Talk:Parable of the Talents

message: 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)
thread_title:  VfD outcome 

message: 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)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Newer Translation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverted changes 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Servants? 

message: 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"talent, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2014. Web. 4 August 2014., 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)
replies: text: Removed this claim and inserted actual sourced interpretations of Milton's take on the parable. Putrescent stench (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of meaning of "talent" as skill or ability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Servants or slaves?