Featured What Was the Tribute Penny?

Thanks for the recommendation @Kentucky , but I can’t really comment because I don’t have one anymore. I generally only comment on coins that I own. I gave mine to one of the Bible study teachers at my church.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

...yeah, but I bet thirty pieces of silver you researched it.

 

Here is my favorite group 1, plain throne type. In hand the obverse corrosion is hardly noticeable.

 

This is a really good point I hadn't thought of. With the Gospels all being written 30-80 years after the Crucifixion, one has to wonder how much is history, how much is hearsay, and how much was invented for the sake of storytelling. Your rendition is a very plausible one, IMO.

 

Thanks for the comment. I believe you are wrong, if you mean to make a general point about the tariff of silver and gold coins always being entirely determined by their intrinsic metal value.

But my question was to do with how many people reading this thread agree with me, and so far it is apparently - none. That is why I am troubled.

Rob T

 

In the ancient world I think it was absolutely the determination of a coin's intrinsic bullion value that determined its value in the marketplace. It may have had some other added value in other circles but merchants and money changers knew full well that its intrinsic value, its real value, was its bullion value. To a great extent that remained so until recent times when governments were able to create the notion that it was their authority that determined the value of money, not the composition of it. Athenian Owls, Macedonian tetradrachmas, Roman denarii, Byzantine solidi Venetian ducats and Spanish reales had wide acceptance in the marketplace, not because of the authority of the issuing power, but because of the intrinsic value of the metal of which the coins were composed.

 

I’ve been asked this question almost every time a friend learn that I collect ancient Roman coins. My answer is : I don’t know, no one knows and nobody will ever know...Next question ?

 

Next question? Why do people keep asking?

 

You are certainly correct to say that international acceptance of coin would be much influenced by intrinsic value. I think you are also correct to say that Owls, solidi, ducats and reals got wide acceptance by being full bodied.

So what I am disagreeing with is just the blanket statement that such was always the case.

Nor am I surprised to find you make this comment, as it is exactly in line with many top academics. For instance the Nobel Laureate economist Thomas Sargent made a very similar sort of comment in a recent book sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank.

However, the evidence suggests that - for the 99% of the population who were not involved in international trade - the intrinsic value did not matter much, and generally ancient and medieval coins tariffed above their metal. And there are certainly tens of thousands of pages of evidence supporting that second view.

For now I will just cite the former Keeper of Coins at the BM Andrew Burnett who wrote a kind of BM beginners book "Coins" in 1991 which stated the general case, for the ancient and medieval world, that coin value was not at par, but above metal value.

So - I was surprised to be alone in making my criticism. (Thanks in spades to An Yang man for my single like!)

Rob T

PS About your denarius weighing 3.3g. Can you explain why you call it a "denarius"?

 

Thanks for the reply, Irbguy, and for the clarification. I appreciate the depth of your scholarship. I was misinformed or perhaps misunderstood the preface to a single anthology of New Testament Greek.

I also appreciate the depth of your passion for your religion. My error was not a deliberate lie. I did not know one thing to be true while convincing others of an untruth for my own benefit.

Also, I did not deny the validity of the Septuagint. I never mentioned it.

It is nice to know that the Greek texts are reliable if only for their support of numismatic research. "Coins of the Bible" is a popular topic. In particular, when Jesus and Peter were in Capernaum, in the NT I had, the coin that the Big Fisherman found was called a "statyr." It could have been many things, but was not a denarius or a tetradrachma. So, that would be helpful to someone pursuing a collection.

 

It's important to realize several things when it comes to using the New Testament for numismatic research:

1) We don't know for many coins of antiquity what ancient people called them and undoubtedly, the names of the coins varied from geographic area to area.

2) The people writing the texts were not numismatists and it's unrealistic to expect precision in their terminology.

3) The people writing the texts wrote them for Greek-speaking people under Roman rule and they often explain or translate Hebrew words and Jewish customs for their intended audience, going so far, for example, as noting the girl's name Tabitha means Δορκάς (gazelle) in Greek. When it comes to numismatic terminology, they typically explain coins to Greek-speaking Romans, calling the widow's offering "two leptons" and noting that this amount was equivalent to a quadrans (λεπτὰ δύο, ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης; Mark 12:42). Jesus warns people not to sue each other because they'll lose their "last quadrans" (ἔσχατον κοδράντην; Matt 5:26). The texts refer to the coin lost by a woman who sweeps her house to find it as a drachm (Luke 15:8-8) or the coin found in the fish's mouth as a stater (17:27).

Other times, terms are very vague, such as noting people would donate "bronze" (χαλκὸν) to the temple (Mark 12:41) or that some scrolls were worth 50,000 silver coins (ἀργυρίου μυριάδας πέντε; Acts 19:19).

Does this mean that Jesus routinely spent Roman denarii and quadrantes (which didn't actually circulate in Judea) and that widows in Jerusalem didn't use prutot, but lepta instead? As Saint Paul would say, μὴ γένοιτο! (by no means!). The numismatic terms used in the New Testament were chosen by the authors in order that people unfamiliar with the culture and coinage of ancient Judea would understand the scriptural teachings, just as these terms are translated into modern English-language terms in order to be understood by modern, English-speaking people. Hence, "penny" is used for "last quadrans" by the ESV and for "denarius" by the KJV.

In other words, when the scriptures say "lepton," "drachm," "denarius," "stater," or "quadrans," you can't assume they refer to the coins that modern numismatists think of.

 

Agreed. Let alone, the Testaments were written many decades, if not centuries, after the described event.

Even today; words, styles, points of perspective change a lot just within a decade. So many words, comments, colloquialisms that were common during my childhood and early adult years are not used or are frowned upon today. (Yeah, bummer.)

 

Excellent use of scholarship to demonstrate a point, which you did nicely.

 

If I were a Judaean merchant in 30 AD and a Roman soldier came to my shop to buy something with a denarius, the last thing that would cross my mind would be to weigh the coin and tell him that I would not accept it at full face value. As I understand ancient history and the relationship between the occupied and the occupiers, that would be just plain stupid.

 

I am hazy even about what we are unclear about with this tribute penny matter

Is the basic question something like –

A) there was an official payment system in place in Jerusalem c. 30 AD but we do not know what was,

or more like

B) the situation was so chaotic that even people back then had no clear consistent model to follow

A couple of bits of evidence that might seem relevant

One of the things St Epiphanius, in his “De mensuribus et ponderibus” (c. 390 AD?) seems to be trying to do is figure out the system in place in Jerusalem c. 30 AD.

There is an English translation of his text here, (but I recommend buying in asprin before you start!)

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc11.pdf

Further, Kletter has looked at some limestone weights from Jerusalem which he judges are from the right period (c. 30 BC to 70 AD) . He figures their mina/libra as c. 375g – lower than Attic, but higher than Roman. He suggests they might represent a "mina" of 100 Republican denarii……………….

https://www.academia.edu/19833845/2...Roman_Period_Limestone_Weights_from_Jerusalem

arghhhhhhh

Rob T

 

Thanks for that bit of research. For those who would like to plow through the more relevant portions, try picking up the text at about page 60. What I got out of this is that nobody, including the author, can tell us just what the Tribute Penny was. I also got the impression that the system of weights and measurements in use in the ancient world was so arcane that nobody had a grasp of the various systems in general use except in a more regional way and for a short period of time. I use to think that gladiators in the ancient world had a tough job but I now think the money changers had it infinitely worse, a career nasty, brutish and short. By the way, I sure hope this guy was not canonized for his actuarial skills.

 

Thanks for the fun reply Kevin.

Here is something (a joke?) from Horace that is perhaps worth thinking on?

[Teacher] Now let the son of Albinus say – if from five twelfths one twelfth is taken.
What remains?

[Pupil] One third

[Teacher] Ah! - you will be able to guard guard your wealth.
One twelfth is added – what is it?

[Pupil] One half

 

Clearly demonstrating the importance of a duodecimal system of calculating for the Romans.

 

Yes. Especially important in probate - the sharing out of a legacy etc, but of course in connection with a 12 ounce pound. As best I recall the Romans invented a 12 ounce pound, then it got carried on in Islam, Italy and England etc,

However, just before the extract I quoted Horace talks about how in the old days pupils divided the As into 100 parts. The only way I can make sense of that is he is really thinking about the Greeks dividing the Attic Mina into 100 (drachms) and he is also thinking of the heavy old As weighing a libra, but erroneously thinking a mina was a libra. Anyone see a plan B on that?

Speaking in general, my personal view, there are two very basic cultures with number, those who keep written records who tend to like decimal structures, and those who weigh real stuff who prefer binary (pounds and ounces). Duodecimal is a kind of compromise position…….

The Eastern part of the Roman empire inherited decimal systems from Greeks, Phoenicians and Egyptians, and it seems to me never really threw them off. I think we start to see that decimal stuff creep back in for instance when Diocletian makes one new ‘real’ denarius (argentus) equal 100 old ‘book’ ones (hope I got that right).

But we do find strong binary structures in Roman coins too:

quadrans x 4 = as x 4 = sestertius x 4 = denarius (Augustus - I think)

Perhaps the weirdest thing is that the Greeks, Romans and ourselves still use Babylonian base 60 for time, (hours, minutes, seconds) – no change for more than 4,000 years it seems.

Any how, apologies if anyone saw the below before – but there is more stuff like this here:

https://www.academia.edu/s/db1878a859/puzzles-about-roman-weight-standards

In case of interest - I just set up discussion session on the paper – link should be here:

https://www.academia.edu/s/db1878a859/puzzles-about-roman-weight-standards?source=link

(Let me know if you try but this fails)

Rob T

 

We too easily think of ten as being "natural" and wonder why 12 was used. If you use your thumb for a pointer, you can count off twelves on the joints of the other four fingers. That is "natural."

Also, of course 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6, whereas 10 only has 2 and 5 as factors (apart from itself and 1). Yet, 12x5 = 60, which correlates to the much older sexagesimal system.

I point out, also, that such large numbers - numbers beyond 3 - were invented only after about 6000 BCE. The Indo-European languages only go back to about 4000 BCE and they all borrowed the name for "seven" from the Semitic peoples they met. "Eight" probably goes back to four-four. And so on.

Finally, remember, that even into the 19th century, the German states used 12ths of a thaler (including 3rds). Despite the arguments of both Jefferson and Hamilton (together, interestingly), the USA did not adopt a wholly decimal system, but struck the quarter silver dollar and quarter gold eagle, rather than fifths.