slopfront
Reddit, read-only. No JavaScript. No cookies. No tracking.
preferences
Saved in links, not cookies.

Talents...

16 points · submitted Jan 2026 by u/KipIngram · Discussion

The "parable of the talents" is mentioned at one point during the series - I won't give details since this is just a discussion post. I realized that I had never really secured in my mind exactly what a talent was, so I looked into it this morning and will just share the info here in case any of the rest of you are in that same boat.

In this context, a "talent" is not a unit of currency per se - it is a unit of weight, and appears to have corresponded to about 34 kilograms (about 75 pounds). It could refer to a weight of any metal, but was most often used in the context of precious metals like silver or gold, and without a specific qualifier would most likely have been taken to be a weight of silver.

So, the "five talents" at the core of the parable would have been a reference to about 375 pounds of silver. So no trivial amount of money - in fact, a great deal of money. And yes - I have a feeling any of us who handed that kind of money over to an investment manager and then discovered later he'd simply sat on it and earned zero return would be more than a little bit miffed. It's enough money for almost any kind of aggressive investment, like building a business, etc.

Using ancient units, a talent of silver was worth about 6,000 denarii, and one denarius was basically around a common laborer's daily wage. So five talents would have been around a hundred years of labor compensation - multiple lifetimes of a common man's income. If we take $50,000 a year as a "typical" income, then we'd be looking at around five million dollars.

So the big calibration for me, given my total ignorance going in, was that the parable revolves around a lot of money - a very very large amount, in fact. Which for me really drives home the significance of the parable. This was definitely not someone's "emergency cash stash" - it was a major investment asset.

Ok, that's it - just thought I'd toss this in for "general education." :-)

21 comments · 91% upvoted · other discussions

comments

Read-only. Use the arrows to collapse threads.

[deleted] 4 points · Jan 2026

[removed]

KipIngram [OP] 6 points · Jan 2026

Yeah, you would not have seen "talents in circulation." :-)

Objective_March_8405 4 points · Jan 2026

Except that in the king killer a 'talent' is a trapezoidal coin that probably weighs around an ounce.

Frater_Shibe 2 points · Jan 2026

To be fair, you have your $1000 paper money irl. Maybe it is fiat currency

a_random_work_girl 2 points · Jan 2026

Except in history a talent is a unit of weight of rare metal, in the king killer its a single coin.

BeginningSun247 5 points · Jan 2026

Historically most currencies were measured by weight. Coins can be clipped.

Shekel: The most common small unit in the ancient Near East (especially biblical Israel), originally a weight of about 8–11 grams of silver.

Gerah: A tiny subunit (1/20 of a shekel), used in biblical weights and money for small amounts.

Drachma (Greek): Originally a weight of silver (about 4.3 grams in the Attic system), it evolved into a coin but was fundamentally a measured weight of metal.

Pound (libra in Latin): In Roman times, a pound (libra) was a unit of weight (~327–329 grams) that also denoted currency value (e.g., the British "pound sterling" originated from a pound weight of silver). Many medieval and early modern currencies used "pound" as a money term tied to weight.

Mark: In medieval Europe (especially Germanic regions), a mark was a unit of weight for silver (about 230–250 grams), which became a monetary unit (e.g., the "mark" in various currencies).

KOticneutralftw 3 points · Jan 2026

That happens a lot, actually. A British pound sterling was originally a unit of weight, and it gets the abbreviation "lb" from the Roman unit, libra. I think pound and libra were used interchagneably in translations of the period, but don't quote me on that. The French livre is definitely named after the Roman libra, though.

SarcasticKenobi 5 points · Jan 2026

Sir, this is a Wend...

OK, yeh I'm not even gonna joke.

That was interesting. I always assumed it was a unit of currency. And always thought it was so odd that they were making a big deal about seemingly low numbers.

But... I also kind of hated my Sunday school classes so I just absorbed enough so I wouldn't see the business end of a ruler.

acebert 2 points · Jan 2026

And yes - I have a feeling any of us who handed that kind of money over to an investment manager and then discovered later he'd simply sat on it and earned zero return would be more than a little bit miffed.

Important context, the "money manager" was a slave. When the master berates him he says "you are a wicked slave" (servant in some translations). This particular verse is very open to interpretation. When I was in Catholic school the priest spoke from the position that the last man was right in his assessment; the master was wicked (reaping where he did not sow)

ETA: The master also says essentially "why didn't you put it in the bank then, so I could claim my money with interest". This adds some very interesting context, given that usury was generally considered sinful. (Any interest bearing loan being considered usurious at some points in history)

KipIngram [OP] 2 points · Jan 2026

Isn't only "excessive" interest "usury," or is that a more modern interpretation? And yes - "excessive according to whom?" rears its head there.

acebert 1 points · Jan 2026

That's the modern line. One can even argue that particular change is a corruption, brought about by greed amongst the clergy. 

Torah, and by extension the old testament, is quite clear that interest is only acceptable when asked of "foreigners". From Deuteronomy:

Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.

Even that has been the subject of robust debate among Rabbi's apparently. Conflicting views argue that it's only acceptable if the prevailing society makes it necessary. I.E. the historical persecution of Jews, coupled with Christian laws on interest creating a situation where Jewish people faced a very stark choice; Become money lenders, or have no income at all.

Some other interpretations (from Wikipedia):

For instance, the 15th-century commentator Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel specified that the rubric for allowing interest does not apply to Christians or Muslims, because their faith systems have a common ethical basis originating from Judaism. The medieval commentator Rabbi David Kimhi extended this principle to non-Jews who show consideration for Jews, saying they should be treated with the same consideration when they borrow.

Taken all together, it seems like God isn't really cool with interest despite the best efforts of the wealthy to reinterpret his word.

Sorry about the wall of text. While I'm personally agnostic, I have nothing but respect for liberation theology. It's part of why I like Michael so much as a character, matches perfectly with my experience of what a good Christian is.

KipIngram [OP] 2 points · Jan 2026

No, that's all fascinating. It seems fairly hard for me to deny that the "use of money for a period of time" has some kind of value, though - just trying to think about it in a strictly quantitative way.

acebert 1 points · Jan 2026

For that you have good ol' Aquinas. He argued that to charge for the use of a thing and the thing itself is sinful as it's double charging.

'Twould be as selling a bottle of wine and further charging for the right to drink it. 

Part of his argument is that the purpose of money is to represent value, it's not a productive asset in it's own right. In essence the use of the thing is the thing.

On Aquinas's view, from the Wikipedia page about usury:

Money is a medium of exchange, and is used up when it is spent. To charge for the money and for its use (by spending) is therefore to charge for the money twice. It is also to sell time since the usurer charges, in effect, for the time that the money is in the hands of the borrower. Time, however, is not a commodity for which anyone can charge.

ETA: Just to be clear, it's not sinful to invest, as outlined below:

Outlawing usury did not prevent investment, but stipulated that in order for the investor to share in the profit he must share the risk. In short he must be a joint-venturer. Simply to invest the money and expect it to be returned regardless of the success of the venture was to make money simply by having money and not by taking any risk or by doing any work or by any effort or sacrifice at all, which is usury. St Thomas quotes Aristotle as saying that "to live by usury is exceedingly unnatural". St Thomas allows, however, charges for actual services provided. Thus a banker or credit-lender could charge for such actual work or effort as he did carry out e.g. any fair administrative charges. 

KipIngram [OP] 1 points · Jan 2026

But that's not what's happening. It's only the use of the money that the interest is the charge for. There is no article "also being charged for."

Honestly to me it just feels like that the money lenders were people that the folks penning the rules were out to get. So they worked out a way to do that.

And besides, what's really immoral is coercion. When you borrow money, no one is forcing you to do it. It's a freely chosen act - if you felt you were being mistreated you don't have to do it.

Now, I grant that in some cases people are manipulated into positions where they have no choice - I think that happens lot in "free enterprise" (like company towns and stuff like that). I'm thinking more along the lines of someone just going out and taking a loan to start a business. They don't have to do that - they could just get a job instead. Truly "free" enterprise is rarely immoral, because both parties have freedom of choice and supposedly are taking actions they think will wind up making them better off.

So if you think the interest rate is too high, then don't borrow the money.

acebert 1 points · Jan 2026

So if you think the interest rate is too high, then don't borrow the money.

Then you starve, after watching your children starve.

Honest men can disagree but, to me, living directly and solely off interest is fundamentally immoral. (Obviously reality is a nuanced place but this is still my belief and one I live by. I own a small house, which I rent significantly under market because I believe making more than my costs, when the house will still be mine, is wrong. To do so would be to willingly make the world harder for other people, directly, when it's within my power to make it a little better. Not to mention contributing to the increasing cost of rent throughout the state and country, which is one of the greatest pressures on households here)

Honestly to me it just feels like that the money lenders were people that the folks penning the rules were out to get. 

Not really, if we're talking BCE. Prohibitions on usury are intended to prevent him what has from taking ever more from he who has nothing. 

Once you get into AD there's some truth to it. It is important to understand the ethnic divide though, it was used to further anti-Semitism primarily.

But that's not what's happening. It's only the use of the money that the interest is the charge for. There is no article "also being charged for."

Time is the second article. If you lend 10 bits on the expectation that you'll return 10 bits that's all sweet. If you're expected to pay an extra bit for every month you have the money you're paying for more than 10 bits. That's the thrust of St Thomas Aquinas's argument.

I'm thinking more along the lines of someone just going out and taking a loan to start a business. They don't have to do that - they could just get a job instead

I get your point. The counterpoint being that the investor can take a stake, that's not usury. Both parties share the risk as well as the reward. Also the "get a job instead" is exactly what usury prevention is about. Don't be a rent seeker, get a job instead.

KipIngram [OP] 1 points · Jan 2026

"Then you starve..." That was the sort of situation I was trying to exclude with my last paragraph. I think that kind of manipulation does happen in the real world economy, and I do agree it's immoral. Good, wholesome capitalism is supposed to involve parties all of whom have legitimate choice. It's why we outlaw certain practices, like market cornering, forms of collusion (if your money lenders are colluding to keep the interest rate higher than it would be in a competitive environment, that's immoral, yes), etc. But when is nice simple "I have something you want, you have something I want, maybe we can talk?" then I'm generally always fine with it.

So I am explicitly setting aside and not considering situations in which people are "manipulated and trapped." All attempts to do that to people are immoral, in my opinion. I'm considering situations involving people who are already doing okay, but want to do better - call that "greed" or "ambition" as suits you.

I think regarding your house, you're engaging in a form of charity, which is honorable and admirable - finding ways to give back is always a good thing to do, when the world has been kind to us. But I don't think people who make their living that way are morally wrong. If we banned that practice then those housing units wouldn't be there, and then where would people live? I think you first have to let people cover their own survival, plan for their own future and for the future care of their children and so on, and then when they have all that in the bag you might nudge them a little and say, "Now, life's been good to you - you might consider giving some back to help others." Anyway, I'm basically very happy for you that you've done well enough to feel that you can give back, and that, given that, you're willing to - it's wonderful.

No, I'm not buying Aquinas's argument. Using money for a year gives you more opportunity than using it for six months (nominally twice as much). The period of time is an obvious factor there.

"Take a stake..." Well, that's venture capital, and it's one way of starting a business. But that's not the only way it's done - sometimes people just take a regular old loan. And not all people feel competent to evaluate business opportunities well enough to know if that's where they want to put their money - they might prefer to just have a certain return based on interest. It's lower risk (and therefore likely lower return).

I think it's a little harsh to regard living on interest as immoral. What about people who are too old to work anymore? Are you really saying they should have to save up enough to be able to live all the way to their grave with zero return on the accumulated principle? And to accumulate that savings without earning anything on what they'd saved so far along the way? That would put an awful lot of people into a dire situation.

It occurs to me that this is way, way off community topic...

acebert 1 points · Jan 2026

It occurs to me that this is way, way off community topic...

True that, fun though. It's a conversation Dresden might have with Forthill. You even get to be Dresden and my name is Anthony.

I think it's a little harsh to regard living on interest as immoral. 

Maybe, but it's a genuinely held belief.

What about people who are too old to work anymore? Are you really saying they should have to save up enough to be able to live all the way to their grave with zero return on the accumulated principle? 

That's what I'm going to have to do, more or less, having been born sans trust fund. The same is true for a sizable chunk of the people I know. This is why I specified living directly and solely on interest. Our modern world has made it a fact of life, that's unavoidable. What I'm getting at is that their children shouldn't then get to live fat off that work and their children and so on until you've reached a new aristocracy.

As for Aquinas:

Using money for a year gives you more opportunity than using it for six months (nominally twice as much)

That's a matter of perspective. Its the same amount after all, if you make it do more in that time it's because you made it work. Which gets back to the fundamental point, it is not for man to profit off his brother's labour so.

If we banned that practice then those housing units wouldn't be there, and then where would people live?

Just because a system is a certain way doesn't mean other ways aren't possible. If we banned the practice land would be more affordable as would building materials. People have been making homes to live in for a very long time, longer than we've been minting money in fact.

As for interest based investment being lower risk, that's what makes it wrong, biblically. There's no risk because the debtor is bound by law to return more than he was given. If you can't evaluate what is and isn't a good investment, maybe don't do it. (The royal you, not you personally)

But yeah, digression aside, the parable of the talents was among my old school priest's favourites and I felt compelled to share the liberation theology interpretation, because it's always made sense to me 

Anazrieth 2 points · Jan 2026

An interesting way to take this a step further. With the amount being about 100 years worth of a common laborers wage, the parable of the Talents hits deeper with the question "what have you done with your life? The life given to you by the Lord. Will he be happy with how you invested it and made it grow?"

KipIngram [OP] 2 points · Jan 2026

Yeah, and that starts to cut pretty close to (Proven Guilty spoiler) how Molly spins it around on Charity. Charity might have chosen to try to use her abilities to do good, but didn't.

Anazrieth 3 points · Jan 2026

True, but I feel her chosen life, and the beings that came from that are considered profit and growth.

Objective_March_8405 1 points · Jan 2026

I've always wondered what a talent was but never got around to researching it myself, thanks.