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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

I agree that the Demiurge is the king of the parable (another clue of the marcionite origins of Luke) but so thinks the historicist Paul Verhoeven, too. But to the same extent that I consider ur-Luke as Mcn, it sucks the monstrous idea that "the 'god of the Jews' repents from his former arrogance": an epilogue too good to be true, for a hater of the demiurge as Marcion was.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

FransJVermeiren wrote: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.

(vv. 16-19) 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.

(vv 22-26) 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.
Thank you Frans! That is very interesting.

As are the discussion of this by Ben, Tenorikuma, and others (in Ben's thread); and their discussions of others' take on this parable (such as Mark Goodacre's).

Ben highlighted Tenorikuma's diagram which Tenorikium says is
  • "a hypothetical model for how this parable developed in Luke and Matthew. It does not match Goodacre’s hypothesis that Luke copied Matthew; however, it is similar to Alan Garrow’s 'Matthew Conflator Hypothesis', and almost identical to Matthias Klinghardt’s recent theory that Matthew drew upon both Mark and Marcion’s Evangelion. The hypotheses of Garrow and Klinghardt probably deserve further examination in a future article."
Frans' proposition/argument that the nobleman in Luke is Vespasian is interesting* in light of various other proposition about Vespasian and the Flavians.

* eta: and interesting in light of Tenorikuma thinking that "Luke’s version might be more original."

.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

Lena Einhorn wrote:
... 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)
or another tax (or a combination of taxes).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

.
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.
I go to memory but a similar parable, Luke 16:1-9 (The Parable of the Shrewd Manager), is interpreted by Paul Verhoeven (a historicist proponent of the Zealot hypothesis) as meaning the relation between Satan (i.e. Rome) and his servants.

This and your interpretation may explain why Pilate became a symbol of the Demiurge between the Gnostics.

Something as the following logic:

1) the Roman emperor (allegorized behind Pilate by Mark) is Satan
2) but Satan is the Demiurge
3) therefore: Pilate is the Demiurge.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

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

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
FransJVermeiren wrote:(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.
My Muir’s Historical Atlas has two pages of maps showing the provinces “in the time of Augustus” as 16 in the west not including three Alpine provinces (plus three “acquired” later) and 23 in the east (plus 8 “acquired” later). There seem to be 16 by about 395. For example Noricum, the two Pannonias and Dalmatia seem to be in one called Illyricum.
Lena Einhorn wrote: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)
I don’t see anything in the Lucan version about the census once Archelaus is deposed. It is likely that Luke has added the Archelaus’ features.

A few years ago I suggested that the Q version was likely to have been: (ref Mt/Lk)

[14]/ [12] "For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property;
[15]/ [13] to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.
[16] He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more.
[17] So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more.
[18] But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.
[19]/ [15] Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them.
[20]/ [16] The first who had received the five talents came before him, bringing five talents more, saying, `Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.'
[21] /[17] His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.'
[22]/ [18] And the second who had the two talents came forward, saying, `Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.'
[23]/ [19] His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.'
[24]/ [20] He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, `Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow;
[25]/ [21] so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.'
[26] But his master answered him, `You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed?
[27] Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.
[28] So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents.
[29] /[26] `I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

It seems that I didn’t finish this, as there is no consideration of Mt 25:30.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

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

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Only 10 provinces? I do not think that was ever true, at least not since (early?) Republican times.
Did Luke read Strabo?

Recently I have been looking for the internet source of the ten Roman provinces I mentioned in the first post of this topic. I didn’t find it immediately, and I stopped searching because I found an important ancient source. Strabo was a Greek geographer, philosopher and historian who lived from 64 (or 63) BCE to 24 CE. He wrote his Geography in the first decades CE.

Strabo, Geography Book XVII, chapter 3, paragraph 25
But the provinces have been divided in different ways at different times, though at the present time they are as Augustus Caesar arranged them; for when his native land committed to him the foremost place of authority and he became established as lord for life of war and peace, he divided the whole of his empire into two parts, and assigned one portion to himself and the other to the Roman people; to himself, all parts that had need of a military guard (that is, the part that was barbarian and in the neighbourhood of tribes not yet subdued, or lands that were sterile and difficult to bring under cultivation, so that, being unprovided with everything else, but well provided with strongholds, they would try to throw off the bridle and refuse obedience), and to the Roman people all the rest, in so far as it was peaceable and easy to rule without arms; and he divided each of the two portions into several provinces, of which some are called "Provinces of Caesar" and the others "Provinces of the People". And to "Provinces of Caesar" Caesar sends legati and procurators, dividing the countries in different ways at different times and administering them as the occasion requires, whereas to the "Provinces of the People" the people send praetors or proconsuls, and these Provinces also are brought under different divisions whenever expediency requires. But at the outset Caesar organized the provinces of the people by creating, first, two consular provinces; I mean (1) Libya, in so far as it was subject to the Romans, except the part which was formerly subject to Juba and is now subject to Ptolemy his son, and (2) the part of Asia that lies this side the Halys river and the Taurus, except the countries of the Galatians and of the tribes which had been subject to Amyntas, and also of Bithynia and the Propontis; and, secondly, ten praetorial provinces, first, in Europe and the islands near it, I mean (1) Iberia Ulterior, as it is called, in the neighbourhood of the Baetis and Anas rivers, (2) Narbonitis in Celtica, (3) Sardo together with Cyrnus, (4) Sicily, (5 and 6) Macedonia and, in Illyria, the country next to Epeirus, (7) Achaea as far as Thessaly and Aetolia and Acarnania and certain Epeirotic tribes which border on Macedonia, (8) Crete along with Cyrenaea, (9) Cypros, and (10) Bithynia along with the Propontis and certain parts of the Pontus. But the rest of the provinces are held by Caesar; and to some of these he sends as curators men of consular rank, to others men of praetorian rank, and to others men of the rank of knights. Kings, also, and potentates and decarchies are now, and always have been, in Caesar's portion.

So I believe Luke did read Strabo and used the latter’s mention of ten praetorial provinces in his Geopraphy to stage the Roman empire in a veiled way in this political story by changing these ten provinces into ten servants.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

FransJVermeiren wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Only 10 provinces? I do not think that was ever true, at least not since (early?) Republican times.
Did Luke read Strabo?

Recently I have been looking for the internet source of the ten Roman provinces I mentioned in the first post of this topic. I didn’t find it immediately, and I stopped searching because I found an important ancient source. Strabo was a Greek geographer, philosopher and historian who lived from 64 (or 63) BCE to 24 CE. He wrote his Geography in the first decades CE.

Strabo, Geography Book XVII, chapter 3, paragraph 25
But the provinces have been divided in different ways at different times, though at the present time they are as Augustus Caesar arranged them; for when his native land committed to him the foremost place of authority and he became established as lord for life of war and peace, he divided the whole of his empire into two parts, and assigned one portion to himself and the other to the Roman people; to himself, all parts that had need of a military guard (that is, the part that was barbarian and in the neighbourhood of tribes not yet subdued, or lands that were sterile and difficult to bring under cultivation, so that, being unprovided with everything else, but well provided with strongholds, they would try to throw off the bridle and refuse obedience), and to the Roman people all the rest, in so far as it was peaceable and easy to rule without arms; and he divided each of the two portions into several provinces, of which some are called "Provinces of Caesar" and the others "Provinces of the People". And to "Provinces of Caesar" Caesar sends legati and procurators, dividing the countries in different ways at different times and administering them as the occasion requires, whereas to the "Provinces of the People" the people send praetors or proconsuls, and these Provinces also are brought under different divisions whenever expediency requires. But at the outset Caesar organized the provinces of the people by creating, first, two consular provinces; I mean (1) Libya, in so far as it was subject to the Romans, except the part which was formerly subject to Juba and is now subject to Ptolemy his son, and (2) the part of Asia that lies this side the Halys river and the Taurus, except the countries of the Galatians and of the tribes which had been subject to Amyntas, and also of Bithynia and the Propontis; and, secondly, ten praetorial provinces, first, in Europe and the islands near it, I mean (1) Iberia Ulterior, as it is called, in the neighbourhood of the Baetis and Anas rivers, (2) Narbonitis in Celtica, (3) Sardo together with Cyrnus, (4) Sicily, (5 and 6) Macedonia and, in Illyria, the country next to Epeirus, (7) Achaea as far as Thessaly and Aetolia and Acarnania and certain Epeirotic tribes which border on Macedonia, (8) Crete along with Cyrenaea, (9) Cypros, and (10) Bithynia along with the Propontis and certain parts of the Pontus. But the rest of the provinces are held by Caesar; and to some of these he sends as curators men of consular rank, to others men of praetorian rank, and to others men of the rank of knights. Kings, also, and potentates and decarchies are now, and always have been, in Caesar's portion.

So I believe Luke did read Strabo and used the latter’s mention of ten praetorial provinces in his Geopraphy to stage the Roman empire in a veiled way in this political story by changing these ten provinces into ten servants.
What is the point, in your estimation, of Luke singling out only the praetorial provinces, reckoning them in his parable but not the consular provinces on the one hand and the provinces held directly by Caesar himself on the other?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

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

Post by FransJVermeiren »

Ben C. Smith wrote: What is the point, in your estimation, of Luke singling out only the praetorial provinces, reckoning them in his parable but not the consular provinces on the one hand and the provinces held directly by Caesar himself on the other?
I believe we should depart from Luke’s intention to describe a succession of events that is understandable only for the initiated but not for the enemy. For this purpose a shrewd technique of intermediate concealing was employed in that period not only by Luke but on a much broader scale. The so-called apocalyptic writing style was widely used by Jewish and Christian writers from the last centuries BCE and the first centuries CE to conceal sensitive information. Sometimes, with the help of information from overt sources, it is possible to convert the consistent superficial story into a consistent underlying story.

Concerning the servants/provinces, in my the opinion the question is not why Luke didn’t count the provinces exactly (this question might be implied by your question). Of course he didn’t give them exactly, in that case he could as well have given the name of the king or the name of the enemies who were killed at the end of the story, or he could have explained exactly Vespasian’s monetary policy like Suetonius does. The question is if ten provinces are an acceptable / understandable representation of the Roman empire. The quote from Strabo points in this direction: there were more than ten provinces, but for the well-informed there was a recognizable number of ten (praetorial) provinces. But Luke probably did not only know Strabo. As the Gospel writers prove time and again that they were deeply familiar with the Tanakh, Luke must have known the description of the beasts in Daniel chapter 7, the fourth one representing a very powerful and violent empire, Rome, with ten horns. At an earlier time than Luke’s the Roman empire had been divided into ten provinces, and the more ancient Daniel referred to that situation. So Luke had the opportunity to reuse Daniel’s veiled description of Rome.

In one of the posts above I noticed that a lot of scholars believe that Archelaus is the protagonist of this story. It looks a bit strange to me that Luke would build this anonymous construction for Herod’s son, while Herod himself is mentioned by name in his Gospel. What major threat was Archelaus to Luke in the years when the latter wrote his Gospel? Why didn’t Luke tell Archelaus’s story openly in one of the first chapters of his Gospel, just before the census of Quirinus for example, which took place shortly after Archelaus’s deposition?
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.
Post Reply