two complete verses I would add the introduction to the parable proper: "A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return." I would also add one brief line, "after receiving the kingdom," in verse 15. All of these notices are alluding to the story of Archelaus (as described by Josephus in Wars 2.1-6 and Antiquities 17.9-11), as Tenorikuma points out:

Furthermore, nearly all scholars agree that they are a clear reference to Archelaus, who ruled Judea for about ten years. According to Josephus (J.W. 2.1ff. and Ant. 17.206ff), Archelaus travelled to Rome upon the death of his father, Herod the Great, hoping to be crowned king of Judea. A delegation of Jews opposed to Archelaus also went to Rome and petitioned Caesar Augustus not to make Archelaus king. Augustus decided to give Archelaus control of Judea, but as ethnarch rather than king. Later, upon returning to Judea, the ruthless Archelaus slaughtered numerous Jews during Passover for fear they were rebelling against him.

However, he thinks that "a later editor decided to enhance the parallels between Jesus and Archelaus by adding verses 14 and 27 to the story (based on details he may have learned from Josephus), which survive in canonical Luke." I am not so sure. Luke-Acts elsewhere shows a great interest in Judean history, especially in topics that overlap Josephus' works; also, since the introductory line of the parable cannot be cleanly removed like the whole verses 14 and 27 or even the little phrase in verse 15 can, the parable must have been reworked so as to incorporate these elements; this is more than just a handful of marginal notes inserted into the main text (that is, this seems redactional, not scribal). So, while I agree that the original form of the parable probably lacked these elements alluding to Archelaus (and it is true that they are not attested for the Marcionite gospel, though that is not as strong as saying that they are attested as absent from it), I also suspect that its current Lucan form probably owes its existence to the same editor or editors who like to talk about Quirinius and Philip the Tetrarch and Theudas and the Egyptian and other figures from Judean history. Regardless, though, these allusions to Archelaus are another indication that the canonical Lucan parable is a reworking of some earlier form of the parable, whether that form is what we find in Matthew or not... which brings us to the next question.

Does the Matthean version of the parable show editorial fatigue?

Tenorikuma points out that, whereas in Matthew 25.27 the master is addressing the worthless slave ("then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest"), in the very next verse he is, without marker, speaking to anonymous, unintroduced individuals about that same slave ("therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents"). It is not entirely clear to whom the master is speaking at this point. Recall that the Lucan parallel specified that the nobleman was talking to bystanders, and that the bystanders may well have been the slaves not yet interrogated. So the Matthean version seems to be missing a marker of some kind here.

He also gives four arguments for Matthean fatigue or incoherence that he apparently derives from Brian Schultz in "Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27)", Novum Testamentum 49/2 (2007):
  1. In Luke, the slaves are commanded to “do business” by their master. The slaves in Matthew are given no such command. What, then, is the third slave in Matthew guilty of? Only in the Lucan parable has he acted contrary to orders.
  2. In Luke, the sums involved are fairly small. One mina in the first century was worth 100 denarii, or about three months’ wages. Luke’s nobleman is justified in saying “you have been trustworthy in the smallest of things”. In Matthew, enormous sums are involved. One talent is 6,000 denarii, or roughly twenty years of wages. It makes little sense for Matthew’s master to say, “you have been trustworthy in a few things”. (Could this be an instance of editorial fatigue from copying Luke?)
  3. In Luke, the servant who earned the highest returns gets the third servant’s mina. In Matthew’s version, the first two servants showed the same ability, earning 100% on their investments. It’s not clear why the first one deserves the extra talent.
  4. As already mentioned, the text is ambiguous in Matt. 25.28 as to whom the master is addressing. (Another example of fatigue?)
I am not sure the first issue gets off the ground, since Matthew 25.15 does portray the master as giving the talents to each slave "according to his own ability," which must surely imply a desire to do something productive with the money. It may reflect the author having the purpose of the grant squarely in mind but revealing it a bit obliquely in the text, and of course having the purpose in mind could result from having a text with that purpose before one's eyes, a text much like the Lucan version; but I do not think it has to do that. Sometimes authors just express things a little bit more obliquely than they might. And, in this case, the fact remains that burying the talent takes no special ability at all compared to turning it into more talents; so burying it can hardly be what the master (or Matthew) has in mind.

This same consideration also potentially impacts the third issue, since the master evidently already knows that the first slave has more ability than the second; hence the different investment in each to begin with. However, I agree that it is a bit odd that, if the different abilities of the first two slaves are what is at issue, both slaves should earn the same percentage back: 100%. Why did the equivalent earnings rate not inform the master's decision at the end of the parable? For that matter, from a literary point of view, why are two very different hints as to the abilities of the first two servants included in the first place? No point is made of the difference. What is it doing there?

I do not think the second issue is really an issue. Had Matthew carried over the Lucan wording, "trustworthy in the smallest of things," we might have a problem; but he did not. He wrote instead, "trustworthy in a few things," a phrase which seems acceptable to me to describe either five talents earning five more talents or two talents earning two more talents. The "few things" may even simply relate to the implied kinds of business a slave might have to engage in in order to turn such a profit.

I have already agreed that the fourth issue is something to consider.

Do both the Matthean and the Lucan versions of the parable show editorial fatigue?

It is time to sum up the arguments from fatigue so far:

Matthew
1. It is not clear whom the master is addressing in Matthew 25.28 (and 25.30, for that matter): "Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents." This command to anonymous, unintroduced extras follows unmarked on a statement directly to the slave himself in verse 27.
2. In Matthew 25.20-23, the first two servants show the same ability, earning 100% on their respective investments, despite the implication in 25.15 that their abilities actually differ. It is not entirely clear, therefore, why the first one deserves the extra talent in verse 28.

Luke
1. Luke 19.13 starts out with ten slaves but ends up with three, the third of whom is referred to as "the other one" in verse 20, indicating that Luke has been thinking of three slaves after all.
2. Luke 19.24 is anticlimactic in giving the third slave’s mina to the first slave, which seems like a trifle when the first is already being rewarded with ten cities.
3. Luke 19.25, the protest that the first slave already has 10 minas, is not present in some manuscripts, and definitely interrupts the nobleman's speech in an awkward way.
4. Luke 19.14, 27 and parts of verses 12 and 15 seem to be of a piece, alluding to the story of Archelaus, and feel like an extra layer of complication that may not derive from the original form of the parable. These verses are also not attested as either present or absent in the Marcionite version.

I think that, when it comes to the Lucan version, the Archelaus allusions can be ruled out as part of the original parable on thematic grounds and the protest in verse 25 can be ruled out on textual grounds, supported by the observation that it intrudes into the nobleman's speech. (And I think the latter is probably true even if it turned out that some manuscripts omitted the verse precisely because of the interruption or in order to harmonize the flow with Matthew 25.28, where no such protest intrudes. I suspect that the original version of the parable lacked the protest.) The final verse of the parable, which is also the final allusion to Archelaus, actually reserves the harsh punishment that Matthew's version doles out to the lazy slave for those citizens who did not want this nobleman to rule over them. Tenorikuma suggests that the Marcionite version lacked both of these elements (the Archelaus allusions and verse 25), and he may well be correct.

This leaves the two other issues in Luke. I think that the original version of the parable had 3 slaves, not 10, and that in adding the extras yet describing only the original 3 Luke managed to give himself away by referring to the third as "the other one". Finally, I suspect that the original version did not create an anomaly by offering a servant now in charge of cities a single mina simply because of the principle espoused by Mark 4.25.

As for Matthew, I think that the original parable either lacked the command to give the third slave's talent to the first slave entirely, on the advice of something like Mark 4.25, or at the very least did not interrupt a speech to the third slave himself with it. I also suspect that the original parable did not both distinguish between the first two slaves' financial acumen and then simultaneously show them to be equal.

It is interesting that both Matthew and Luke fall into a momentary incoherence once at the same point of the narrative: the giving of the third servant's hidden money to the first servant. It is also interesting that this momentary incoherence is a result of integrating the principle of Mark 4.25 into the parable. I conclude that the original parable probably lacked this connection to Mark 4.25.

But, if neither Matthew nor Luke represents the original version in these particulars, then there must be another version, perhaps lost to us, from which both the Matthean and the Lucan versions drew (whether independently or with either Matthew or Luke also knowing the other).

Is there another version of the parable?

We do know of another version of this parable. Eusebius writes in Theophany 4.22:

But since the gospel written in Hebraic characters which has come to us levels the threat, not against the man who hid the talent, but against him who had lived unsafely (for it had three servants, the one eating up the belongings of his master with harlots and flutegirls, another multiplying it by the work of trade, and the other hiding the talent, then made the one to be accepted, another only blamed, and the other to be closed up in prison), I wonder whether in Matthew, after the end of the word against the one who did not work, the threat that follows was said, not about him, but about the first, by epanalepsis, the one who ate and drank with the drunkards.

It is unfortunate that we have only this thumbnail sketch of the parable as found in some gospel thought to have been written in (and presumably translated from) Hebraic letters. But one may be surprised at how much of what it contained (or did not contain) may be surmised by comparison with the Matthean and Lucan parables.

I would like first to explore, however, two possible connections to gospel passages besides the parable of the talents or the pounds. Eusebius himself softly proposes a link between the slave who receives the harsh punishment in Matthew 25.30 and the slave who appears a few verses before our parable, in Matthew 24.45-51:

45 "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
47 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
48 But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,'
49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards;
50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know,
51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This passage finds a parallel in Luke 12.42-48:

42 And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time?
43 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
44 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
45 But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."

This slave who has eaten and drunk with the drunkards, Eusebius suggests, is perhaps the one who is actually going to be punished in Matthew 25.30, at the end of our parable. Whether it is likely or not that Matthew would deliberately refer all the way back to this passage in chapter 24 at the end of his otherwise seemingly self-contained parable in chapter 25, it is certainly interesting that in both cases we find a slave left to his own devices while his master is away and then consigned to a place where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (the Matthean wording) when the master returns. The only difference is that the slave with the talent has merely hidden that talent, whereas this slave is actually beating his fellow men and living a life of dissolution. One wonders what the connection between this miniature parable and the parable of the talents a few verses later in Matthew might be. We will return to this issue.

The other gospel passage that may be connected somehow is the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15.11-32. Petri Luomanen writes on pages 128-129 of Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels:

Because Eusebius only summarizes the parable, it is not possible to compare it with the synoptic stories in detail. However, [A. F. J.] Klijn has drawn attention [on page 62 of Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition] to the fact that the phrase “spent the fortune of his master with harlots and flute-girls” (τὸν μὲν καταφαγόντα τὴν ὕπαρξιν τοῦ δεσπότου μετὰ πορνῶν καὶ αὐλητρίδων) closely resembles Luke 15:30 where the prodigal son “spent his fortune with harlots” (καταφαγών σου τὸν βίον μετὰ πορνῶν). Nevertheless, Klijn closes the discussion by noting that the phrase may also be commonplace. This assumption would seem to be confirmed by the fact that the prostitutes and flutegirls appear together in P.Oxy 840, exemplifying extravagant, impure life. However, it may have escaped Klijn’s notice that there is another phrase in Eusebius’ summary that also agrees with the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Both the prodigal son and the “wicked” servant “lived in extravagance” (Luke 15:13: ζῶν ἀσώτως; Theoph. ἀσώτως ἐζηκότος). Because ἀσώτως is a hapax legomenon in the NT, the agreement is hardly coincidental. .... Notably, Eusebius’ own interpretation only plays with phrases to be found in Matthew’s passages..., which makes it unlikely that the connections to Luke derived from Eusebius.

I reproduce lines 30-41 of papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840, recto, here for the sake of completeness:

The Sa(vi)or answ[er]ed him and said, "Woe, blind men who do not s[e]e. You bathed in these flowing w[a]ters in which dogs and swine [are] cast night and day, and was[h]ed and smeared the outside skin, with which [eve]n the harlots and th[e] flutegirls per[f]um[e a]nd bathe and wipe [and b]eautify for the desi[re [o]f m(e)n, but within th[ey are fi]l<l>ed with scorpions and [all ev]il."

While the expression "harlots and flutegirls" may be an ancient cliché, easily applied to both cases (and notice the addition of αἱ ὕες, "the swine," to οἱ κύνες, "the dogs," in the Old Greek of 1 Kings / 3 Kingdoms 22.38, in a context involving αἱ πόρναι, "the harlots," bathing), the association of this phrase with the comparatively rare term ἀσώτως yields a possible connection between the unruly servant of this Hebraic gospel and the prodigal son of Luke 15.11-32. We will return to this issue, as well.

Back to the Hebraic version of the parable itself. It is not immediately clear which servant receives which outcome in the way that Eusebius presents them. Here are the two lists in the order Eusebius presents them:
  1. The servant eating up the belongings of his master with harlots and flute-girls, living unsafely.
  2. The servant multiplying his talent by the work of trade.
  3. The servant hiding the talent.
  1. One is accepted.
  2. Another is only blamed.
  3. The other is shut up in prison.
Now, nothing can be clearer than that the order of the first list does not correspond with the order of the second: there is no way that the servant living unsafely is the accepted one while the other two are blamed and imprisoned. Given that the two orders do not match up as given, Eusebius has either scrambled them randomly or reversed them chiastically. Eusebius explicitly says that the servant living unsafely is the one against whom "the threat" is leveled, and he seems to compare or equate this threat to the one in Matthew 25.30, so it is reasonable to suppose that this servant is the one shut up in prison, just like the servant of Matthew 24.48-51, the one drinking with drunkards and beating his fellow slaves, is consigned to the outer darkness. This lines up the first servant with the last outcome.

But are the other two servants aligned chiastically or randomly with their outcomes? If randomly, then the one who hides the talent is blamed, and the one who multiplies the talent is accepted. This is how Klijn reads matters, and it certainly resonates with anyone who has read the canonical versions of the parable. If chiastically, then the one who hides the talent is accepted, and the one who multiplies it is blamed. This seems implausible at first, but it actually has merit. Petri Luomanen writes on pages 130-131:

However, the assumption about the khiastic order is difficult because then the servant who hid the talent would have been the one who was accepted, not the one who multiplied his trade as in the synoptic versions. .... However, Malina and Rohrbaugh [in their Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels] think that Eusebius did not make a mistake. He described the judgments in the same (reversed) order as they were in the Gospel of the Hebrews. This suggestion draws on Mediterranean anthropology and sets the parable in the context of poor Galilean peasants. The starting point of this suggestion is that in the Mediterranean culture, where Jesus and his first followers lived, the idea of limited good was one of the most important culturally shared values. Since the amount of good was restricted, it followed that everyone who tried to get more for him/herself was inevitably stealing from others. Good persons did not try to become rich at the expense of others. From the viewpoint of the idea of limited good, both the man who spent his money with the flute girls and the servant who multiplied his trade were morally dubious characters. According to Biblical law (Deut 23:19-20), it was not allowed to charge interest on loans. .... Furthermore, in later rabbinic tradition, burying was considered a perfectly responsible way of taking care of someone else’s money. The version that we have in the Gospel of the Hebrews seems to be in accordance with these values. It accepts with joy the servant who simply kept the allotted money in a safe place. The servant who multiplied the money is rebuked and the servant who spent the money of his master with harlots and flute players is cast into prison. Thus, the parable that was recorded in the Gospel of the Hebrews would make perfect sense in the context of ancient Mediterranean culture.

If we take this suggestion, then one of the points of the Hebraic version of the parable (that business is wrongheaded) runs counter to an assumption of the canonical versions of the parable (that business is both allowed and expected). This negative attitude toward business finds a friend in Thomas 64: "Businessmen and merchants will not enter the places of My Father." ETA:

Zephaniah 1.11: 11 “Wail, O inhabitants of the Mortar, for all the people of Canaan [כָּל־עַם כְּנַעַן] will be silenced; all who weigh out silver will be cut off.”

Zechariah 14.21: 21 Every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to Yahweh of hosts; and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and boil in them. And there will no longer be a Canaanite [כְנַעֲנִי, RSV trader, Vulgate mercator] in the house of Yahweh of hosts in that day.

Hosea 12.7: 7 A merchant [כְּנַעַן], in whose hands are false balances, He loves to oppress.

Job 41.6: “Will the traders bargain over him? Will they divide him among the Canaanites [כְּֽנַעֲנִים, NAS merchants, RSV traders, Vulgate negotiatores]?”

Proverbs 31.24: 24 She makes linen garments and sells them and supplies belts to the Canaanite [כְּנַעֲנִי, NAS tradesmen, RSV merchant].

Does the Hebraic version of the parable help to explain anything?

Petri Luomanen argues that the Hebraic gospel postdates the synoptic tradition on pages 131-132 of Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels; altogether, he gives four reasons for thinking so. However, I think that three of the arguments fall flat and a fourth hangs tenuously upon a lot of complicated factors. I may address his arguments openly in another post sometime [ETA: I have now done so], but here, for now, let us run with the idea that the version of our parable that Eusebius claims to have found in his Hebraic gospel may, all else being equal, either predate or postdate the synoptic tradition (or even run contemporaneously with it).

Recall that I suggested above that the original parable behind both canonical versions probably showed the following characteristics:
  1. There are only 3 slaves, not 10.
  2. No slave is given another slave's money on the principle of Mark 4.25, and no protest that the first slave already has money interrupts anything.
  3. No Archelaus material is probably present.
If we read (Eusebius' version of) the Hebraic parable on its own merits, we find that we have no reason to suspect that any more than 3 servants appear. Also, though obviously Eusebius has not given the entire parable and has focused on only one single issue therein, it seems rather certain that no slave is given any other slave's money in the Hebraic parable, part of its very point being that earning extra money is blameworthy. Finally, we also have no reason to suspect the presence of any Archelaus material in the parable, though of course there is no way to tell for certain.

I tentatively suggest that the version of the parable found in the Hebraic gospel represents the form of the parable that lies behind both the Matthean and the Lucan versions. Whether it is the very first version of the parable is beyond our knowing, but it looks like it could easily lead to what we find in the canonical gospels. In the next post I will summarize what I hope is a plausible process by which these various versions may have come into being.

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:02 pm, edited 7 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

This post will work with some color coding for the various texts. Basically, each color identifies a source text, so far as the matters I have discussed so far are concerned. (That is, identifying a verse as finding its source, say, in the Hebraic gospel ought not to be taken to imply that I think that gospel is necessarily the absolute origin of the verse; it merely means that the version found in the Hebraic gospel is where the other versions of the parable derived that material.) I will retain my own preferred colors for the synoptic three (based on the system drawn up by S. C. Carlson) but retain Tenorikuma's color for Josephus. The colors are as follows:

Hebraic Gospel = orange.
Works of Josephus = purple.
Gospel of Matthew = blue.
Gospel of Mark = red.
Gospel of Luke / Marcionite Gospel = green.

I will also include the source references in brackets in the texts themselves.

Does my reconstruction make sense redactionally?

In what follows, I will end up accepting virtually the entire diagram that Tenorikuma offers; the fact that I disagree with a couple of his assessments of editorial fatigue is remedied by my positioning of the version of our parable found in the Hebraic gospel before the canonical versions (that is, I am suggesting against Tenorikuma that Luke was fatigued, but I am agreeing with him that Luke was not fatigued with Matthew). So my suggestion is that the Hebraic Gospel offered the first of our three extant versions of the parable:

Eusebius, Theophany 4.22: But since the gospel written in Hebraic characters which has come to us levels the threat, not against the man who hid the talent, but against him who had lived unsafely (for it had three servants, the one eating up the belongings of his master with harlots and flute-girls, another multiplying it by the work of trade, and another hiding the talent, then made the one to be accepted, another only blamed, and the other to be closed up in prison), I wonder whether in Matthew, after the end of the word against the one who did not work, the threat that follows was said, not about him, but about the first, by epanalepsis, the one who ate and drank with the drunkards.

At some point, whether before or after this version of the parable was extant, Mark independently penned the following principles:

Mark 4.25: "For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him."

Mark 13.34-37: 34 "It is like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert." 35 Therefore, be on the alert—for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning— 36 in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep. 37 What I say to you I say to all, ‘Be on the alert!’”

The gospel of Thomas contains a parallel to Mark 4.25:

Thomas 41: Jesus said, "Whoever has something in his hand will receive more, and whoever has nothing will be deprived of even the little he has."

Maybe Thomas got it from Mark, or maybe Mark got it from the tradition that eventually made it into Thomas. At any rate, on the assumption that the Marcan gospel preceded the Marcionite gospel (an assumption of which I am not certain), the Marcionite gospel comes next (if these two are reversed, it does no harm to my overall thesis). It is very hard to know what exactly was in the parable of the pounds/minas in the Marcionite version, but I tentatively accept Tenorikuma's suggestion that it lacked the connections to Archelaus. It does seem, however, to have already integrated the lesson of Mark 4.25, since the relevant parts of Luke 19.26 ("for I tell you that to everyone who has, will more be given; but from him who does not have, even that which he thinks he has will be taken away from him") are positively attested for it. So I think the Marcionite version at least postdates the Hebraic version, whether it postdates Mark or not. This seems to be the version that introduces the concept that multiplying the money is a good idea. (If the text is truly Marcionite, and Marcion truly was in the shipping business as later church fathers attested, then it might make sense for his gospel text not to be rabidly against business.) It may also be the version that introduces the ten slaves, though there is no direct attestation for this. In what follows, italics mark bits which Jason BeDuhn thinks belong to the Marcionite version:

Luke 19.11-27: 11 As they heard these things, he went on and told a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that God’s Kingdom would be revealed immediately. 12 He said therefore, “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. 13 He called ten slaves of his and gave them ten mina coins [or: each a mina coin], and told them, ‘Conduct business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent an envoy after him, saying, ‘We don’t want this man to reign over us.’ 15 “When he had come back again, having received the kingdom, he commanded these slaves, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by conducting business. 16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten more minas.’ 17 “He said to him, ‘Well done, you good slave! Because you were found faithful with very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18 “The second came, saying, ‘Your mina, Lord, has made five minas.’ 19 “So he said to him also, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 The other came, saying, ‘Lord, behold, your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief, 21 for I feared you, because you are an exacting man. You take up that which you didn’t lay down, and reap that which you didn’t sow.’ 22 “He said to him,Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked slave! You knew that I am an exacting man, taking up that which I didn’t lay down, and reaping that which I didn’t sow. 23 Then why didn’t you deposit my money in the bank, and at my coming, I might have earned interest on it?’ 24 He said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina away from him and give it to him who has the ten minas.’ 25 “They said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ 26 ‘For I tell you that to everyone who has, will more be given; but from him who doesn’t have, even that which he thinks he has will be taken away from him [Mark 4.25]. 27 But bring those enemies of mine who didn’t want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me.’”

The Hebraic gospel had offered three different slaves with three different monetary strategies: waste the money, invest the money, and hide the money. There had also been three different outcomes: prison, rebuke, and acceptance. But what happens if one wants to use this basic parable but lose the implication that investing money and earning interest is wrong? And what happens if one actually rather wishes to discourage behavior tantamount to hiding the money and doing nothing with it? Once the decision has been made to make hiding the money the main fault, the slave who squanders the money has to go. The slave who hides the money is not going to look as bad if he is standing next to a slave who has squandered it all on alcohol and prostitutes. This would explain why the parable now has only two kinds of activity and two kinds of outcome distributed between three slaves: 2 slaves who invest (and are rewarded) and 1 who does nothing (and is rebuked).

Now canonical Matthew comes onto the scene, with knowledge both of the Hebraic version and of the Marcionite version, as well as of the gospel of Mark. He decides to keep the 3 slaves of the former (if the latter had 10) but the positive outlook on business of the latter, as well as the principle of Mark 4.25 (which tends to go along with the positive outlook on business). Thus, Matthew retains the "duck, duck, goose" pattern of two slaves who invest and one who does nothing:

Matthew 25.14-30: 14 "For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them [Mark 13.34].
15 To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
16 Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents.
17 In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more.
18 But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19 Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.
20 The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.'
21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
22 Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.'
23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.'
24 And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed.
25 And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.'
26 But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed.
27 Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest.
28 Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.

29 For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away [Mark 4.25].
30 Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"

But Matthew is not finished yet. That slave, now missing from the parable, who spent his money on riotous living is moralistic gold. Matthew decides to incorporate his story elsewhere in the gospel:

Matthew 24.45-51: 45 "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes [Mark 13.34].

47 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions [Luke 19.17, 19].
48 But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,'
49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards [Hebraic gospel];

50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know [Mark 13.35-37],
51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This explains why it is a slave whose master is away who is eating and drinking with drunkards here; it also explains why the line about weeping and gnashing of teeth is found both here in 24.51 and also in the actual parable of the talents in 25.30: this slave was originally one of the three in the Hebraic parable, just as Eusebius seems to have guessed, and his punishment was originally the harshest of the three.

Elsewhere, Matthew also repeats the substance of Mark 4.25 in parallel with that passage:

Matthew 13.12: "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him."

Meanwhile, at some point we have Josephus writing his histories and including Archelaus; I will not quote the relevant passages here in full, but the references are as follows:

Josephus, Wars 2.1-6; Antiquities 17.9-11: Archelaus.

Canonical Luke comes along with access to Josephus, canonical Matthew, the Marcionite gospel, and the Hebraic gospel (but in Greek), and he comes up with the following synthesis:

Luke 19.11-27: 11 While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.
12 So He said, "A nobleman went to a distant country [Mark 13.34] to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return [Josephus].
13 And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, 'Do business with this until I come back.'
14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us' [Josephus].
15 When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.
16 The first appeared, saying, 'Master, your mina has made ten minas more.'
17 And he said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'
18 The second came, saying, 'Your mina, master, has made five minas.'
19 And he said to him also, 'And you are to be over five cities.'
20 Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief;
21 for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.'
22 He said to him, 'By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?
23 Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?'
24 Then he said to the bystanders, 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.'

25 And they said to him, 'Master, he has ten minas already' [later interpolation].
26 I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away [Mark 4.25].
27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence" [Josephus].

Luke, like Matthew before him, retains the parallel to Mark 4.25 earlier in his gospel:

Luke 8.18: "So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him."

Since he has access to canonical Matthew, he elsewhere also includes a parallel to Matthew 24.45-51:

Luke 12.42-48a: 42 And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time?
43 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
44 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
45 But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk;
46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48a but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."

However, he either (A) does not, like Eusebius does, recognize this slave as having originated in the Hebraic parallel or (B) has better plans for the unfaithful slave of that parable. The Marcionite version did not contain the parable of the prodigal/lost son, but it did contain the two much briefer parables of the lost coin and the lost sheep. On their simple pattern Luke takes the profligate slave of the Hebraic parable and crafts his story into that of the prodigal son, making repentance and forgiveness rather than punishment the main point of the parable:

Luke 15.11-32: 11 And He said, "A man had two sons. 12 The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.' So he divided his wealth between them. 13 And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living [Hebraic gospel]. 14 Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16 And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. 17 But when he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men."' 20 So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' 22 But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; 23 and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; 24 for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.' And they began to celebrate. 25 Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be. 27 And he said to him, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound.' 28 But he became angry and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began pleading with him. 29 But he answered and said to his father, 'Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; 30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with harlots [Hebraic gospel], you killed the fattened calf for him.' 31 And he said to him, 'Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.'"

This explains why the phrase τὸν μὲν καταφαγόντα τὴν ὕπαρξιν τοῦ δεσπότου μετὰ πορνῶν καὶ αὐλητρίδων in Eusebius' description of the Hebraic gospel so closely resembles the phrase καταφαγών σου τὸν βίον μετὰ πορνῶν in Luke 15.30, and also why the phrases ζῶν ἀσώτως in Luke 15.13 and ἀσώτως ἐζηκότος in Eusebius' description of the Hebraic gospel line up so well, despite the relative rarity of the term ἀσώτως: the prodigal son had originally been the profligate slave.

To cap things off, Justin Martyr appears to know the canonical version of the parable:

Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 125.1-2: ...as my Lord said: "A sower went forth to sow the seed; and some fell by the wayside; and some among thorns, and some on stony ground, and some on good ground." I must speak, then, in the hope of finding good ground somewhere; since that Lord of mine, as One strong and powerful, comes to demand back His own from all, and will not condemn His steward if He recognises that he, by the knowledge that the Lord is powerful and has come to demand His own, has given it to every bank, and has not digged for any cause whatsoever."

There is no slam dunk proof for this source hypothesis, which accepts most of Tenorikuma's excellent analysis and inserts the Hebraic gospel into it as a launching point. I do like the way all the arguments from editorial fatigue make sense when one posits that both Luke and Matthew are fatigued with a third source, not (only) with each other. I also like how Eusebius' observation about the drunken slave in Matthew 24 and the overlapping vocabulary between the Hebraic gospel and the Lucan parable of the prodigal son make sense on this reconstruction, explaining why the former passage is framed the same way as the parable (master leaves, slaves in charge, weeping and gnashing of teeth) and the latter is missing from Marcion but present in canonical Luke.

On the other hand, I have made lots of individually small decisions (taking ὁ ἕτερος as original rather than just ἕτερος, accepting the Archelaus material as later than the rest of the parable, accepting that Eusebius got his Lucan vocabulary from the Hebraic gospel rather than from Luke himself, on the observation that he uses only Matthew for comparison, and several other decisions) which could each go the other way and start to change the picture, changing it more and more the more decisions we decide to flip.

What do you think? Is there some merit to the overall picture? What can be added and what should be subtracted?

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue May 22, 2018 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben,

I think you and Tenorikuma may have missed an important piece of evidence in Goodacre's case, arguably the most important. (Your post was a bit long--I apologize if you did discuss this and I missed it).
The account lacks cohesion: the man in Luke actually has ten cities now, so a pound extra is nothing and, in any case, he does not have ten pounds but eleven (19.16: 'your pound made ten pounds more'; contrast Matt 25.20).
Goodacre's definition of fatigue does not involve just any sort of inconcinnity or "continuity error" one can arguably find in a story. It involves one author making a change to his source and then becoming "fatigued" and lapsing back into copying the source in a way that is incongruous with the earlier change. Both Matthew 25.28 and Luke 19.24 have "give it to the one who has ten." In Matthew 25.20 the first slave has ten (5+5), but in Luke 19.16 the first slave has 11 (1+10). So in Matthew, "the one who has ten" has a clear antecedent, but it doesn't in Luke. On Goodacre's theory of fatigue, Luke has made an earlier change which he has then failed to sustain later.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote:Ben,

I think you and Tenorikuma may have missed an important piece of evidence in Goodacre's case, arguably the most important. (Your post was a bit long--I apologize if you did discuss this and I missed it).
The account lacks cohesion: the man in Luke actually has ten cities now, so a pound extra is nothing and, in any case, he does not have ten pounds but eleven (19.16: 'your pound made ten pounds more'; contrast Matt 25.20).
No, you are right; I did not discuss this point.
Goodacre's definition of fatigue does not involve just any sort of inconcinnity or "continuity error" one can arguably find in a story. It involves one author making a change to his source and then becoming "fatigued" and lapsing back into copying the source in a way that is incongruous with the earlier change.
I agree with this.
Both Matthew 25.28 and Luke 19.24 have "give it to the one who has ten." In Matthew 25.20 the first slave has ten (5+5), but in Luke 19.16 the first slave has 11 (1+10). So in Matthew, "the one who has ten" has a clear antecedent, but it doesn't in Luke. On Goodacre's theory of fatigue, Luke has made an earlier change which he has then failed to sustain later.
That is a good point. Since my scenario has canonical Luke using canonical Matthew as a source, I think it can account for this bit of fatigue in that way. Obviously, not knowing the exact contents of the Marcionite gospel is a handicap here; if it contains what Luke contains here, then Marcion and Matthew should possibly be transposed.

What do you think of the overall suggestion, that both Matthew and Luke follow the Hebraic?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben,

It was a long post, and I admit I may have missed something in your argument, but I'll try to follow you:
There are only 3 slaves, not 10.
No slave is given another slave's money on the principle of Mark 4.25, and no protest that the first slave already has money interrupts anything.
No Archelaus material is probably present.
So you agree that canonical Luke used canonical Matthew, and the first and third points are true of Matthew. The selling point for the Hebrew version, rather than canonical Matthew, being original is therefore second point. You find the command about redistribution of wealth intrusive because the master's speech shifts abruptly from a direct address to the third slave to addressing some parties not previously introduced in the third person plural. And you find that the Hebrew version, as far as we know, does not have the command to redistribute wealth.

I'm not persuaded. I think Matthew could very well be the original and the problem is not much of a problem. Your supporting evidence is an argument from silence. The abrupt shift from second to third person and is not mentioned in Eusebius' brief and unclear comments on the Hebrew version which survive only in a Syriac translation of Eusebius' work. I admit it's difficult to tell directionality between the canonical Greek texts and the Syriac comments on the Hebrew parable, but I see no good reason to abandon the idea that Matthew is prior.

I'm also distrustful about the work of the Context Group (Malina and Rohrbaugh in this case), who combine a conservative take on the gospel tradition with retrojected Marxism in interesting ways. All the parables are assumed to have actually circulated among Galileans in the first half of the first century, rather than being later developments (such as the work of the evangelists), and these Galileans had a very strong sense of community and a dislike of the pursuit of wealth. (I'm not just going by just this parable here--this is a theme that runs through the context group's work. Similarly, in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants the landlord must be bad--because all landlords are bad--and gouging the tenants. And never mind that no first century Galilean could have heard the imagery used of the owner of the vineyard without recognizing he's supposed to be God from Isaiah 5).

I'm going to stick to my Farrer-Goulder guns and say Matthew probably created the parable out of Mark 13.33-37, especially v. 34, and introduced the Mark 4.25 reference himself, and there is no more original version. Luke dropped the Mark 13.33-37 version, as he habitually does when he chooses to follow the Matthean version of a parallel, and composed a substitute for it in Luke 21.34-36.

Best,

Ken
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by Bernard Muller »

I cannot see why both "Matthew" and "Luke" could not have worked from an original Q parable. And I think, overall, that gMatthew is closer to that Q parable than gLuke.
What would be the evidence against this hypothesis?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote:I admit it's difficult to tell directionality between the canonical Greek texts and the Syriac comments on the Hebrew parable, but I see no good reason to abandon the idea that Matthew is prior.
I do not think it affects anything you said, but it appears this passage is not extant in the Syriac; it is extant only as one of the Greek fragments published by Migne (PG 24: 685 & 688).
Ken Olson wrote:I'm also distrustful about the work of the Context Group (Malina and Rohrbaugh in this case), who combine a conservative take on the gospel tradition with retrojected Marxism in interesting ways. All the parables are assumed to have actually circulated among Galileans in the first half of the first century, rather than being later developments (such as the work of the evangelists), and these Galileans had a very strong sense of community and a dislike of the pursuit of wealth. (I'm not just going by just this parable here--this is a theme that runs through the context group's work. Similarly, in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants the landlord must be bad--because all landlords are bad--and gouging the tenants. And never mind that no first century Galilean could have heard the imagery used of the owner of the vineyard without recognizing he's supposed to be God from Isaiah 5).
So are you saying that you think the Hebraic version of the parable rebuked the one who hid the talent and accepted the one who multiplied it, similarly to how the canonical versions do? (I brought the reference to Malina & Rohrbaugh in only to help with that determination, not as support for anything to do with the synoptics.)

I will return to the rest (including possible comments on that Context Group paragraph) after I have given more thought to your comments. Thanks.

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by Secret Alias »

Why is there always this false either/or to all these gospel questions? It's yet another illustration of the low intelligences of New Testament scholars. My wife is not the prettiest woman in the world but still stunningly beautiful. But the equivalent to this discussion about Matthew and Luke would be to reduce discussions of relative beauty inevitably to questions of absolute beauty (I say this as I write looking into her beautiful eyes). What if Matthew and Luke were written from lost secondary material around the same time? At least we have the eventual disappearance of New Testament studies in the universities to look forward to. Its obituary could read "a bunch of ugly men engaged in misleading questions which only serve to reinforce inherited assumptions for the origins of Christians."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by MrMacSon »

Matthew & Luke (& other texts) could have been written in overlapping time periods, or redacted side by side, or both ... or other scenarios could apply, or combinations thereof
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The parable of the talents or pounds/minas.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote:Matthew & Luke (& other texts) could have been written in overlapping time periods....
I agree. My OP and its follow-up is actually an (admittedly simplified) attempt to core out a small section of this kind of layering.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply