The connection between this Parable and what the Lord had previously said concerning returning sinners, to which our remarks have already pointed, is further evidenced by the use of the term wasting' (diaskorpzon), in the charge against the steward, just as the prodigal son had wasted' (dieskrpise) his substance. [4531] Only, in the present instance, the property had been entrusted to his administration. As regards the owner, his designation as rich' seems intended to mark how large was the property committed to the steward. The steward' was not, as in St. Luke xii. 42-46, a slave, but one employed for the administration cf the rich man's affairs, subject to notice of dismissal. [4532] He was accused - the term implying malevolence, but not necessarily a false charge - not of fraud, but of wasting, probably by riotous living and carelessness, his master's goods. And his master seems to have convinced himself that the charge was true, since he at once gives him notice of dismissal. The latter is absolute, and not made dependent on the account of his stewardship,' which is only asked as, of course, necessary, when he gives up his office. Nor does the steward either deny the charge or plead any extenuation. His great concern rather is, during the time still left of his stewardship, before he gives up his accounts, to provide for his future support. The only alternative before him in the future is that of manual labour or mendicancy. But for the former he has not strength; from the latter he is restrained by shame.
Then it is that his prudence' suggests a device by which, after his dismissal, he may, without begging, be received into the houses of those whom he has made friends. [4533] It must be borne in mind, that he is still steward, and, as such, has full power of disposing of his master's affairs. When, therefore, he sends for one after another of his master's debtors, and tells each to alter the sum in the bond, he does not suggest to them forgery or fraud, but, in remitting part of the debt - whether it had been incurred as rent in kind, or as the price of produce purchased - he acts, although unrighteously, yet strictly within his rights. Thus, neither the steward nor the debtors could be charged with criminality, and the master must have been struck with the cleverness of a man who had thus secured a future provision by making friends, so long as he had the means of so doing (ere his Mamon of unrighteousness failed).
A few archæological notices may help the interpretation of details. From the context it seems more likely, that the bonds,' or rather writings,' of these debtors were written acknowledgements of debt, than, as some have supposed that they were, leases of farms. The debts over which the steward variously disposed, according as he wished to gain more or less favour, were considerable. In the first case they are stated at a hundred Bath of oil,' in the second as a hundred Cor of wheat.' In regard to these quantities we have the preliminary difficulty, that three kinds of measurement were in use in Palestine - that of the Wilderness,' or, the original Mosaic; that of Jerusalem,' which was more than a fifth larger; and that of Sepphoris, probably the common Galilean measurement, which, in turn, was more than a fifth larger than the Jerusalem measure. [4534] To be more precise, one Galilean was equal to 3/2 Wilderness' measures. Assuming the measurement to have been the Galilean, one Bath [4535] would have been equal to an Attic Metrêtês, or about 39 litres. On the other hand, the so-called Wilderness measurement' would correspond with the Roman measures, and, in that case, the Bath' would be the same as the Amphora, or amount to a little less than 26 litres. [4536] The latter is the measurement adopted by Josephus. [4537] [4538] In the Parable, the first debtor was owing 100 of these Bath,' or, according to the Galilean measurement, about 3,900 litres of oil. As regards the value of a Bath of oil, little information can be derived from the statements of Josephus, since he only mentions prices under exceptional circumstances, either in particularly plentiful years, [4539] or else at a time of war and siege. [4540] In the former, an Amphora, or 26 litres, of oil seems to have fetched about 9d.; but it must be added, that, even in such a year, this represents a rare stroke of business, since the oil was immediately afterwards re-sold for eight times the amount, and this - 3s. for half an Amphora of about 13 litres - would probably represent an exceptionally high war-price. The fair price for it would probably have been 9d. For the Mishnah informs us, that the ordinary earthenware casks' (the Gerabh) held each 2 Seah, or 48 Log, or about 26 litres. [4541] Again, according to a notice in the Talmud, [4542] 100 such casks,' or, 200 Seah, were sold for 10 (presumably gold) dinars, or 250 silver dinars, equal to about 7l. 10s. of our money. And as the Bath (= 3 Seah) held a third more than one of those casks,' or Gerabhin, the value of the 100 Bath of oil would probably amount to about 10l. of our money, and the remission of the steward, of course, to 5l.