Talk:Parable of the Talents

re: parable of the talents - I’d like to delete the second paragraph of the section titled “Parable of the Minas” because it describes an irrelevant statement in Josephus, when it should discuss the parallel version of the parable found in Matthew.  However, I don’t know what to replace it with - there needs to be something about why Matthew differs from Luke in important ways, and I don’t think it does.

VfD outcome

Per the VfD discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Talents, this article will be retained but moved to the new title Parable of the talents. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

contradiction

does anybody else see how this verse contradicts the message of "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" ? 'yes? what are you getting at? UP2??' and also the idea of salvation through christ? 'thats hot' and almost everything else jesus taught? shouldn't there be something about that in the commentary?

• Not I; looks to me rather like a condemnation of the man's actions, and a warning to those who would work for those usurers - if you don't meet their inflated expectations, they'll throw you out despite how righteous your actions are. Alternately, it could merely be a statement on how turning something valuable into more of the same, through diligence rather than sloth, can lead to rewards. It's hard to say without proper context. Theogrin (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

unsound argument by Herzog

I tried to amend the section on "The parable as social critique" because Herzog's conclusion is not theologically sound if one believes that the place of "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is hell/hades (see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hell). I edited the page, however, it was deleted because it was not "verifiable", though I don't understand how pure logic needs verification. (It is a shame that logical counters by non-experts in the field are not made available to the public when reading Wikipedia articles, and undoubtedly few people venture to read the discussion pages of articles when gathering information.) However, I would like to point out that according to Herzog's interpretation as suggested by this Wikipedia article, the good Christian who disobeyed the landowner would be going to hell (see Matthew 25: 30). This conclusion disagrees completely with the tenets of Christianity, in that a true Christian would never go to hell. I do agree somewhat with Theogrin that this parable is "merely be a statement on how turning something valuable into more of the same, through diligence rather than sloth, can lead to rewards." (Sidewalkchalkedblocks (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Social Critique

This section appears to really, seriously violate WP:UNDUE by virtue of its length and the fact that it appears to depend solely on a single source. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article would be improved by reducing the section, however. It would be preferable if the rest of the article were expanded upon. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is long enough as is. Honestly, we cannot include every fringe/revisionist interpretation in that kind of detail; it'd be insane. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the article is long enough as-is. I'm sure there has been plenty of commentary written on it. Are you saying it would be inappropriate to add more sourced material to the article?

Yes--if it is of the same order of length as what is already there. Wikipedia articles are meant to summarize, not provide a complete and in-depth examination. There is ONE dominant interpretation of that parable, and the article should reflect that per WP:UNDUE. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed material without citations, and added some new material on the traditional interpretation, which has the effect of fixing this problem. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Newer Translation

The King James is a very old translation of the Bible and does not work very in modern English, particularly if you are not familiar with its stilted speech. I recommend the use of a more modern translation. I think the NIV or the NLT are good choices. -Alan Trick (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In this edit, I replaced the KJV text of Matthew 25:14-30 with the NET Bible translation. I think it can be quoted without paying royalties, based on my understanding of this page. If I'm wrong, go ahead and revert. LovesMacs (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the translation again, to that of the World English Bible. It says on its FAQ page that the translation is free from copyright restrictions. LovesMacs (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Parable of the minas or talents → Parable of the talents or minas — The "parable of the talents" is the more prominent of the two parables, and in fact, that parable gave rise to the modern meaning of the word "talent." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 08:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Idiom would be Parable of the talents, with a note in the lead that one Gospel differs from the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Parable of the talents is redirected to this page. Naming both parables will be more correct, esp. in the chart of parables that User talk:History2007 is creating, see here and this note. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good move idea. "Talents" much better known than "minas." Afaprof01 (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support move. History2007 (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support move. Sounds reasonable to place talent in proper place of emphasis in title. Moogwrench (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverted changes

Carlaude, you reverted my change from the World English Bible to the King James Version. I've added the World English Bible to other articles myself, but I thought that the consensus at WP:WikiProject Bible was that the KJV was superior to the WEB since the KJV is far better known and far more widely used. You reverted other changes I made too, but I'm not sure which ones you actually objected to, and which ones were collateral damage of the mass revert. I assume that reverting [[File:]] back to [[Image:]] is collateral damage, but what else was, and what was considered objectionable? —Angr (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The King James Version is a 400 year old traslation that --even at that time was considered old sounding. Langages change orver time; it should be a modern translation, such as the NIV. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 05:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The NIV is copyrighted, and according to WP:NFCC#1 (which does in fact apply to quotes, not just to images) we only use copyrighted material when there is no free equivalent. For direct quotes, we need to use a PD translation. Within that group, we have to choose between well-known, widely studied translations with archaic language (such as the KJV or the ASV) and little-known translations of obscure provenance in modern language (such as the WEB). It is a matter of weighing priorities, since both have their advantages and disadvantages, but when it was discussed at WP:WikiProject Bible last year, I thought the agreement was that using the KJV was better than using the WEB, in spite of the archaic language. There's also the issue of external links: with them, we can link to copyrighted translations as long as the place we link to a site that is not itself a copyvio. In this case, I consider linking to a site hosting the RSV or NRSV superior to one hosting the NIV, since the (N)RSV are scholarly translations in wide use, while the NIV sacrifices accuracy in order to bring the Bible's text into line with Evangelical dogma. —Angr (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In what way does the parable conflict with 'from each according to their ability?'

The section headed 'Interpretations' - 'As teaching for Christians' includes this line: "...the parable conflicts with what John Carpenter describes as the "narrow piety" of dispensationalism and the Marxist dictum "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

I would have thought that this parable is very much about 'from each according to their ability.' From the person to whom much is given (and the classical interpretation of this parable is that the talents equate to abilities), much is expected. Mr 5 bags (much ability) turns in another 5 bags (much expected). Mr 2 bags turns in another 2 bags (note 2, not 5 - he has less, and from him less is expected), and Mr 1 bag flunks by turning in nothing at all.

So how do we get from that to "the parable conflicts ... the Marxist dictum 'from each according to their ability'"? Seems to me that it supports it rather than conflicting with it. But I didn't want to delete it without checking first that there is not something I have missed.

Let me know if I missed something, otherwise I suggest deletion of the line about it conflicting with 'from each according to their ability.'

Note also that the article quotes John Milton's poem 'On His Blindness' as the apparent origin of the word "talent" used for an aptitude or skill. In the second half of the poem (omitted from the article), blind John Milton - tormented by the worry that he will be chided for not using his talent now that he is blind - concludes "They also serve who only stand and wait." i.e. it is acceptable to God for Milton to offer less now that he can do less. This is very much in line with the idea of 'from each according to their ability.'

Jinlye (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we want textual precedents for sociological and anthropological interpretations of the text. In some corners, standard hermeneutics seems often to be 'comparing texts with texts' internally.

What if we conclude that 'very little can be concluded' (in SOME areas, for some modern questions) from the reading of all or part of the texts? Were the richer persons merely 'lucky' or 'divinely favored'? Why were some given the perspicacity that enables their making more opportune judgments? Shouldd we ALL be more humble (humility is a virtue) in the face of economic disparities (and thus more systematically charitable, prudential, and provident - as long as we don't cultivate dependence and irrational, illogical behaviors)? MaynardClark (talk)

Authenticity of Narrative Text

Love this parable (an the comparable parallel parable with a total of 16 talents - 10-5-1, but with a parallel outcome and message) I would be interested in the OLDEST KNOWN PARCHMENTS or COPIES of this specific parable (and of the parallel parable). What does 'higher criticism' teach us (if anything) about these narratives? MaynardClark (talk)

Servants?

The use of the term "servant" here is misleading, despite its use even in modern translations. To a modern reader, "servant" implies a paid but free employee who can't be thrown into some place for punishment as in the parable. Jesus's actual meaning was "slave", although perhaps in context the word refers to a more trusted senior slave than one who, say, only works the fields. Wikipedia shouldn't mince words like Biblical translators do. We need an early mention of this distinction in the article, with of course a good reference. --72.70.94.78 (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC) No - a believing Jew could not keep "slaves" in the modern sense (people who can never leave service), the time limit on service was a maximum of seven years. Hence the court cases in the early days of the American colonies with people arguing that people could NOT be kept in service for life - sadly the colonial courts eventually decided that the "law of the Hebrews" did not apply to people in the American colonies90.219.132.144 (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC) This is very important as if the article uses the word "slave" it is, de facto, endorsing George Whitefield's interpretation of the Bible - as allowing slavery (rather than contractual employment for a certain period of time), the case he made in helping to introduce (and get accepted by the courts) slavery into Georgia - against the explicit written instructions of the Founder of the Colony of Georgia. If one uses the word "slave" rather than "servant" in the Parable of the Talents, one might as well raise the Confederate Battle Flag.90.219.132.144 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Origin of meaning of "talent" as skill or ability

Perhaps this is based on an outdated version of the OED (the citation says it is the Concise version, and from the 1970s). I just checked the latest, unabridged version of the OED, and it does not cite Milton. There are several definitions which seem related to this usage, probably most likely #III.6.a: "A special natural ability or aptitude, usually for something expressed or implied; a natural capacity for success in some department of mental or physical activity; †an accomplishment (obs.)." All have references earlier than Milton's (probably written around 1652). For example:
1602 W. Watson Decacordon Ten Quodlibeticall Questions 336 Silly bodies and sorie fellowes of no talent gift or ability.
1635 J. Hayward tr. G. F. Biondi Donzella Desterrada Ep. Ded., He alone having the talent of both conceiving and expressing himselfe.
I think this statement should be removed. Putrescent stench (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed this claim and inserted actual sourced interpretations of Milton's take on the parable. Putrescent stench (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Servants or slaves?

I heard that servant is a mistranslation and that the actual word is slave? Is that true? 66.188.249.83 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"Slave of God, Well Done!" Reference

Can someone provide better insight on how this hymn relates to the Parable of the Talents? Because I'm thinking this reference needs deleted. Emn316 (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)