On the other hand, the supply of copper money must have been almost, if not quite, exclusively of native production. There were the copper coins of the Hasmomiean princes, those of the various Hei'ods, and those \vhicli had been struck since A.D. 6 by successive procurators of Judoea. Unlike the foreij^n silver money, they have, in deference to Jewish feeling, no Imperial eftigy or the likeness of any living thing ; even tliose of the procurators iiave onlj' the name of the reigning Emperor, and innocent ears of corn, palm-trees, lilies, and the like. As to their denomination we have no sure evidence. Schiirer holds that the Romans imposed their monetary standard more rigorouslyin Palestine than elsewiiere, and that even the Herodian coins followed the Roman system (HJP II. i. 38). Other writers consider it to be more probable that the copper coinage of Palestine followed the subdivi- sions of the drachm common in (ireek- speaking countries. The extant coins contain no indication of value, nor can any safe inference be drawn from their weight, seeing that, where a silver standard prevails, the copper coinage must alwaj's be verj- much of the nature of token money. (See, fur- ther, under 'Assarion,' ' Kodrantes,' and 'Lepton,' beh)w).
Before proceeding to speak in detail of the coins named in the Gospels, it will be well to give in tabular form the main elements of tlie two systems, the (ireek and the Roman, which obtained concur- rently in Palestine at the time of our Lord. For convenience of reference tlie average value in ster- ling money is put opposite the larger sums.
Greek system. 1 Talent (£240)" = 60 Minas. 1 Jlina (£4) =100 Drachms. 1 Drachm (9id.)= 6 Obols. 1 Obol ' = 8 Chalki.
(To this system belong also the stater of four, and the di- drachm of two, drachms ; and the lepton, whose relation to the chalkus is uncertain. See below, under ' Lepton ').
Roman system.
1 Aureus (el) =25 Denarii.
1 Denarius (9id) = 16 Asses.
1 As =4 Quadrantes.
The point of connexion between the two systems is found in the identification of the Roman denariux witli the Attic drachm. This identification was rendered eas\- by the fact that at the time when Rome began her career of conquest in the E.ast the drachm of the Attic standard had fallen to a weight which only slightly exceeded that of the ilenarhis; but there can be little doubt that it was made deliberately by the Romans as a matter of policy. Alexander the Great had made the Attic drachm the unit of his Imperial coinage, which he im- posed upon all the lands he had conquered ;" and in adopting the .\lexandrine drachm as equal to their own denariun, the Romans wished to indicate that they served themselves heirs to his kingdom in the East (.Mommsen, op. cit. 691). In Im- perial times the identification was so completely established that Hellenistic writers regularly refer to the denarius as 'the Attic drachm.' This identification enables us to assign values to those coins which follow the Greek system. The weight of the gold auretis is knowni, and its value admits of easy calcula- tion (see Hastings' DB iii. 427), and the other values, as given above, follow at once. This method of ascertaining the value of the silver coins of the Gospels does justice to the fact that, in the Roman Empire then, as in Britain now, the value of silver coins 'vas legally defined in terms of the gold standard.
II Defimte sums of moxev and COIXS MEITIOXED IX THE GOSPELS.— Thei^e may most
MU:vEY
199
conveniently be treated of under three heads : monej' of account, silver coins, and copper coins.
(i. ) Jlonei/ of account. — Two sums of money, to which no actual coin corresponded, receive a .special name in the Gosjjels. These are the talent and the mina.
1. Talent (TdXa/'rov, Mt 18--* os'^- 1«- ^- 22- 2<- 2*- ^S) is originally the name of the highest weight in the various systems of antiquity, hence the sum of monej- represented by that weiglit in gold or silver. The talent of the Gospels, which is, of course, a talent of silver, might conceivablj- be the IMnenician talent, but is far more probably to be identitied with the talent on the reduced Attic scale which had been formallj- recognized by the Romans (see above). It contained 6000 Attic drachms or deiuirii, and was thus worth 240 aurci or £"240.
The talent is mentioned twice by our Loi-d. In the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Mt IS-^-s^) the one servant owes the king 10,000 talents, or nearly two-and-a-half millions of our money — an enormous sum, of wliich the 100 denarii ( = £4) owed him by his fellow-servant represents but an insignificant fraction (siiVn)- (It "lay be remarked that the juxtaposition in this parable of the talent and the denarius is a confirmation of the view that it is the Attic talent that is meant). In the parable of the Talents (Mt 25i-i *') the master intrusts his capital of eight talents or £1920 to his three servants in sums of £1200, £480, and £240 respectively. It will be seen that even he who re- ceived but one talent had jet quite a respectable capital to trade with, so that the excuse which is sometimes made by com- mentators on his behalf, viz. that he was discouraged bj- the smallness of the sum committed to him, is as little valid as that which he offered for himself. The real reason for his conduct was, of course, just his slothfulness.