| It was a (rather heavy) weight, and only a unit "of money" by extension. A Homeric talent was a unit of weight, hence the half-talent "of gold" as a prize. A talent of silver would weigh the same but have less value. The Hebrew "talent" (kikar) was also a unit of weight. The later Latin talentum borrowed the existing weight measure and the Greek word τάλαντον and by the time of the parable of the talents, this word already carried the rather heavy meaning of "58.9 kg." (from your link above). So a talent in the modern metaphorical sense of "talented person" means a person carrying a heavy weight, and a heavy responsibility. If a single talent is almost 60 kg, imagine the unlucky person with five talents placed on them! Perhaps it would be better to have a genius than to be talented, though neither one makes you rich. > For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. The only thing we can say with confidence about these "goods" is that they were heavy, and not necessarily something you want... especially if they are to be repaid "with usury" at some future undisclosed time of reckoning, as in the story! |
But having talents, isn't that essence of being human? Having talents and using them? Who are we if we fear having talents?