To Jerusalem: Notes

---

x1.

As near as I can tell, the parable related is fairly close to the teaching as originally given by Jesus, though it does not precisely mirror either the current versions of either Luke or Matthew.

Points of interest:

¶ Matthew's version of this parable uses the word talent rather than talent. One talent represented about 57 pounds of pure silver, a substantial sum. The mina's value was considerably less, though it was not insignificant with a purchasing power of two or three months ordinary wages. The Matthean writer probably saw the talent as more logical in that a wealthy aristocrat might consider a mina a trivial sum. Yet the Lucan writer, and perhaps Jesus himself, no doubt chose the mina as a means of emphasizing the idea of "little versus much."

¶ The Matthew version is rather more polished than the Luke, possibly indicating that Luke's is the older. In Luke, 10 mina are distributed at one each among, presumably, 10 servants. Then the new king inquires of a first, second and "another" servant. Matthew cleans this up by having the aristocrat distributing the money among exactly three servants. No doubt the Matthean writer felt justified in doing so because he realized he was dealing with recollections which were bound to be a bit fuzzy here and there and because he knew that Jesus had been making a point and wasn't too worried about the syntax or minor details.

The standard Luke version includes these interpolations:

¶ But while he  was out of his city, some people took over and sent emissaries to the overall king (alluding to the Roman emperor) demanding that the king relieve the nobleman of command over the city.

¶ The ruler then told an aide, "Bring those rebels here and kill them in front of me."

But scholars are reasonably sure these words were not in the earliest version of Luke. Many researchers believe an early editor was thinking of Herod Archelaus. We learn from non-Biblical sources, including Josephus, that he had sought the kingship of Judaea but a group of Jews appealed to the Roman emperor in an effort to prevent this. As a result, Caesar Augustus made Archelaus ethnarch (national leader) of Judaea, but not king. While he was in Rome, insurrections broke out causing a ferocious repression by Roman legions. Archelaus's rule was known for its harshness, and there is little doubt he had numerous people executed even after the rebellions were put down. In any case, it is quite possible the editor saw this allusion as a means of making the point that God's enemies will fare much worse than the lazy servant does. It may be relevant that in Jericho was a palace that Archelaus had had refurbished.

¶ We have, however, that Matthew – but not Luke – has the new king ordering the worthless servant "thrown into outer darkness." The Matthean writer also inserts Jesus' known warning, "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Those words make it appear that the wicked servant will go to hell along with the slain enemies. Maybe so. But let's consider the phrase "outer darkness." In the pre-electric era, especially in the rather wild region of Palestine, "outer darkness" referred to the gloom of night away from candle-lit settlements. What was out there? Who knows? Bandits, wild animals – including lions – were about. In that darkness, a man would be fearful and know his helplessness. So the bad servant would not be welcomed to paradise, yet, but would serve his sentence learning to overcome his fear, with God. Many people right now are existing in "outer darkness."

So I have eliminated both the Lucan and Matthean interpolations in the main text, but they are included in my comments above for your consideration.

I have also used Matthew's "three servants" as opposed to Luke's "ten" to obtain a smoother result.

Also Matthew has the fearful servant burying his coin in the ground, whereas Luke says he kept it in a piece of cloth. I assume the author was thinking of a cloth purse, which is the phrase I use.

And I have the aristocrat distributing an indeterminate amount of money, as the Lucan "ten" doesn't say much to a modern reader. It may have implied something when the story was told, but any such allusion is now murky.²

---

1. Biblical geographical information comes from
Associates for Biblical Research
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/patriarchal-era/3844-the-jordan-river-valley-the-jordan-river-and-the-jungle-of-the-jordan