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
|