HOW RELIABLE ARE THE FOUR GOSPELS

Is the Parable of the Minas / Talents authentic or falsified?

Those who consider the whole text of the Synoptic Gospels authentic, the Parable of minas  (1 mina = 60 shekels, 1/60 of a talent) in Luke 19:12–27, and the Parable of talents (1 talent = 60 minas) in Matthew 25:14–30, are two different parables. The first of them deals with a noble slaveholder who, before going to a far country, commissioned 10 slaves to manage his 10 minas (600 shekels), 1 mina for each one. The second parable deals with a slaveholder who, before going abroad, commissioned 3 slaves to manage his 8 talents (ca. 21016 shekels, the weight of silver in mind), giving 5 talents to one, 2 talents to the second and 1 talent to the third slave by their abilities. 
The first plot is usually comprehended as a hint to Herod Archelaus who went to Rome to be confirmed a king in accordance with the testament of his father Herod the Great. However his brother and rival Herod Antipas, followed by a group of  Archelaus' oppositionists, sailed there too in Archelaus' wake. In 4 C.E. emperor Octavianus Augustus confirmed Archelaus Ethnarch of Samaria, Judea and Idumea, but not a king, however he removed Archelaus in 6 C.E. banishing him to exile and confiscating his property. 
This story was known to Y-shua's disciples with all probability, however it was not of any importance for them, or worthy to be even mentioned by their Teacher.  This was a sphere of political intrigues in struggles for power, more interesting to helenized Jews and Greek colonists. 
In Luke, 10 minas were distributed among 10 slaves, however finally there remain only 3 slaves, the first having gained 10 minas for one mina, the second having gained 5 minas, but the third gave his mina back because he had been afraid of his master and did not dare to do anything. Other seven slaves are not mentioned at all (had they embezzled their minas and returned nothing?) Therefore the second plot, in Matthew, seems to be more logical as there are only three slaves, the first having made 10 talents from 5  talents, the second having made 4 talents from 2 talents, but the third made nothing because being afraid of his master he digged his talent in the earth and, when his master came, gave it back to him. A penalty imposed by the master on the third slave coincides in Luke and in Matthew only in taking his share from him and giving it to that who gained most. 
After that surprising things follow: when the third slave evades further punishment in Luke (provided much more guilty seven slaves remaining?), he is cast even into hell (“outer darkness”) in Matthew. Not less horrible is the fate of enemies of the slaveholder (a hint to Herod Antipa and to Archalaus' oppositionists in Judea), who did not want his reigning over them) in Luke. Having finished the parable with His own cocluding words in 19:27, Y-shua ostensibly continues with identifying Himself with the slaveholder: “Those my enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring here, and slay before me!“ (What had Y-shūa in common with competitors in earthly reign when he was not accepted as Messiah by members of the Synedrion?) This evokes association not more with the right Judgement of G-d, as with a typically pagan violent massacre. Such afinal questions the Luke's plot groundly.

On the other hand, are these plots actually different? Were they different (e.g. coming from different sayings in different places however with the same encouragement to multiply gifts donated by G-d), then hardly could just the same words be repeated in both, as “austere man, reapest that didst not sow”, “that I might have required mine own with usury” in Luke 19:21,23, and „hard man, reaping that hast not sown”, “that I should have received my own with usury” in Matthew 25:24,27 (what is even more near in Greek).

Both plota are named parables. Biblical parables of the Old Testament are usually short, from 3 to 11 lines (the longest are in Ezechiel 31 and 34 from 17 to 25 lines. Even the Proverbs of Solomon show short texts. Typically biblical parables of Y-shua deviate between 1 and 8 lines. Only in the last part of the Synoptic Gospels the long proverbs dominate being not so parables as didactic allegories, as e.g. about a clever faker steward (12 lines), a rich man and Lazar, ten virgins (13 lines each), sheep and goats (16 lines), prodigal son  (21 line). The parable/parables of the minas/talents surpasses the length of Ezechiel 34:1–25, it takes 26–27 lines. Is that an adequately biblical prable?
Enormous variation in manuscripts of Matthew's plot, what in such degree is alien to Matthew, shows somebody's active editorial activity: it is between Nestle-Aland 2013 and Constantinople 1904 editions only that there are even 16 differences only in 13 lines in Matthew 25:16–29!

Now let us come back to the plot and its listeners, the pupils of Y-shua. Not once it is said abot them in the Gospels that they do not comprehend everything in words of their Teacher. Sometimes they recall and understand the meaning of His words even after His Resurrection only. Thus they recall His having said about His delivering to the hands of sinners, Crucifixion and Resurrection only after having heard an engel in His empty grave, Luke 24:7. It is clear that the main sense of the minas / talents plot is a necessity to multiply in oneself donations from G-d. However it seems questionable whether Y-shūa could disorient his disciples, yet not enough confirmed confirmed in His truths, with a master's praising his good slaves for money got from pagan usury prohibited by the Law for brothers in fate? Or somebody highly wanted to believe, as if J-šua not only had abrogated the Law, but even turned it upside down?
Therefore it is necessary to remind to everybody what the Law says and what is the real attitude of Y-shua to the Law.
“Think not that I hve come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfi. Verify I say unto you: Till heaven and earth pass, one yot or one tittle shallin no way pass from the Law till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:17–18),
“If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments!” (Matthew 19:17),
“Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neighther on the Sabbath” (Matthew 24:20 – the Sabbath law has been confirmed here even for future after the Golgotha Atonement!) –
all these citations confirm irrevocability of the Law, which proclaims in its turn the following:
“Thou shalt not give [to thy brother] money upon usury, nor lend him your food for increase” (Leviticus 25:37 – in this light one should evaluate a parable of a wise faker with his and his master's common business, whether this parable had been really said by Y-shua to the Jews or not by some unknown person to somebody),
“Unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury” (Įst 23:20) – all this is perfectly compatible with Y-shua's encouragement to to fully reject prom personal property, as from an obstacle on the way of perfection:
“If thou wilt be perfect, {– “Be therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48 commandment!) –} go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And come, and follow me” (Matthew 19:21). – The same can be deduced from the Sermon on the Mount:
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves can break through and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and whre thieves do not break and steal” (Matthew 6:19–20), – however a concern in welfare ia associateted with paganism:
“Take no thought saying ‘What we shall eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ For after all these things do the gentiles seek” (Matthew 6:31–32).

Analysis of Y-shua's sayings about property, His personal rejection of it, finally the following life of the first Christian community in this way (Acts 4:32) reveal a consequent communist ideology, which under free will and belief in Saviour, when such a Community embraces the whole society, can grow into a just and happy fraternal life in the Heaven's ruled Kingdom, but which was not realised by Romon Empire, which did not reject its pagan practices (Code of Justinian) after it had declared itself “New Israel”.
Could it really be possible that Y-shua, after all his teaching about altruism without personal property should have disoriented His yet weak pupils with parables of ugly usury prohibited by Jewish Lay? Could He not by find better allegories for His teaching? Or the prables in view did not belong to Him at all but was created by some Greek, for whom usury was a normal business with no differentiation among any brothers in G-d but the Jewish Law had been “abolished” by imaginational imaginary Christ and being fully unnecessary?
A pagan violent massacre of rivals by any “Saviour Archalaus” does not contradict to such “morality” anyway.

Most “modernist” solution is that both plots are the same parable wich however got into the Gospels of Luke and of Matthew from “different sources”. However such “sources” can be different only for those who does not want to comprehend Sermon on the Mount and those authentic sayings by Y-shua which do not contradict to this sermon. Simple analysis show that the „source“ is the same, equallu incompatoble with Y-shua's altruistic theocentric morality. It shows that all differences between two plots are only variations of the same in its development.
An unbiblical length of the „parable", its association with what is ugliness according to the Jewish Law, first introducing of historical Archalaus and then elimination of him together with a senseless phrase “and they said to him: “Master, he has ten minas!’” (Luke 19:25), perfection of the plot diminishing the number of slaves from unnecessary ten to 3, makes an editing by Greeks undoubtful. Nei historical Matthew, nor historical Luke could see this “parable” in most probablity as already not living in time of its creation.

On the other hand, some real prime parable can be supposed behind the Greek falsification, or more precisely – some uncomprehended trace of the prime parable. This is because there is a hint to it in quotations from apocriphical Gospel of Hebrews in Greek translation by Church fathers. It is said in some Parable of he talents there that mostly condemned person in it is a slave who misappropriated money with harlots. This does not correspond to the sense of 25:21,23 to multiply individual donations given by G-d. Therefore it is not possible to reconstruct e prime parable probably mentioned.

For multiple other instances of falsifying the Gospels (especially as concerns guilt of the Jewish nation in the latest Gospel by John, and this is the greatest challenge to Messianic Jews!) read comments to currently publishe Greek-English translation of the Gospels in harmony: biblija.versme.lt/NT.pdf.

Back