And so the Master put aside the flimsy pretext. Addressing him as a 'wicked and slothful

servant,' He pointed out that, even on his own showing, if he had been afraid to incur

responsibility , he might have 'cast' (a word intended to mark the absence of labour) the

money to 'the bankers,' when, at His return, He would have received His own, 'with

interest.' Thus he might, without incurring responsibility, or much labour, have been, at

least in a limited sense, faithful to his duty and trust as a servant.

The reference to the practice of lodging money, at interest, with the bankers, raises

questions too numerous and lengthily for full discussion in this place. The Jewish Law

distinguished between 'interest' and 'increase' (neshekh and tarbith), and entered into

many and intricate details on the subject.23 Such transactions were forbidden with

Israelites, but allowed with Gentiles. As in Rome, the business of 'money-changers'

(argentarii, nummularii ) and that of 'bankers' (collectarii, mensularii) seem to have run

into each other. The Jewish 'bankers' bear precisely the same name (Shulchani,

mensularius, τραπεζιτης). In Rome very high interest seems to have been charged in

early times; by-and -by it was lowered, till it was fixed, first at 8½, and then at 4 1/6, per

cent. But these laws were not of permanent duration. Practically, usury was unlimited. It

soon became the custom to charge monthly interest at the rate of 1 per cent a month.

Yet there were prosperous times, as at the close of the Republic, when the rate of

interest was so low as 4 percent; during the early Empire it stood at 8 per cent. This, of

course, in what we may call fair business transactions. Beyond them, in the almost

incredible extravagance, luxury, and indebte dness of even some of the chief historical

personages, most usurious transactions took place (especially in the provinces), and

that by people in high position (Brutus in Cyprus, and Seneca in Britain). Money was

lent at 12, 24, and even 48 per cent.; the bills bore a larger sum than that actually

received; and the interest was added to the capital, so that debt and interest alike grew.

In Greece there were regular State banks, while in Rome such provision was only made

under exceptional circumstances. Not unfrequently the twofold business of money-

changing and banking was combined. Such 'bankers' undertook to make payments, to

collect moneys and accounts, to place out money at interest - in short, all the ordinary

business of this kind.24 There can be no question that the Jewish bankers of Palestine

and elsewhere were engaged in the same undertakings, while the dispersion of their

race over the world would render it more easy to have trusted correspondents in every

city. Thus, we find that Herod Agrippa borrowed from the Jewish Alabarch at Alexandria

the sum of 20,000 drachms, which was paid him in Italy, the commission and interest on

it amounting to no less than 8 1/2 per cent. (2,500 drachms).25