Vespasian, the king in the parable of the ten pounds?

[FransJVermeiren]

My research on the origins of Christianity shows that the Gospels are much more political in nature and have much more to do with the war against the Romans than is generally accepted. I believe this is also the case with the parable of the ten pounds in Luke 19, 12-27, of which in my opinion the Roman emperor Vespasian is the protagonist. I reproduce and comment the story (almost) verse after verse below.


(verse 12) A nobleman went into a far country to receive the kingdom and then return.

Comment
Vespasian, a Roman nobleman (belonging to the equestrian order) was proclaimed emperor by his legions when he was in the East. He returned to Rome to claim the emperorship and to chase Vitellius.
(Note: The Greek ‘basileia’ is translated as ‘kingdom’, but it is a broad term meaning ‘supreme rule’, covering emperorship as well as kingship.)


(verse 13) Calling his ten servants, he gave them ten pounds, and said to them, ‘Trade with these till I come back.’

Comment: The Roman empire consisted of 10 provinces: Italy, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gallia, Brittania and Germania.
When Vespasian came to power, the finances of the empire were a ruin, so he searched for money wherever he could to ameliorate the financial situation of the treasury.


(verse 14) But his citizens hated him and sent an embassy after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’

Comment: In the ongoing civil war in Rome the different factions hated each other. Of course hostile groups did not want Vespasian to become emperor.


(verse 15) When he returned, having received the kingdom, he commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by trading.

Comment: Vespasian decreed to raise the taxes of the provinces. Afterwards he called the governors to account.


(verse 16) The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your has made ten pounds more.’ (17) And he said to him, ‘Well done, good serant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ (18) And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your pound has made five pounds.’ (19) And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’

Comment: The meaning of the ten cities is not clear to me. But Suetonius mentions five communities (cities and city-states) from which Vespasian took away their liberty: Achaia, Lycia, Rhodos, Byzantium and Samos.


(verse 20) Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your pound, which I kept away in a napkin;
(verse 21) for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man; you take up what you did not lay down, and reap what you did not sow.’

Comment: The bad pupil is the Jewish nation. That the Jewish rebels saw the Romans as reapers who harvested what they did not sow, is obvious.


(verse 22) He said to him, ‘I will condemn you out of your own mouth, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow? (23) Why then did you not put my money into the bank, and at my coming I should have collected it with interest? (24) And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the pound from him, and give it to him who has the ten pounds. (26) I tell you, that to every one who has will be given; but form him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.’

Comment: During the rebellion the Jews did not pay taxes, so financially the rebellion (and the war efforts) were detrimental to Rome. At the end of the war the enormous wealth of Jerusalem has been taken away to Rome. A heavy capital tax (tributum capitis) was installed; after the war the Jewish farmer paid four times more taxes than the Egyptian one.


(verse 27) And as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.

Comment: Simon bar Giora, the captured rebel leader, was brought to Rome and executed in front of Vespasian at the end of the triumphal march celebrating the victory of the Flavians over the Jews in 71 CE (Josephus, The Jewish War VII, 153-154).


So in my opinion this fragment of Luke discusses the Roman emperor Vespasian, his coming to power, his financial policy, his relation to the Jews and finally the execution of his major military opponent during the war, the chief Jewish rebel leader Simon bar Giora, the year after the fall of Jerusalem. The Gospel writer seems to be well informed on the political situation of his days.

I did not encounter this interpretation of the parable of the ten pounds in the literature, so, as I did not read everything, I wonder if my interpretation is new or just the repetition of an existing one. In the latter case, I would be glad with references to existing material.

[Secret Alias]

My research on the origins of Christianity shows that the Gospels are much more political in nature ...

Really? Let me guess - you thought everything comes down to politics in some form BEFORE you studied the gospels. Not so sure the horse is really leading the cart with your research. Like choosing between consumption of liquor making women seem more attractive or light from the nearest star. Do me a favor. Read one of the gospels from end to end and tell me that you still think what you thought when pulling passages such as this out of context. Please.

[Ben C. Smith]

(verse 13) Calling his ten servants, he gave them ten pounds, and said to them, ‘Trade with these till I come back.’

Comment: The Roman empire consisted of 10 provinces: Italy, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gallia, Brittania and Germania.
When Vespasian came to power, the finances of the empire were a ruin, so he searched for money wherever he could to ameliorate the financial situation of the treasury.

Only 10 provinces? I do not think that was ever true, at least not since (early?) Republican times.

[FJVermeiren]

My research on the origins of Christianity shows that the Gospels are much more political in nature ...

Really? Let me guess - you thought everything comes down to politics in some form BEFORE you studied the gospels. Not so sure the horse is really leading the cart with your research. Like choosing between consumption of liquor making women seem more attractive or light from the nearest star. Do me a favor. Read one of the gospels from end to end and tell me that you still think what you thought when pulling passages such as this out of context. Please.

Don't worry, I started my research reading the Bible from end to end.

[Secret Alias]

And this is the problem with all these 'Bible codes.' Without some fragment or nugget from an ancient source how do we know that we aren't just mirroring our own self-interest? I know for many at the forum entering into research cleansed of personal interest isn't a high priority. But it should be.

As far as I am concerned here are the first questions that should be asked of any 'Bible code' type hypothesis:

1. do you accept that the gospels as we have them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are the original sources for the material contained within them? In other words, is the parable of the pounds as recorded in Luke the original? The reason this is important of course is because we have to reconcile the narrative with what appears in Matthew. If - as I and others would have it - Luke is a mid to late second century text (i.e. as recent as Irenaeus, the first person to mention the text by name) you'd have to ask whether Irenaeus or Luke preserved a nearly pristine version of this shared parable with Matthew (which seems unlikely to me) or whether Luke or Matthew changed an original parable in some lost source (Marcion, ur-Mark etc). If - as I would have it again - that Irenaeus altered material that went into Luke, why would it make sense to alter the Parable of the Pounds to reflect Vespasian a long dead ruler as the king.

2. are there any ancient sources which confirm your hypothesis? I know this sounds boring but have you actually researched what all the earliest sources say about the parable? It isn't just to help guide your research (which I think is far superior than personal ambition) but it also shows me the reader contemplating your hypothesis that you are a fair arbiter of material evidence. If a 'researcher' hasn't considered what the ancients say or deems them unnecessary to reach their conclusions I generally dismiss such 'researchers' as self-interested narcissists who basically had an idea while sitting on the toilet or smoking weed and then spend all their time 'defending' this idea merely because it came out of their head 'fully armed' like Pallas Athena.

Of course the corollary of all of this is - are you really interested in discovering the truth about the gospel as it was actually was read in antiquity or seeing whether (as I suspect) your idea might have some traction so as to give your otherwise dull and uninteresting life some notoriety.

[Lena Einhorn]

I don't get the meanness. What's the point?

[Ben C. Smith]

So in my opinion this fragment of Luke discusses the Roman emperor Vespasian, his coming to power, his financial policy, his relation to the Jews and finally the execution of his major military opponent during the war, the chief Jewish rebel leader Simon bar Giora, the year after the fall of Jerusalem. The Gospel writer seems to be well informed on the political situation of his days.

I did not encounter this interpretation of the parable of the ten pounds in the literature, so, as I did not read everything, I wonder if my interpretation is new or just the repetition of an existing one. In the latter case, I would be glad with references to existing material.

The Lucan version of the parable is nearly universally taken to refer to the story of Archelaus.

For whatever it may be worth, I myself take the Lucan version to be a synthesis of at least two previous versions of the same parable, with the Archelaus details thrown in for good measure: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159.

[Secret Alias]

I don't get the meanness. What's the point?

We're adults. We live in the modern age where individual 'citizens' (non-academic types) have all the resources available to the academics hidden away in libraries. I don't see why that means that rigorous questioning of hypotheses is off limits or why we shouldn't cross examine hypotheses the way academic theses are questioned. If you want to make friends join a Meet Up group.

The danger is - and I have seen this happen time and time again - we engage in this navel gazing for a while and then everyone feels self-satisfied that we've 'proven' our point and that our thesis is 'just as good' as what academics believe. It's not true unless the thesis is rigorously defended by the 'inventor' (which in this case I don't believe can happen because it's a half-baked thesis).

[Lena Einhorn]

Ben C. Smith wrote:
"The Lucan version of the parable is nearly universally taken to refer to the story of Archelaus."

Wow, Archelaus makes so much sense! And the question is if the last part
refers to some beginnings of the tax census revolt (even if that was a wee bit later)

[Secret Alias]

But that assumes again that the parable was 'invented' or crafted in an age where Archelaus would have some relevance. That develops from 'old thinking' about Jesus actually being an existential figure and 'saying things' and dutifully recorded by the evangelists or their sources as opposed to what I think is the emerging consensus among 'new thinkers' that the Jesus was just a mouthpiece for the original evangelist (whomever that was) - and a divine mouthpiece at that. Since such 'mythmaking' scenarios find some agreement among gnostic/heretic writers in the earliest period the likelihood is that the parable of the pounds has something to do with a divine entity of some sort most probably 'the Demiurge' and so we find such a view attested (and subsequently denied) in the earliest sources.

In this scenario there is no 'time shift' of any great relevance with respect to 'the gospels' The Gospel was focused on a supernatural drama related to the historical destruction of the temple and where the 'god of the Jews' repents from his former arrogance (itself a slight against the priesthood of the Jews).