1 Talent of Gold

[28Orot]

Its a little weird that the word Talent which is derived from Greek is a monetary measurement by weight, and this word also means talent as to describe heightened skill.

Anyone can see any connection between these two very different things?
Maybe the connection is that a gifted person has better chances to be successful monetarily?

Like saying, you are so gifted in this skill you will have much success in gathering many talents of gold....

[Jo498]

I think the metapher might have its roots in the parable in the gospel where a master gives to three servants each a few talents (of gold) to invest or work with them while he is away. The two who received several talents multiplied the wealth whereas the servant who received only one was afraid to lose it and buried it, so he could only return the original capital and was punished by the master.
(Taken at face value it is somewhat odd that lending money for interest was condemned in Christendom for more than a millenium...)

[28Orot]

I think the metapher might have its roots in the parable in the gospel where a master gives to three servants each a few talents (of gold) to invest or work with them while he is away. The two who received several talents multiplied the wealth whereas the servant who received only one was afraid to lose it and buried it, so he could only return the original capital and was punished by the master.
(Taken at face value it is somewhat odd that lending money for interest was condemned in Christendom for more than a millenium...)

It has its roots in Jewish law, its forbidden in Judaism to lend money with interest, as a person must have the will and the desire to help his fellow men without getting anything in return. But Jewish law permits an arrangement where the person wants to include his friend within his business by letting them invest and share the profit, this is totally permissible in the Bible.
The Christians had no such arrangements, so they radicalized the biblical prohibition of lending to the extreme, to the point where Christians couldn't own banks, that is why they had encouraged Jews to be bankers, they couldn't do it for themselves. This arrangement unfortunately has encouraged anti  semitism within Christian Europe where they associated Jews with money, even though it was the Christians themselves who had put them in those positions.

I had absolutely no idea that you will take this thread into the religious realm, but since you did I had added some context to your statement.

Regardless of this, I still don't see real explanation as to why the same word means such radically two different things...

[Karl Henning]

τάλαντον (talanton 'scale, balance, sum') is in origin simply a mensural unit of mass, not dedicated to monetary measurement.

Wikipedia suggests that the parable of the talents in the Gospel of Matthew is the origin of the use of the word "talent" to mean "gift or skill" in English and other languages (this is footnoted, but I have not investigated).

[28Orot]

τάλαντον (talanton 'scale, balance, sum') is in origin simply a mensural unit of mass, not dedicated to monetary measurement.

Wikipedia suggests that the parable of the talents in the Gospel of Matthew is the origin of the use of the word "talent" to mean "gift or skill" in English and other languages (this is footnoted, but I have not investigated).

Well, they used it for monetary purposes...

*The Babylonians, Sumerians, and Hebrews divided a talent into 60 minas, each of which was subdivided into 60 shekels. The Greek also used the ratio of 60 minas to one talent. A Greek mina was approximately 434 ± 3 grams. A Roman talent was 100 libra. A libra is exactly three quarters of a Greek mina, so a Roman talent is 1.25 Greek talents. An Egyptian talent was 80 librae* wikipedia

Clearly it had to do with monetary things.

[28Orot]

τάλαντον (talanton 'scale, balance, sum') is in origin simply a mensural unit of mass, not dedicated to monetary measurement.

Wikipedia suggests that the parable of the talents in the Gospel of Matthew is the origin of the use of the word "talent" to mean "gift or skill" in English and other languages (this is footnoted, but I have not investigated).

The parable of the talents that you mentioned doesn't even hint towards anything that has to do with skill or a gift, so I don't know why would anyone associate the use of that word as a skill from that story...

[Karl Henning]

Well, they used it for monetary purposes...

*The Babylonians, Sumerians, and Hebrews divided a talent into 60 minas, each of which was subdivided into 60 shekels. The Greek also used the ratio of 60 minas to one talent. A Greek mina was approximately 434 ± 3 grams. A Roman talent was 100 libra. A libra is exactly three quarters of a Greek mina, so a Roman talent is 1.25 Greek talents. An Egyptian talent was 80 librae* wikipedia

Clearly it had to do with monetary things.

I do not contest that it has been so used (is in fact so used in the parable).  My point stands that it is not specific to monetary measurement, any more than the gallon is dedicated to the measurement of milk 

I think the metaphor might have its roots in the parable in the gospel where a master gives to three servants each a few talents (of gold) to invest or work with them while he is away.

Yes, that confirms the Wikipedia statement.  The metaphoric use results from the parable as a teaching text.

[Karl Henning]

The parable of the talents that you mentioned doesn't even hint towards anything that has to do with skill or a gift, so I don't know why would anyone associate the use of that word as a skill from that story...

You have a good point, which is that this metaphor does not come explicitly from the text.

[28Orot]

I do not contest that it has been so used (is in fact so used in the parable).  My point stands that it is not specific to monetary measurement, any more than the gallon is dedicated to the measurement of milk 

Yes its not limited only to monetary aspects, its a measuring medium, correct, I knew that.

[Jo498]

My point was that the parable has usually been interpreted in such a fashion that the "talents" are (also) talents in our more modern sense. Because we might receive natural gifts from God but most of us do not receive a bunch of gold pieces (unless we come into an unexpected inheritance). So the meaning of the parable includes to work well with all we have got, even if it may not seem very much (that was the fault of the "lazy" servant who had received only one talent).
So the reception and exegesis of the parable either establishes or presupposes that monetary talents stand for all kinds of abilities and gifts. Because the parable is so well known I would not be surprised if the modern meaning of talent was established by its reception.

[Karl Henning]

My point was that the parable has usually been interpreted in such a fashion that the "talents" are (also) talents in our more modern sense. Because we might receive natural gifts from God but most of us do not receive a bunch of gold pieces (unless we come into an unexpected inheritance). So the meaning of the parable includes to work well with all we have got, even if it may not seem very much (that was the fault of the "lazy" servant who had received only one talent).
So the reception and exegesis of the parable either establishes or presupposes that monetary talents stand for all kinds of abilities and gifts. Because the parable is so well known I would not be surprised if the modern meaning of talent was established by its reception.

Indeed.

[Madiel]

There is no doubt that the parable is the origin.

The list of words that have changed their meanings radically over the course of 1000+ years is vast. This is one of them. People remembered the idea of "use what you're given" long after the talent had ceased to be used as a unit of measurement. In essence, most people forgot what a "talent" originally was.

[28Orot]

My point was that the parable has usually been interpreted in such a fashion that the "talents" are (also) talents in our more modern sense. Because we might receive natural gifts from God but most of us do not receive a bunch of gold pieces (unless we come into an unexpected inheritance). So the meaning of the parable includes to work well with all we have got, even if it may not seem very much (that was the fault of the "lazy" servant who had received only one talent).
So the reception and exegesis of the parable either establishes or presupposes that monetary talents stand for all kinds of abilities and gifts. Because the parable is so well known I would not be surprised if the modern meaning of talent was established by its reception.

Matthew 25:14-30New King James Version (NKJV)

The Parable of the Talents

14 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. 15 And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. 16 Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. 17 And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. 18 But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lord's money. 19 After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them.

20 "So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, 'Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them.' 21 His lord said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.' 22 He also who had received two talents came and said, 'Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them.' 23 His lord said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord.'

24 "Then he who had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.'

26 "But his lord answered and said to him, 'You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. 27 So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. 28 Therefore take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.

29 'For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Looks like we have the same problem with this parable and the kingdom of heaven on the one hand, and the word talent as a measuring medium to also mean a gifted individual.
Just like this parable has absolutely nothing to do with the kingdom of heaven, it simply doesn't explain anything or reveal anything of the workings of heaven, so too the word talent as a measuring unit, has absolutely no connection to skills.

[Florestan]

this parable has absolutely nothing to do with the kingdom of heaven

Indeed. A parable whose first words are "For the kingdom of Heaven is like" has absolutely nothing to do with the kingdom of Heaven. Your wisdom is deeper than the sea, Saul.

[Karl Henning]

. . . the word talent as a measuring unit, has absolutely no connection to skills.

Yes, that point has been acknowledged.

You have a good point, which is that this metaphor does not come explicitly from the text.

That metaphor does not come from the text, but from an oral history of sermonizing upon the text.

[(poco) Sforzando]

It has its roots in Jewish law, its forbidden in Judaism to lend money with interest, as a person must have the will and the desire to help his fellow men without getting anything in return.

Shylock doesn't seem to have gotten the message.

[Florestan]

Shylock doesn't seem to have gotten the message.

Were the Christians his fellow men? That is the question.

[28Orot]

Yes, that point has been acknowledged.

That metaphor does not come from the text, but from an oral history of sermonizing upon the text.

Anyone can twist and turn any word to mean something else then what it is for their own subjective purposes.

Anyone reading the text of the parable has not gained an iota of insight as to what the kingdom of heaven is like. But, sermons? I can turn trees into moneys with sermons... means nothing and proves nothing...

[Madiel]

Shylock doesn't seem to have gotten the message.

That is indeed one aspect of Shakespeare depicting Shylock as an unpleasant character.

[Karl Henning]

Anyone can twist and turn any word to mean something else then what it is for their own subjective purposes.

Anyone reading the text of the parable has not gained an iota of insight as to what the kingdom of heaven is like. But, sermons? I can turn trees into moneys with sermons... means nothing and proves nothing...

I see.  Sorry to have wasted your time.