Postell gives a very bad wood-cut of one of these shekels,
SHEKEL
645
SHEKEL
but the inscription is correct. He was unable to explain the letters over the vase, which soon became the subject of a iliscussion among the learned men of P^urope, that lasted for iiearlj' two centuries. Their attempts to ex- plain them are enumerated by Bayer in his treatise De JVummis llebrieo-SamarUanis, which may be considered as the first work which placed the explanation of these coins on a satisfactory basis. But it would obviously be useless here to record so many unsuccessful guesses as Bayer enumerates.
Tlie work of Bayer, although some of the authors nearly solved the problem, called forth an antagonist in Prof. Tychsen, of Rostock, a learned Orientalist of that period. Several publications passed between them which it is unnecessary to enumerate, as Tychsen gave a sum- mary of his objections m a small pamphlet entitled O. G. Tychsen. De Numis Hebraicis Diatribe, qua simul ad Nuperas ill. F, P. Bayerii Objectiones Respondetur (Rostochii, 1791). His first position is, that (1) either all the coins, whether with Hebrew or Samaritan in- scriptions, are false ; or (2) if any are genuine, they be- long to Bar-cocheba (p. 6). This he modifies slightly in a subsequent part of the treatise (p. 52, 53), where he states it to be his conclusion (1) that the -Jews had no coined money before the time of our Saviour ; (2) that during the rebellion of Bar-cocheba (or Bar-coziba), Samaritan money was coined either by the Samaritans to please the .Jews, or by the Jews to please the Samar- itans, and that the Samaritan letters were used in order to make the coins desirable as amulets! and (3) that the coins attributed to Simon Maccabeus belong to this ])eriod. Tychsen has quoted some curious passages, but ins arguments are wholly untenable. In the first place, no numismatist can doubt the genuineness of the slie- kels attributed to Simon MaccabaeLis,or believe that they belong to the same epoch as the coins of Bar-cocheba. But as Tychsen never saw a shekel, he was not a com- petent judge. There is another consideration, which, if further demonstration were needed, would supply a very strong argument. These coins were first made known to Europe through Postell, who does not appear to have been aware of tlie description given of them in Rabbinical writers. The correspondence of the newly found coins with the earlier description is almost de- monstrative. But they bear such undoubted marks of genuineness that no judge of ancient coins could doubt them for a moment. Postell quotes, e. g., the following passage from the Jerusalem Talmud : "n^OTU "313^ (bbma) -bn^O ID^X Xn-itlD p "paD ("n^'U)," Rev- olution (Samaritan) money, like that ef Ben-Coziba, does not defile." The meaning of this is not very obvi- ous, nor does Tychsen's explanation appear quite satis- factory. He adds, " does not defile if used as an amu- let." We should rather inquire whether the expression may not have some relation to that of "defiling the hands," as applied to the canonical books of the Old I Test, (see Ginsburg, Commentary on the Song of Songs, p. 3). The word for polluting is diflferent, but the ex- pressions may be analogous. But, on the other hand, these coins are often perforated, which gives counte- nance to the notion that they were used as amulets. The passage is from the division of the Jerusalem Tal- mud entitled "^3'13 ~iO"^, Muaser Sheni, or "The Sec- ond Tithe."
It may here be desirable to mention that although some shekels are found with Hebrew letters instead of Samaritan, these arc undoubtedly all forgeries. It is the more needful to make this statement, as in some books of high reputation, e. g. Walton's Polyglot, these shekels are engraved as if thex' were genuine. It is hardly necessary to suggest the reasons which maj' have led to this series of forgeries. But the difference be- tween the two is not confined to the letters only; the Hebrew shekels are much larger and thinner than the Samaritan, so that a person might distinguish them merely by the touch, even under a covering. The char-
acter nearly resembles that of Samaritan MSS., although it is not quite identical witli it. The Hebrew and Sa- maritan alphabets appear to be divergent representa- tives of some older form, as may be inferred from sev- eral of the letters. Thus the lieih and several other letters are evidently identical in their origin. Also the "O (Shui) of the Hebrew alphabet is the same as that of the Samaritan : for if we make the two middle strokes of the Samaritan letter coalesce, it takes the Heb^ev.' form. We may add that Postell appears to have ar- ranged his Samaritan alphabet from the coins which he describes.
In the course of 1862 a work of considerable impor- tance was published at Breslau by Dr. M. A. Levy, en- titled Geschichte der jiidischen Miinzeii. It appears likely to be useful in the elucidation of the questions relating to the Jewish coinage which have been touched upon in the present article. There are one or two points on which it is desirable to state the views of the author, especially as he quotes coins which have oidy become known lately . Some coins have been described in the Revue Numismatique (1860, p. 260 sq.), to which the name of Eleazar coins has been given. A coin was published some time ago by De Saulcy which is sup- posed by that author to be a counterfeit. It is scarcely legible, but it appears to contain the name Eleazar on one side, and that of Simon on the other. During the troubles which preceded the final destruction of Jerusa- lem, Eleazar (the son of Simon), who was a priest, and Simon ben-Giora, were at the head of large factions. It is suggested by Dr. Levy that money may have been struck which bore the names of both these leaders; but it seems scarcely probable, as they do not appear to have acted in concert. Yet a copper coin has been pub- lished in the Revue Numismatique which undoubtedly bears the inscripton of " Eleazar the priest." Its types are — Obverse. A va^e with one handle and the Inscription