The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) is nearly identical to the Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19:11-27).
One major change is that the values and quantities of the money is very different in each parable, as well as the number of servants/slaves.
Why did Jesus choose such different figures for two renditions of what is basically the same parable?
Units of currency
1 mina = 60 shekels
1 talent = 60 minas
--
Different accounts
As an itinerant preacher, Jesus would have told the same story more than once. The classic example is the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) vs. the Sermon on the Plain (Luke).
The context in which Luke presents the parable of the minas (or parable of the pounds) is Jericho, upon Jesus' meeting with Zacchaeus the tax-collector.
The context in which Matthew presents the parable of the talents is Jerusalem, after the triumphal entry.
Neither Matthew nor Luke are particularly keen on presenting all of their information chronologically -- Matthew's Gospel is largely organized by topic (like an encyclopedia); a decent portion of Luke's Gospel is organized by geography (like an atlas). So we do not know for certain when these parables were taught, but the surrounding context in each Matthew & Luke is plausible. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Jesus taught the parable only twice.
If Jesus taught this parable 30 times (to select a random number), and occasionally changed up the numbers (when people tell a story more than once they seldom use exactly the same words each time), it is not difficult to see how two people could remember the story differently.
Students of the Synoptic Problem have sometimes pointed out that in verse 24 Luke demonstrates knowledge of Matthew's account--that's a separate, interesting question--but if we allow that Luke knew how Matthew told the story, and Luke had heard other versions of the story, why might Luke have chosen the version of the story he did?
--
The question Luke is answering
In Luke, the concern that prompted the parable is given: they thought the kingdom of God would shortly appear. The message, then, is more earthly in nature: there is still important work to be done on this earth! This variation is seen in multiple details of the two accounts: whereas in Matthew the faithful are received into the rest of the Lord (heavenly), in Luke they are given cities (earthly). In Matthew the unfaithful is cast into outer darkness, whereas in Luke the unfaithful are killed.
Luke seems much more focused on the need to make good with what God has given us on this earth - which is what Zacchaeus, despite being despised for his occupation, has been trying to do. Don't just sit back and wait for the end because it's coming any day; improve upon what you have been blessed with and use it to further God's work (like Zacchaeus).
Why more servants? Verse 14 is a detail unique to Luke's account; the larger number of servants allows the story to describe more than 3 reactions by the servants.
I would second others' comments that any people who are public speaking at length will naturally produce variants. It might be that Jesus decided on the spot that one unit of currency or scale of transaction better-suited that audience. I don't think further explanation is necessarily needed when there isn't a textual problem.
But comparison is interesting: for instance if this parable can cast light on its transmission to Matthew and Luke, or changes in Jesus' approach between two locations and occasions and audiences. Then, deeper differences in style might be more important than the presenting discrepancy.
A good starting place for a comparison might be Matthew 25:24 "I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not scattered seed" vs. Luke 19:21 "I was afraid of you because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow." Since here there is a pretty strong commonality of the phrasing in Matthew "ὅτι σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος" vs. Luke "ὅτι ἄνθρωπος αὐστηρὸς εἶ" NIV obscures this by using "hard" for both.
They are similar words. I personally feel σκληρὸς is more pejorative - indeed Strongs lists "violent" in its possible register. If that's like our word "miserly" an αὐστηρὸς is more someone who's a skinflint - doesn't spend money but not so obnoxious about it.
Returning with this to the topic: if the similarity between these parables is a natural product of Jesus' approach to public speaking, he would seem to have made "ὅτι [adjective] εἶ ἄνθρωπος" a fixed point. We'd expect a speaker using that sort of method to memorize and repeat the key 'beats' and improvize inbetween them.
There is also "I could have collected it with interest. Matthew "ἐκομισάμην ... σὺν τόκῳ" Luke "σὺν τόκῳ ἔπραξα". and "Give it to the one who has ten" Matthew "καὶ δότε τῷ ἔχοντι τὰ δέκα" Luke "καὶ δότε τῷ τὰς δέκα ... ἔχοντι"
"What they have will be taken away" Matthew "ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ" Luke "ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται"
So the common phrasing is strong toward the end of the parable, but not that noticeable in the first half. And perhaps not picking out key beats at all. NIV suggests one earlier place "put this money to work" Matthew "ὁ τὰ πέντε τάλαντα λαβὼν ἠργάσατο" Luke "Πραγματεύσασθε ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι" but that's more from NIV's translation than the original.
Again, if this was... not unconscious necessarily, but natural... we'd expect either only minor differences or similarity at the beats:- He leaves on a journey. The first man said.
And if it's not natural, it's artificial. There would be a genetic explanation along the lines that Luke has adapted Matthew (or vice versa if that's a minority view) - at some of these points perhaps even changing vocabulary and word order just to differentiate. εἶ ἄνθρωπος? ἄνθρωπος εἶ ?
But if I may be indulged I wanted to pick up the OP's tags of "authorial-intent" and "contradiction", in case they are (or might by others be taken to be) directed at the idea of a literal word-of-God bible. That would be along the line that a divine-inspirer would have given Matthew and Luke identical versions.
The other place where the differences - which are not just on the point of value but stylistic and thematic (re. kingship?) - could have arisen artificially is by the artifice of Jesus. Whichever of the apostles came second, (suppose Luke) is wanting to show the world's progression around the Logos. The lesson or central truth of the parable can now be viewed from two slightly different places and seen to be the same.
But some concise closing thoughts:-
As several contributors have already pointed out, the weight of talents and minas are significantly different. Although the point of the parable in Matthew 25 and in Luke 19 seem similar, they’re not the same at all!
Comparing the Parables
The parable in Matthew involves three servants receiving 5, 2, and 1 talents respectively, while the parable in Luke involves 10 servants, each receiving only 1 mina. In Luke’s parable, the citizens, though not necessarily the servants, hated the nobleman. Notice that 1 talent of wages in Matthew’s parable represented a lifetime of labor for an average laborer (more than 20 years out of about a 40-year lifespan). The servant receiving 1 talent returned the man’s 1 talent without any gain in value along with a lame excuse.
This is similar to at least one of the 10 chosen servants who received 1 mina also without any profit together with the same lame excuse. Both were similarly condemned, which can lead people to believe that these two parables are identical in meaning, which is not the case—the amounts, distributions, number of servants, and other circumstances were all different.
Both these parables have to do with the kingdom of God and with similar expectations for productivity. But these are not the only parables of the kingdom of God. There are seven different parables on this subject in Matthew.
As always, taking these parables in context and understanding the nature of the audience is central to a correct understanding.
Manic Digression
Talents and minas are both weights. This weight measurement is similar to the British pound, a term derived from the Latin libra pondo (lbs), which means "weight/scale pound" in English. Thus, pounds sterling (£) was originally the value of a pound of silver.
Likewise, the Sumerian mina was originally heavier, at about 570 grams. In the time of Jesus, a Judean mina was worth 100 Roman denarii, which was about 400 grams of silver. In the time of Augustus, the yearly stipendium of a Roman legionary was set at 225 denarii or about 900 grams of silver. A laborer in Roman Judea would receive about 1 denarius for a day’s wage—a generous amount described in one of Jesus’ parables:
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.” – Matthew 20:1,2 ESV
Finally Getting to the Point
Both the talent and the mina were large sums of money—the talent being 60 times larger. In both accounts, a number of people in Jesus’ audience—perhaps a delegation—were Judean Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, scholars who were experts in the Tanakh. In the parable of the 10 minas, they would likely have recognized the association with the book of Daniel (now Daniel 5) involving the words of warning from the hand of God, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin (from peres) referring to the upcoming destruction of Babylon.
Thus, they might have recognized this as a typically subtle prophetic warning about the Messiah and the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem predicted later in Daniel (now Daniel 9:26)! The parable in Luke’s account ends with the powerful judgment and death of the citizens who hated the nobleman and sent a “delegation” indicating their refusal to allow him to rule over them.
“But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” – Luke 19:27 ESV
It is highly likely this parable was told many times with variations. I suspect a possible reason Jesus used variations, which is also a possible reason Luke chose a different version and why the Holy Spirit included both versions in the Bible, is that parables are intended to (amongst other purposes) simplify complex spiritual truths. In reality God expects those with more talent to achieve more ('from those given much, much will be expected'), but also even allowing for that some will achieve more and some less even for the same amount of talent due to greater faithfulness (1 Cor 3.11-15). Explaining both those truths in the same parable would make the parable too complicated. So Jesus explained in the talents parable that someone who gets two talents and doubles them is rewarded equally with someone who has 5 and doubles them (ie more is expected of those who start with more) but with the minas he showed that if two people start with the same and one multiplies it tenfold that person will be rewarded more than one who doubles it. Putting the two together we see the full picture that we are not expected to be as successful as someone much more talented, but thinking 'I'm not talented' is not an excuse not to do our best because we can receive more or less reward depending on how well we use whatever we have.
There is similarity and variation to these two parables, in which the value of the money doesn't seem to have a significant meaning.
The similarity of these two parables, both alluded to the period between the ascension of Jesus and His 2nd coming. The Christian are gathering to receive their final judgement.
The variation is the most interesting part. It is possible that Jesus had taught a few variation of similar parables. But Matthew and Luke should have recalled the one that most fit into their context. Therefore it has to look into its context to understand the variation between these two.
Matthew 24-25, or the Olivet Discourse, Jesus gave a scene of tribulation and warned His disciples to 'keep watch' (Matt 24:42 NIV) and 'ready' (Matt 24:44 NIV) for no one will know when it will happen. Then Matthew followed with a few parables to illustrate the meaning of 'keep watch' and 'ready'.
In the parable of the talent (Matt 25:14-30), there were three servants each was given five talents, 2 talents and 1 talents 'according to his ability' (Matt 25:15 NIV) for their disposal. When the master returned, they reported earning of five talents, 2 talents and none respectively. The first two servant received the master compliment, should be those who keep watch and ready. The third one produced nothing, and the master described him as 'wicked and lazy servant".
Next let's see the parable of the Ten Minas in Luke. It should be noted that Luke had given a reason why Jesus told this parallel
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.
In this parable, though there were ten servants received one Minas equally, only three servants reported their earning when their master returned. Similarly it was five, two and none, and the first two received compliment from their master, the third one the master described him as 'wicked' (Luke 19:22 NIV).
Explanation to the parable of the Talent
It might be easy to connect when the number of talent is related to 'his ability', talent may refer to God's gift which differ to each person. This seems corresponding to another parable in Luke 12:35-48, that emphasized 'watchfulness' as a servant, in where it said;
46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.
48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
So five to earn five, two to earn two justified.
Explanation to the parable of the Minas
This parable is likely to correct the wrong idea of the people, who thought 'the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.' (Luke 19:11 NIV)
The Minas is likely referring to Jesus' command;
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
All Christian received the same command, but some are more fruitful, as such, they will receive more God's gift (talent) and carry out more responsibility (cities).
Did Jesus use 'talent' for the parable in Matthew for He foresaw its meaning in English?
