1. Coins and Weif/h(s. — 1. Names of the ])rincipal Hebrew Standards. — The following are the regular gra- dations, beginning with the highest :
(1.) The talent, "SS, kikMr, strictly a circle, hence any round object; and thus a circular piece of money. It was of two kinds, the talent of gold (1 Kings ix, 14) and the talent of silver (2 Kings v, 22). See Talkxt.
(2.) The maneh, n?"2, the Greek mina, or fivu, strictly a poiiion, i. e. a subdivision of the " talent."
(3.) The shekel, ^J^'J, Graicized aiK\oc, properly a weirjht, the usual unit of estimation, applied to coins and weights. It likewise was of two kinds, the sacred (Lev. V, 15) and the royal (2 Sam. xiv, 26).
(4.) The be/ai, "1^3, strictly a cleft or fraction (Gen. xxiv, 22).
(5.) The geruh, n~iv. properly a kernel or bean, like our " grain," and the Greek o/3oAor.
2. Values of these as compared with each other. — The relation of the talent to the shekel is determined by the statement in Exod. xxx, 13, that every Israelite above twenty years of age had to pay the poll-tax of half a shekel as a contribution to the sanctuary. Exod. xxxviii, 26 tells us that this tax had to be paid by 603,550 men. The simi amounted to 100 talents and 1775 shekels (Exod. xxxviii, 25), which are. thrrc- forc, equal to G03.550 half shekels, or 301,775 lull shek- els. This gives for the value of the talent in shekels,
3000. The relation of the maneh to
100
the shekel, and consequently to the talent, is not so clear. In Ezek. xlv, 13. it seems to have consisted of GO shek- els (20 + 25 + 15^; but a comparison of 1 Kings x, 17 with 2 Chron. ix, K! would make it to consist of 100 shekels (3 nianehs = 300 shekels). Some explain these discrepancies by supposing that the sacred shekel was double the commercial, or that the talent and maneh of gold were respectively double those of silver. In this uncertainty it is generally agreed to reckon GO manehs to the talent, and 50 shekels to a manih. The beka was a half-shekel ( Exod. xxxviii, 2G) ; and the gcrah was ;,!,- the shekel (Exod. xxx, 13; Lev. xxvii, 25; Numb, iii, 47; Ezek. xlv, 20).
3. I'alues of the J/ebreio Wcifjhts as determined hy a Comparison with the Greek and /?omon.— Josephus states (Ant. iii. 6, 7) that the Hebrew talent of gold contained 100 mina' (/ii«(.), but whether by this latter he means
METROLOGY
193
METROLOGY
the Greek or the Hebrew weight corresponding to that ] term, is not clear. Again he states (.1 ni. xiv, 7, 1) that the gold raina {j-iva) was equal to two and a half Roman pounds (Xirpcic:). On the presumption that the same kind of miiia is spoken of in both passages, the talent would be equivalent to 250 pounds. On the other hand, Epiphanius (De Pond, et Mens. Ileb.') estimates the He- brew talent at 125 Roman pounds. This difference, be- ing just one half, leads to the suspicion that it is con- nected with the above variation in the value of the talent, maneh, and shekel ; and this, in connection with the nearer correspondence to the Greek measures of similar name, renders the lower estimate the more prob- able. Taking the Roman pound (presumed to be equiv- alent to the Greek Xirpa) at 5204 grains (Smith, Diet, of Class. Antiq. s. v. Libra), we have the Hebrew talent equal to 650,500 grains, or 112.79 pounds troy, or 92.9 poimds avoirdupois. Once more, Josephus says the gold shekel was equal to a daric {.\nt. iii, 8, 10), a Per- sian coin in Greek circulation, specimens of which have come down to us weighing an average of 128.5 grains (Smith, ibid. s. v. Daricus). This would yield a talent of 385,500 grains ; which is much less, yet confirms the above conclusion sufficiently for an approximate equivalent, as it evidently was meant to be, especially as the darics extant have of course lost considerable weight by time. Moreover, foreign coin usually passes for less than its true value.
4. Absolute Determination of the Value of the Tlebrero Weir/hts. — This has been attempted by means of the coins that have actually come down to our time. The heavier specimens of silver of the Maccabroan mintage that have been found give an average weight to the shekel of 220 grains. See Shekel. This affords a talent of GGO,000 grains, very nearly agreeing with the above result. The copper coins of the same period that have survived are on the average much heavier, being about double the weight, showing a variation in the standard for that metal similar to that noticed above in the case of gold. Bockh, by averaging the shekels of every kind of metal, arrives at a mean weight of 274 grains; but this is too high for the preceding estimates. See Money.
" In the New Testament (Matt, xvii, 24) tha Temple- tax is a didrachm ; from other sources we know that this 'tribute' was half a shekel; and in verse 27 the state?- is payment of this tax for two persons. Now the stater — a very common silver Attic coin, the tetradrachm — weighed 328.8 Parisian grains : thus considerably sur- passing the sacred shekel. Are we, then, to hold the stater of the New Testament for an Attic tetradrachm ? There is reason in the passage of Matthew and in early writers for regarding the two as the same. The Attic tetradrachm sank from its original weight of 328.8 to 308 and 304. This approximation must have gone on increasing, for under the empire a drachm was equal to a Roman denarius, which in the time of Tiberius weighed 69.8 Parisian grains. Four denarii were equal to 279 Parisian grains; so that, if the denarius is regarded as an Attic drachm, the sacred shekel may be correctly termed a tetradrachm. With this Josephus agrees (Ant. iii, 8, 2), who says that the shekel (aiKKog), a He- brew coin, contains four Attic drachms" (Kitto). See Drachma.