THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
NS
money, not of weight pure and simple (Ezek. xlv. 12; Ezra ii. 69). It may be concluded that in the earlier period the reckoning of weights by the mina was not the usual one. Of the relation of the mina to the shekel only late data are afforded; in Ex. Xxxvill. 25 the free-will offerings for the sanctuary of 603,550 individuals at half a shekel each amounted to 100 talents and 1,775 shekels, according to which the talent equaled 3,000 shekels, that is, a talent is 60 minas and a mina is 50 shekels. This is the reckoning prescribed by Ezekiel (xlv. 12), where the connection with the apparently new division of the shekel into twenty gera and the mina into 50 shekels makes the impression that Ezekiel is recommending either a new or a not-general method of reckoning for universal recognition; and this suspicion is confirmed by the history of the development of the Babylonian system of weights.
The talent (Hebrew kikkar, ‘ round,’”’ Septuagint and New Testament, talanton) is spoken of in con-
1 shekel 60 shekels 3,600 shekels
= 16.37 grams mina
= 1 = 60
heavy talent is reckoned as equivalent to 60,600 grams [or 133.56 lbs.], and the light or small talent at half that; the heavy mina at 1,010 grams [or about 2.214 Ibs.], and the light mina at half that; and the heavy shekel at'982.4 grams [or a little less than 2 lbs.]. A reckoning is given by Lehmann (Zeitschrift fir Hthnologie, 1889, p. 372) which makes the large mina from ten to twenty-two grams heayier. Alongside of the “‘ royal ” standard, then, was current a lighter ‘common ” standard. From the three weights which are known as coming from about 2000 s.c. Lehmann reckons the value of the light mina at 491.2 grams, and of the heavy at 982.4 grams. The smaller corresponds exactly to the Roman pound, according to the ordinary reckoning the equivalent of 327.45 grams. It was this smaller mina which passed over to the people of Hither Asia and therefore to the Hebrews. Confirmation of the equivalents stated here is the remark of Jo-
sephus (Ant., XIV., vii. 1) that the gold mina
{= .5778 02.]
=982.4 grams 2.165 Ibs.]
f=
minas=1 talent= 58.944 kilograms [= 129.9479 Ibs.]
Later AVOIRDUPOIS AND GoLD TABLE.
1 shekel 16.37 grams 50 shekels 1 mina 3,000 shekels
minas=1 talent= 49.11 kilograms [=108.29
.5778 o2.| 818.60 grams
[= 3 1.804 Ibs.] Ibs.]
[=
JEWISH SILVER.
1 shekel 14.55 grams 50 shekels 1 mina 3,000 shekels
minas=1talent= 43.659 kilograms [= 96
.5136 o2z.] =727.5 grams 1.6 Ibs.J
Ibs.]
[=
PERSIAN SILVER.
1 shekel 5.61-5.73 grams 100 shekels 1 mina 6,000 shekels 60
nection with gold (Ex. xxv. 39 and often), silver (Ex. xxxvili. 25, and often), copper, ‘‘ brass’ (Ex. Xxxvill. 29), and iron (I Chron. xxix.
2. The 7, where all four metals are mentioned). Talent; The data in the Old Testament are too Absolute scanty to afford a secure basis for cal- Values. culating either the relative or the ab-
solute magnitude of Hebrew weights; recourse must again be had to the Babylonian system, which unquestionably was at the basis of the Hebrew system. In the sixteenth century B.c., long before the settlement of the Hebrews in Palestine, all Syria and Palestine used the Babylonian weights, the tribute to the Egyptian overlord being so reckoned. In the inscription at Karnak there is evident the transference from Babylonian to Egyptian systems, with the former as the basis. Originally in the Babylonian system of weights the sexagesimal order prevailed, and a talent was 3,600 shekels or 60 minas. The weights, found by Layard, in the shape of a lion and a duck (cf. Benzinger, Archéologie, p. 195) show that, as in measures of length, two systems obtained, one of them double that of the other. The weights found in the excavations are usually inscribed as so many minas “of the king.” The
minas=1 talent= 34.380 kilograms [= 68.1
-178 02.] 561-573 grams
[= = 1.135 ]Jbs.] Ibs. J
i—
weighed two (Roman) pounds, the shekel therefore (one-fiftieth of a mina) was 16.37 grams, and consequently the mina of avoirdupois (of sixty shekels) would from this datum equal 982. 2 grams, almost that given above. The Hebrew shekel may therefore be set down as 16.37 grams, the avoirdupois mina (if such was in use) at 982.2 grams, and the talent as 58.944 kilograms [ut sup., where equivalents in ounces and pounds are given].
But in the course of time this system underwent change. While the talent of sixty minas remained, there is found in use among Greeks, Persians, and
Hebrews the division of the mina into 3. Changes fifty shekels; but while the shekel re- Introduced. tained its value, the mina and the
talent were correspondingly reduced. This alteration seems to have come from a mintage system, in which reckoning was based upon the shekel. Since this was found more convenient in use, 3,000 being an easier number to reckon than 3,600, the same division passed over into the system of weights, and there came into use an avoirdupois talent of 3,000 shekels. There is here the beginning of that strife between the decimal and the
sexagesimal system which has waged ever since.
293 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA RATA pa ey pert
Support for the former came from Egypt, mediated by the Phenicians. The influence of the decimal system is seen in the priest code, and first near the time of the exile this method made its way among the Israelites. Inasmuch as the shekel always remained the same, it is not with the change just spoken of that the priest code has to do when it speaks of the “shekel of the sanctuary.” It has been suspected by some that a standard shekel was kept in the Temple. This is possible, but in any case there is not involved a “common” weight which was according to the rabbis only half as large, of which there is no other indication. Yet it is known that the silver shekel of the coinage was smaller, weighing only 14.55 grams. Since in all cases where the adjunct “ of the sanctuary ”’ is given the discussion concerns payment to the sanctuary, it would be self-evident, if nothing more were said, that the expression “ shekel,’’ without reference to the shekel of mintage, would not be understood as referring to the shekel of avoirdupois. According to the preceding, the result will be the two tables for Hebrew weights, as given on page 292.
In both systems the small mina (which was not in use by the Hebrews) was half as large.
For use in commerce as currency, if the same system applied to gold and silver, great difficulty arose on account of the ratio of value (1 : 13) which was constant in antiquity. This ratio was one which was unusable as reduced to weight. Convenience, therefore, required another basis in the reckoning of values in silver and gold, a basis which would produce an easy subdivision with reference to the gold unit and on the other hand would fit well into the system of weights. So for gold there was in use the later proportion as given in the last table. The result was twofold.{ There came into being a silver shekel which was a tenth of the value of the gold shekel; but among Phenicians the silver shekel was one-fifteenth of the value of the gold shekel. This gives a weight for the Babylonian shekel (one-sixtieth of the small common mina) of 10.91 grams and for the Jews of 14.55 grams (since they had not the small mina); the silver shekel of the Maccabees varies between 14.50 and 14.65 grams. The tables for Jewish and Persian silver above will afford comparison with the tables of weights.