Diegetics

Wasn't about actual literal money.

Very true. But the crucial further step is that money isn't literal or actual in the first place. Money is a compromise solution for the more primary problems of value and fact.

Precisely the problem: spiritual and earthy wealth are refractions that share the same source.

The other parable involving talents is illustrative (Matthew 18:23-35):

"Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn’t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!’ The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. "But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you!’ He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’ His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don’t each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds."


If we were living in Aramaic, we would of course know that Sin and Debt are the same thing. Later developments distinguished them from each other.

I always saw sin as debt. I made a similar argument earlier.

Which one? The one in Mathew or the one in Luke or the one in the Gospel of Hebrews?

Tinker I think that you may be missing the point that he is making. Just because he is talking about commerce it is not always about material issues.

Many parables have to do with the kingdom of god and are usually referenced as being attributed to the kingdom. The parable of talents is a little different because he does not say that he is speaking in particular to the kingdom. This parable has to do with our service to each other. We do not service each other on a spiritual plane but on a material plane so the parable itself is unique.

Is there a question in here?

The PoT is not about money. It is about wealth.

The economy of the 1st Century was a riot of contradictory modes of valuation; various coined and uncoined portions of precious metal interchanged at market with the fiat-based denarius (which had value because it was how Rome took its taxes), along with Greek and other maritime-trade-based coinage. And then there was the poor, beleaguered shekel, with which the Judean religious authorities attempted to maintain their honor.

And underneath all of this lie the period's credit arrangements, forever to be a matter of at best partially-informed speculation, as an infinitude of transactions between men of good name were not backed by signed paper but by word and honor. Most such hopes related to crossings by sea or desert route, "ventures" so to say, which at the time were not only major logistical operations but also required men to stake their lives. (Plato, for instance, had been captured by pirates while on a cruise, and might have died a slave but for some excellent fortune.)

Then, of course, there is the final backing of all human ventures, the eternal promise of a good harvest, a matter between men and their God to be sure, and the source of interminable disappointments for the fortunate and miseries for the less fortunate.

All of which is to say, physical reality and the upwellings of human desire, feeling, and wishing were once things not so cleanly separated by the dividing line of our money and the domestic lifestyle it affords. Wealth emerged from honor and not, as happens in our day, the other way around. And honor itself was a quality that blended with good fortune, charisma, a powerful body, or any form of blessedness.

"Actual money" and affectual/spiritual value are Janus-faces of the same emanation.

Blessedness is that to which wealth accrues. This is the fundamental invariant of economics. When a society's gross national blessedness declines, when the invariant relation no longer inspires positive efforts, then the currency will fail.

I often read only Jesus' words in the KJB and nothing other--they make more sense than anything else.

Thanks for posting that Hoosiernorm.

The slavery referred to was the slavery of Roman society, not the chattel slavery of Spain and the English empires.

And the reason the KJV is generally rejected is two-fold.

First, it was not translated from original manuscripts but from Erasmus' Greek translation of the Vulgate. It has been through major edits by Jerome and Erasmus. Both made changes to the language to make it more "correct", rendering it unsuitable for exegetical work.

Second, several better texts have been uncovered after the KJV was written (notably the Codex Sinaiticus) and much has been learned about the proper use of Hebrew and Greek during the Biblical period.

Still, the KJV is absolutely a high point of English literature, even though it sometimes translates "ox" as "unicorn".