Moab, Moabites – Mooli

Moab, Moabites

Moab occupied the lofty table-land to the east of the Dead Sea. It was bounded on the E. by the Arabian desert, on the S. by the land of Edom, on the W. by the Dead Sea and Jordan Valley. Its N. boundary fluctuated at different periods between the Arnon and an indistinct line some distance north of Heshbon. This table-land is elevated some 3000 feet above the level of the Mediterranean, and 4300 feet above the Dead Sea. It is traversed by three deep valleys, the middle one of which, the Arnon, is the deepest, and is often mentioned in the Bible. The northern portion consists of broad stretches of rolling country, the reddish soil of which is fertile, while in the southern portion more hills are found, and the deep wrinkles interfere more with agriculture. In the winter months the rainfall is adequate, and renders the country very desirable in comparison with the deserts on its border.

In the earliest times known to us this land was called Lotan (Egyp. Ruten), or Lot. The narrative of Gn. 19, which makes Lot (wh. see) the father of Moab, apparently means that the Moabites settled in this land of Lot. The meaning of Moab is undetermined. The etymology of Genesis 19:37 (LXX) is not philological, and modern guesses are uncertain.

The narrative of Genesis 19 shows that the Israelites recognized the Moabites as their kinsmen. That they really were such, their language, rehgion, and customs, so far as knovrai to us, also testify. Probably, then, the Moabites came with the wave of Aramaean migration which brought the Israelites, secured a foothold in the land of Lotan while the Israelites were still nomads, and adopted the Canaanitish speech of the people among whom they settled. Sayce believes they were settled in this territory by c. B.C. 1300, for Bameses ii., he thinks, alludes to the country Moab (cf. Patriarchal Palestine, p. 22), but this lacks confirmation.

At the time of the|approach of the Hebrews to Palestine the Moabites were so strongly intrenched in their land that the invaders avoided all conflict with them {Dt 2:9, Judges 11:15, 2 Chronicles 20:10), although they conquered king Sihon, who had subdued all of Moab north of the Arnon (Numbers 21:21–31, Deuteronomy 2:24–35). The Moabites viewed the coming of Israel with alarm, and desired to attack them, but did not dare (Nu 22-24, Deuteronomy 23:4, Judges 11:25).

According to the Priestly narratives, the Israelites secured at this time the territory north of the Arnon; but the narratives differ as to whether its cities were all assigned to Reuben (so Joshua 13:15–21), or whether some of the most southerly (Dibon, Ataroth, and Aroer) were assigned to Gad (Numbers 32:34 ff.). Perhaps the latter view represents the fact. The Gadites obtained some of the southern cities, and the Reubenites some of the northern. Probably the conquest was not very complete.

Early in the period of the Judges, the Moabites not only had regained control of all this territory, but had extended their power into western Palestine so as to oppress the Benjamites (Judges 3:12–30). This led to the assassination of Eglon, king of Moab, by Ehud. In course of time the Moabites absorbed the tribe of Reuben, though the latter maintained their identity for a considerable period.

According to the Book of Ruth, friendly intercourse existed between Moab and Israel at this period. Saul fought with the Moabites’ (1 Samuel 14:47). but with what result we do not know. Towards the end of his reign they aided David against him (1 Samuel 22:3 ff.). David subjugated Moab, and rendered the country tributary to Israel (2 Samuel 8:1, 2, 12). This subjugation apparently continued during the reign of Solomon, for he had Moabitish women in his harem, and built a shrine for Chemosh, the god of Moab (1 Kings 11:1, 7).

After the reign of Solomon, Moab apparently gained its independence. Our next information comes from the so-called ‘Moabite Stone,’ an inscription of Mesha, king of Moab, found at the ancient Dibon, and now preserved in the Louvre. Mesha states that Omri, king of Israel, conquered Moab, and that Moab continued subject to Israel till the middle of the reign of Ahab, when Chemosh enabled him (Mesha) to vrin victories over Israel, which secured Moabitish independence, and which he describes in detail. A somewhat confused allusion to this is found in 2 Kings 3:1 ff.: Jehoram, Ahab’s successor, undertook, with the aid of Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom, to reduce Moab once more, and almost succeeded, The country was overrun, the capital besieged and reduced to great extremity, when the king of Moab sacriflced to Chemosh his firstborn son on the city wall in sight of both armies (2 Kings 3:27). The courage which this aroused in the Moabites, and the superstitious dread which it excited in the besieging army, secured a victory for the former. It appears from 2 Kings 13 that after this, Moabites frequently invaded Israel.

Amos (2:1–3) in the next century reproved Moab for barbarities to Edom, and Tiglath-pileser in. of Assyria enumerates the king of Moab among his tribute-payers {.KIB ii. 20). Sennacherib, alJout b.c. 700, received tribute from Chemosh-nadab, king of Moab {KIB ii. 91), and the country remained vassal to Assyria during the following reigns of Esarhaddou and Ashurbanipal (cf. KIB ii. 148, 238).

Moabites aided Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim at the very end of the same century (2 Kings 24:2). Isaiah 15. 16, Zephaniah 2:8–11, Jeremiah 48, and Ezekiel 25:8 ff. contain prophecies against Moab, but do not add to our knowledge of the history. Jeremiah 48 indicates that a great calamity was impending over them. In Nehemiah 4:7 Arabians rather than Moabites are allies of the Ammonites (cf . also 1 Mac ga2.t! and Jos. Ant. xiii. xiii. 5, xiv. i. 4). We know that the Nabatasans were in possession of this country a little later, and it is probable that by the time of Nehemiah they had tor ever brought the Moabite power to an end. Some infer from Jeremiah’s prophecy that Moab rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar as Israel and Ammon did, and that he carried enough of them captive to weaken them and render them an easy prey to the Nabatseans. Possibly this is true, but we know nothing of it.

The language of the Moabites was, as the Moabite Stone shows, identical with that of Israel. That peculiar construction known as Waw Consecutive is found, outside of Biblical Hebrew, only in the Moabite Stone and one or two Phoenician inscriptions.

The religion of the Moabites was very similar to that of early Israel. The references to Chemosh in Mesha’s inscription are very similar to references to Jahweh in Israelitish writings of the same period. The Divine name Ashtar-Chemosh indicates that the worship of the feminine divinity known to the Babylonians as Ishtar, and to the Phoenicians as Astart, was also mingled with the worship of Chemosh. Traces of the repellent nature of this worship appear in the OT (Numbers 25:5 31:16, Joshua 22:7, Psalms 106). No great ethical prophets, such as elevated the rehgion of Israel, rescued the religion of Moab from the level of its barbaric Semitic origin.

Geokqe a. Barton.

Moadiah

See Maadiah.

Mochmur

A wady apparently S.E. of Dothan (Judith 7:18).

Modin

A village in the ShephSlah, never mentioned in the OT, but of great importance as the home of the Maccabees. Here Mattathias, by slaying a Jew who conformed to the paganizing commands of Antiochus, struck the first blow for Jewish religious freedom (1 Maccabees 2:1–28). He was buried at Modin (2:70). as were his illustrious sons Judas (9:19) and’ Jonathan (13:25). Simon here built an elaborate monument with seven pyramids, commemorative of his father, mother, and four brethren, with great pillars around, and bas-reliefs of military and naval triumphs. This splendid monument could be seen at sea. It stood for about 500 years, after which it seems to have disappeared; and with it was lost all recollection of the site of Modin. This has been recovered in recent years in the little village of d-Medyeh, near Lydd. There are numerous rock-tombs about, some of them traditionally known as Qabur el-Yehttd, or ‘the Jews’ tombs,’ but nothing is to be seen in any way suggestive of the Maccabffian mausoleum. R. A. S. Macalisteh.

Moeth

Moeth (1 Es 85S)=Noadiah of Ezra 8.

Mole

1. tinshemelh, Leviticus 11 (av ‘mole,’ RV ■chameleon’ ; but same word is in Leviticus 11:18 and Deuteronomy 14 tr. AV ‘swan,’ RV ‘horned owl’). See Chameleon.

2. chaplOr-perSth (T burrowing animals’), Isaiah 2:20. may apply to rats, mice, jerboas, etc., as well as ‘moles.’ The true insectivorous mole does not occur in Palestine, but the rodent Spalax typMics, the mole rat, is very common. It lives entirely underground, has most rudimentary eyes, and makes very long burrows. It is gregarious, and large areas are sometimes covered thick with its hillocks. E. W. G. Mabterman.

Molech, Moloch

A deity worshipped by the Israelites, especially by the people of Judah, towards the close of the monarchy. Melech (‘king’) was evidently the title of this god; and the present form is due to the combination of the original consonants with the vowels of bBsheth (‘shame’). The passages in which reference to this divinity is probably found are Lv 1821 202-s, 1 Kings 11:7. 2 Kings 23:10. Isaiah 30:33 57:9. Jeremiah 32:35. The chief feature of the worship seems to have been the sacrifice of children. Its special centre was just outside Jerusalem, at a place in the Valley of Hinnom called the Topheth (which see). The cult was introduced, according to 1 Kings 11:7. by Solomon. If the reference here is an error (see below), Ahaz may have; been the innovator (2 Kings 16:3). At any rate, it flourished in the 7th cent, b.c, as we gather from prophetic denunciation and the legislation of Deuteronomy. Manasseh sacrificed his son (2 Kings 21:6). Josiah suppressed the worship and defiled Topheth. But under Jehoiakim this worship revived, and continued till the Captivity.

As to the identity of Melech, tljgre is an interesting question . Very ancient tradition identifies him with Milcom (wh. see) , the national god of Ammon . But tne only basis for this view which the Heb. text of the OT furnishes is 1 Kings 11:7. the Gr.VSS offer evidence that the original reading in this passage may have been ‘Milcom,’ as in v. 5 and v.. On the other hand, we are told that, while Melech was worshipped at Topheth , the sanctuary of Milcom was on the Mount of Olives (2 Kings 23:13). Moreover, this cult seems to have been regarded as Canaanitish in origin (Deuteronomy 12:29–31 i8_‘-i^). Again, we learn from many sources that the most atrocious child-sacrifice was a prominent feature in the public religion of the Phcenicians, both in their Palestinian homeland and in Carthage; and in this connexion we find constanCref erence to the pi t of fire into which the victims were cast (see Topheth). Among other Semitic peoples also there are occasional instances of the offering of children, but not as a regular practice such aa we are considering.

Melech is a title of many Semitic deities, and in the OT is frequently applied to Jahweh. We find that the object of this worship is also called Baal (‘master’) (Jeremiah 19:5 32:35). This is likewise a title of numerous Semitic divinities, and is sometimes used of Jahweh (see Baal). When the name ‘Baal’ is used in the OT with specific reference to a particular god. it means Melkarth of Tyre (1 Kings 16:32. 2113 8:18, 27 ioi8-3? 11:18). xhe prophets undoubtedly regarded the cult as foreign, and as an apostasy to heathenism. But docs this necessarily prove that Melech was a false god? Jeremiah’s protest that Jahweh had not required these sacrifices (7:31 19:5 32) would seem to imply that the people did not regard this as the worship of another god. Indeed, Ezekiel goesf urther, and claims that Jahweh Himself gave them these statutes that are not good,’ and sacrifices of the firstborn, because they had rejected purer worship (Ezekiel 20). On the whole, the evidence seems to indicate that this cultus was due to Phrenician infiuence, and was introduced because of popular misunderstanding of the laws relating to the giving of the firstborn to Jahweh. The origin of such a cult, together with a possible more or less complete identification with Melkartn, would explain the constant use of the titles’ Melech’ and ‘Baal’ rather than the name ‘Jahweh.’

W. M. Nesbit.

Molid

The name of a Judahite family (1 Chronicles 2:29).

Moloch

See Molech.

Molten Sea

See Temple, § 6 (c) ‘Brazen Sea.’

Momdis

Momdis (1 Esdras 9:34) =Maadai, Ezra 10:34.

Monet

1. Antiquity of a metallic currency: weights and values. — That the precious metals, gold and silver, and to a less extent copper, were the ordinary media of exchange in Palestine from a time long prior to the appearance there of the Hebrews, is now amply attested by evidence from Egypt and Babylonia, and even from the soil of Palestine itself. The predominance of silver as the metal currency for everyday transactions is further shown by the constant use in Hebrew literature of the word for ‘silver’ (keseph) in the sense of ‘money.’

As there can be no question of the existence of coined money in Palestine until the Persian period, the first step in the study of the money of OT is to master the system of weights adopted for the weighing of the precious metals. Money might indeed be ‘told’ or counted, but the accuracy of the ‘tale’ had to be tested by means of the balance; or rather, as we see from such passages as 2 Kings 12:10, 11 (RV), money was told by being weighed. Now, all the weight-systems of Western Asia, and even of Europe, had their origin in Babylonia (for details see Weights and Measures) . There, as required by the sexagesimal system of reckoning, the ancient unit of weight, the manu (Heb. maneh as in Ezekiel 45:12 — elsewhere in EV ‘pound’) or mlna, which weighed 7580 grains on the fight, and 15,160 on the heavy standard, was divided into 60 shekels, while 60 minas went to the higher denomination, the talent. It will thus be seen that the light Babylonian trade shekel weighed, neglecting fractions, 126 grains troy, and the heavy shekel 252. The foimer, it will be useful to remember, was but three grains heavier than a British gold sovereign.

As this weight-system spread westwards with the march of Babylonian civilization and commerce, it came into confiict with the decimal system of calculation, and a compromise was effected, which resulted in the mina being reduced to 50 shekels, while the talent remained at 60 minas, although reduced in weight to 3000 shekels. That the Hebrew talent by which the precious metals were weighed contained 3000, not 3600, shekels may be seen by a simple calculation from the data of Exodus 38: Further, the heavy Babylonian shekel of 252 grains remained in use among the Hebrews for the weighing of gold until NT times. For this we have the express testimony of Josephus, who tells us (.Ant. XIV. vii. 1) that the Hebrew gold mina was equal to 24 Roman pounds. On the basis of 5053 grains to the libra or pound, this gives a shekel of 252S grains, the exact weight of the heavy Babylonian shekel of the common or trade standard.

For the weighing of silver, on the other hand, this shekel was discarded for practical reasons. Throughout the East in ancient times the ratio of gold to silver was 13J : 1, which means that a shekel of gold could buy 13i times the same weight of silver.

The latest explanation of this invariable ratio, it may be added in passing, is that advocated by Wmckler and his foUowera. On this, the so-called ‘astral mythology theory of the origin of Babylonian culture, gold, the yellow metal, was specially associated with the sun, while the paler silver was the special ‘moon-metal.’ Accordingly it was natural to fix the ratio between them as that which existed between the year and the month, viz. 360 : 27 or 40 : 3.

In ordinary commerce, however, this ratio between the two chief media of exchange was extremely inconvenient, and to obviate this inconvenience, the weight of the shekel for weighing silver was altered so that a gold shekel might be exchanged for a whole number of silver shekels. This alteration was effected in two ways. On the one hand, along the Babylonian trade-routes into Asia Minor the light Babylonian shekel of 126 grains was raised to 168 grains, so that 10 such shekels of silver now represented a single gold shekel, since 126 X134 = 168 X10. On the other hand, the great commercial cities of Phoenicia introduced a silver shekel of 224 grains, 15 of which were equivalent to one heavy Babylonian gold shekel of 252 grains, since 252 X 134=224 X15. This 224-grain shekel is accordingly known as the Phoenician standard. It was on this standard that the sacred dues of the Hebrews were calculated (see § 3); on it also the famous silver shekels and half-shekels were struck at a later period (§ 5).

With regard, now, to the intrinsic value of the above gold and silver shekels, all calculations must start from the mint price of gold, which in Great Britain is £3, 17s. lOid. per ounce of 480 grains. This gives £2, Is. as the value of the Hebrew gold shekel of 252 gis., and since the latter was the equivalent of 15 heavy Phoenician shekels, 2s. 9d. represents the value as bullion of the Hebrew silver shekel. Of course the purchasing power of both in Bible times, which is the real test of the value of money, was many times greater than their equivalents in sterling money at the present day.

The results as to weights and values above set forth may be presented in tabular form as follows: —

Denomination.

Weight. Intrinsic Value. Gold — Shekel . Mina = 60 shekels Talent=3000 "

SiLVEB— Shekel . . . Mina

Talent .

2S25’‘gr3. troy. 12,630 " " 758,000 " " (circa 108 lbs. avoir.)

224i gra. troy.

11,225 " "

(raVm 1 lb. lOoz. avoir.)

673,500 gis. troy.

(circa 96 lbs. avoir.)

£2 1 0

102 10 0

6150 0 0 0 2 9 6 16 8

410 0 0

Since the effective weight of the extant shekels is somewhat under the theoretical weight above given, the intrinsic value of any number of shekels of silver may be found with sufficient accuracy by equating the shekel roughly with our half-crown (2s. 6d.).

Although we have literary and numismatic evidence for the gold and silver shekels of these tables only, it may now be regarded as certain that other standards were in use in Palestine in historic times for weighing the precious metals. The best attested is that which the present writer, in his article ‘Weights and Measures’ in Hastings’ DB iv. 904 f., termed the ‘Syrian 320-grain unit,’ a shekel which is A’h o’ a heavy Baby- Ionian mina of 16,000 grains. That the light shekel of this standard, represented by the now familiar weights of 160 grains or thereby, inscribed netseph, was used for weighing silver or gold or both is evident from the small denominations which have been recovered, such as the quarter netseph of 40 grs., known as the Chaplin weight (see op. cit. and PEFSt, 1903, p. 197, 1904, p. 209 fl., and later years).

2. Money in the pre-exilic period. — Throughout the whole of this period, as has already been emphasized, in every transaction involving the payment of sums of considerable value, the money was reckoned by weight. Accordingly, when Abraham bought the field and cave of Machpelah he ‘weighed to Ephron the silver . . . four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant’ (Genesis 23). In view of what has just been said regarding the variety of standards in use in Palestine in early times, it would be unwise, in the present state of our knowledge, to pronounce as to the value of the price paid in this transaction. On the Phoenician standard it would be approximately £55 sterling; on the netseph standard, which stands to the Phoenician in the ratio of 6 : 7, it would be under £40. Similarly, the price which David paid for the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, 50 shekels of silver (2 Samuel 24:24). will vary from £6 to £7 according to the standard adopted. On the other hand, where gold is concerned, as in the case of the 30 talents which Sennacherib ‘appointed unto Hezekiah’ (2 Kings 18:14). we may with some confidence assume the gold standard common to Palestine and Assyria. In this case Hezekiah’s tribute will represent the respectable sum of £184,500.

A noteworthy feature of the entries of prices in the pre-exilic writings of the Hebrews is the disappearance of the mina, the sums being stated in terms of shekels and talents exclusively. Thus Abraham, as we have seen, paid 400 shekels, not 8 minas, to the children of Heth; the weight, and therefore the value, of Achan’s ‘wedge of gold’ (see next paragraph) is given as 50 shekels, not as 1 mina, and so throughout.

In this period the precious metals circulated in three forms. The shekel, its subdivisions (cf. the quartershekel of 1 Samuel 9:8) and smaller multiples, had the form of ingots of metal, without any stamp or other mark, so far as our evidence goes, as a guarantee of their purity and weight. Larger values were made up in the shape of bars, such as Schhemann discovered at Troy and Macalister found at Gezer (illust. Bible Sidelights, etc., fig. 36). The ‘wedge (lit.’ tongue’) of gold’ which Achan appropriated from the loof of Jericho (Joshua 7:21) was probably such a thin bar of gold. Further, Rebekah’s nose-ring of half a shekel of gold, and her bracelets of ten shekels (Genesis 24:22). represent a third form which the metal currency of the early period might assume. The vases and other vessels of gold and silver which are so frequently mentioned in ancient tribute hsts also, in all probability, represented definite weights and values.

To such an extent was the shekel the exclusive unit in all ordinary transactions, that the Hebrew writers frequently omit it in their statements of prices. This applies to gold as well as to silver, e.g. 2 X5’ ‘six thousand’ of gold, where AV and RV supply ‘pieces,’ but RVm has the correct ‘shekels’ (cf. silverling [wh. see] in Isaiah 7:23).

3. Money in the Persian period: introduction of coins. — In this period the money of the small Jewish community was still, as before the Exile, chiefly ingots and bars of the precious metals, without official mark of any kind. The addition of such a mark by the issuing authority serves as a public guarantee of the purity of the metal and the weight of the ingot, and transforms the latter into a coin. Coined money is usually regarded as the invention of the Lydians early in the 7th cent. B.C., but it is very improbable that any ‘coins’ reached Palestine before the fall of the Jewish State in B.C. 587. The first actual coins to reach Jerusalem were more probably those of Darius Hystaspis <B.o. 522-485), who struck two coins, the daric in gold, and the sigloB or siklos (from shekel) in silver. The daric was a light shekel of 130 grains — 7 grains heavier than our ‘sovereign’ — worth twenty-one shillings sterling. The slglos was really a half-shekel of 86i grains, equal therefore to Ath of the daric, on the tenshekel basis set forth in § 1, or a traction more than a shilling.

In several passages of Chron., Ezr., and Neh. the RV has substituted ‘darics’ for AV ‘drams’ (1 Chronicles 29:7, Ezra 2:69. Nehemiah 7:70 ff. etc.). But there are valid reasons (see " Money’ in Hastings’ DB ill. 421) for retaining the older rendering in the sense, not of coins, but of weights. On the other hand, since Nehemiah was a Persian ofBcial, the ‘forty shekels of silver’ of Nehemiah 5:15 may be Persian sigloi, although they may with equal probability be regarded as shekels of the usual Phoenician standard. There is, of course, no question of the Jewish community striking silver coins of their own, this jealously guarded right being then, as always, ‘the touchstone of sovereignty.’

In this period, however, the wealthy commercial cities on the Phoenician seaboard — Aradus, Sidon, Tyre, and others — acquired the right of issuing silver coins, which they naturally did on the native standard. The effective weight of these shekels or tetradrachms, as they are usually termed, averages about 220 grains, a few grains short of the normal 224. These coins have a special interest for the Bible student, from the fact that they are the numismatic representatives of ‘the shekel of the sanctuary,’ which is prescribed in the Priests’ Code as the monetary unit of the post-exilic community (see Leviticus 27:25 ‘all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary’). In Exodus 30:13 and elsewhere this shekel is said to consist of 20 gerahs, which the Greek translators identified with the small silver obol of the Gr. coinage, 20 of which yield a shekel of 224 grains. Moreover, it is repeatedly stated in the Talmud that ‘all payments according to the shekel of the sanctuary are to be made in Phoenician currency’ (Mishna, Bekhoroth, viii. 7). For the mode of payment of the half-shekel tax for the Temple services see § 7.

4. Money in the period from Alexander to the Maccabees. — Alexander’s conquest of Syria was naturally followed by the introduction of his coinage in gold, silver, and bronze. On his death, Ptolemy i. established himself in Egypt, to which he soon added Palestine. During the following century (b.c. 301-198) the Jews had at their command the coins of the Ptolemaic dynasty, struck at Alexandria on the Phoenician standard, as well as those of the flourishing cities on the Mediterranean. The tribute paid by the Jews to the third Ptolemy did not exceed the modest sum of 20 talents of silver, or circa £4360.

In B.C. 198 Antiochus in. wrested Palestine from the Ptolemys. Now the Seleucids had continued Alexander’s silver coinage on the Attic standard, the basis of which was the drachm of, originally, 67 grs., but the effective weight of the Syrian drachms and tetradrachms of this period is slightly below this standard, and may be valued at lid. and 3s. 8d. respectively. The drachms (Tobit 5:14. 2 Maccabees 4 12*0 and talents (6000 drachms) of the Books of Maccabees are to be regarded as on this Syrian-Attic standard.

5. The first native coinage: the ‘problem of the’ shekel of Israel’ — In b.c. 139-138 Antiochus Sidetes granted to Simon Maccabaeus the right to coin money (see 1 Mac 15:5 f.). ‘The thorniest question of all Jewish numismatics,’ as it has been called, is the question whether and to what extent Simon availed himself of this privilege. A series of silver shekels and half-shekels on thePhcenician standard, bearing dates from ‘year 1’ to ‘year 5,’ has long been known to students. They show on the obverse and reverse respectively a cup or chalice and a spike of a lily with three flowers. The legends in old Hebrew letters on the shekels are: obv. ‘Shekel of Israel’; rev. ‘Jerusalem the holy’ (see illust. in plate accompanying art. ‘Money’ in Hastings’ DB iii. Nos. 14, 15; Reinach, Jewish Coins, pi. ii.; and more fully in Madden’s Ccdns of the Jews — the standard work on Jewish numismatics, 67 ft.). Only two alternatives are possible regarding the date of these famous coins. Either they belong to the governorship of Simon Maccabseus who died b.c. 135, or to the period of the great revolt against Rome, a.d. 66-70. The latest presentation of the arguments for the earlier date will be found in M. Theodore Reinach’s book cited above. It is not a point in his favour, however, that he is compelled to assign the shekels of the year 5 to John Hyrcanus, Simon’s son and successor.

The present writer is of opinion that the arguments he has advanced elsewhere in favour of the later date (DB ill. 424 t., 429 f.) still hold good. In this case the earliest Jewish coins will be certain small bronze coins struck by the above-mentioned Hyrcanus (b.c. 135-104), with the legend in minute old Hebrew characters: ‘John, the high priest, and the commonwealth (or the executive) of the Jews.’ The title of ‘king’ first appears on bronze coins of Alexander Jannaeus — ‘Jonathan the king’ — who also first introduced a Greek, in addition to a Hebrew, legend. No silver coins, it may be added, were struck by any of Simon’s successors, or even by the more powerful and wealthier Herod. The bronzes of the latter present no new feature of interest.

6. Money in Palestine under the Romans. — From a numismatic point of view Judaea may be said to have formed a part of the Roman dominions from b.c. 63, from which date the Roman monetary unit, the silver denarius, with its subdivisions in copper, as quadrans, etc., was legal tender in Jerusalem. Since the denarius was almost equal in weight to the Syrian-Attic drachm (§ 4) — the silver unit throughout the Seleucid empire — the two coins were regarded as of equal value, and four denarii were in ordinary business the equivalent of a tetradrachm of Antioch.

The Roman gold coin, the aureus, representing 25 denarii, varied in weight in NT times from 126 to 120 grains. Since a British ‘sovereign’ weighs a little over 123 grains, the aureus may for approximate calculations be reckoned at £1. Similarly the denarius from Augustus to Nero weighed 60 grs. — our sixpenny piece weighs 43.6 grs. — and was equal to 16 copper asses. To reach the monetary value of the denarius in sterling money, which is on a gold standard, we have only to divide the value of the gold aureus by 25, which gives 9id., say nine pence halfpenny for convenience, or a French franc.

In addition to these two imperial coins, the system based on the Greek drachm was continued in the East, and both drachms and tetradrachms were issued from the imperial mint at Antioch. In our Lord’s day Tyre still continued to issue silver and bronze coins, the former mainly tetradrachms or shekels on the old Phoenician standard (220-224 grs.). As the nearest equivalent of the Heb. shekel these Tyrian coins were much in demand for the payment of the Temple tax of one half-shekel (see next §). Besides all these, the procurators issued small bronze coins, probably the quadrans (i of an as), from their mint at Caesarea, not to mention the numerous cities, such as Samaria-Sebaste, which had similar rights.

7. The money of NT. — This article may fitly close with a few notes on each of the various denominations mentioned in NT. The currency was in three metals: ‘get you no gold nor silver nor brass (copper) in your purses’ (Matthew 10:9 RV). Following this order we have (o) the gold aureus here referred to only indirectly. Its value was £1 (see § 6). (6) The silver coin most frequently mentioned is the Roman denarius (AV and RV ‘penny,’ Amer. RV, more correctly, ‘shilling’). In Talue equal to a franc or 9id., it was the day’s wage of a Jewish labourer (Matthew 20:2). a typical denarius of our Lord’s day, with which the Roman dues were paid (22:19), would haveonits obverse the head of the Emperor Tiberius, and for ‘superscription’ the following legend in Latin- ‘Tiberius Cajsar, the son of the deified Augustus, (himself) Augustus’ (illust. No. 13 of plate in ‘Money,’ DB iii.). (c) The drachm on the Attic standard (§ 5) is named only Lis; 15:8: ‘what woman haying ten drachms (EV ‘pieces o£ silver’), if she lose one drachm,’ etc. In ordinary usage, as we have seen, it was the equivalent of the denarius, but for Government purposes it was tariffed at only f of the denarius. The 50,000 ‘pieces of silver’ (Ut. ‘silverlings’) of Acts 19:19 were denarius-drachms, (d) Once there is mention of a didrachm (Matthew 17:24 AV ‘tribute money,’ RV ‘the half-shekel’), but this was a two-drachm piece on the Phoenician standard, and was now very rare. Accordingly it was usual for two persons to join forces in pajdng the Temple tax of a half-shekel by presenting a Phoenician tetradrachm. This is (e) the ‘piece of money’ of v. 27. which RV has properly rendered by ‘shekel,’ with the word of the original, stater, in the margin. The thirty ‘pieces of silver’ for which Judas betrayed his Lord were also most probably Tyrian tetradrachms. Although these by Government tariff would be equal to only 90 denarii, their ordinary purchasing power was then equal to 120 denarii or francs, say £4, 16s. of our money.

Passing to the copper coins of the Gospels, we find three denominations in the original, the lepton, the kodrantes, and the assarion, rendered in Amer. RV by ‘mite,’ ‘farthing,’ and ‘penny’ respectively. Our EV, unfortunately, renders both the two last by ‘farthing,’ having used ‘penny’ for the denarius. There are great difficulties in the way of identifying these among the copper coins that have come down to us (for details see Hastings’ DB iii. 428 f., EBi iii. 3647). (0 The Upton, the widow’s mite (Mark 12:42. Luke 21:2). viras the smallest coin in circulation, probably one of the minute Maccabtean bronzes. Its value was between i and § of an English farthing, (g) Two mites made a kodrantes (Lat. quadrans), the ‘uttermost farthing’ of Matthew 5, which was either the actual Roman quadrans or Its equivalent among the local bronze coins. As A of the denarius, it was worth a trifle more than half a farthing, (h) The assarion is the ‘farthing’ (Amer. RV ‘penny’) associated with the price of sparrows (Matthew 10:29. Luke 12:6). and was a copper coin on the Greek system, probably the dichalkus, of which in ordinary business 24 went to the denarius-drachm. Its value would thus be about I of a penny. The relative values of the three coins may be represented by A, i, and i of a penny respectively.

There remain the two larger denominations, the talent and the pound or mina, neither of which was any longer, as in the earher period, a specific weight of bullion, but a definite sum of money, (i) The talent now contained 6000 denarius-drachms, which made 240 aurei or £240 (so Matthew 18:24 RVm). It is not always realized, perhaps, how vast was the difference in the amounts owing in this parable (IS^‘b-). The one servant owed 100 denarii, the other 10,000 talents or sixty milhon denarii. The one debt, occupying little more space than 100 sixpences, could be carried in the pocket; for the payment of the other, an army of nearly 8600 carriers, each with a sack 60 lbs. in weight, would be required. If these were placed in single file, a yard apart, the train would be almost five miles in length! (j) The pound, finally, of another parable (Luke 19:13 ff.) was a mina, the sixtieth part of a talent, in other words 100 denarius-drachms or £4 sterling.

For the later coinage of the Jews, which was confined to the two periods of revolt against the Roman power, in A.D. 66-70 and 132-135, in addition to what has been said above (§ 5) regarding the shekels and half-shekels here assumed to belong to the first revolt, see Madden and Reinach, opp. citt.; SchOrer, OJV^ i. 761 and Hastings’ DB iii. 429-431. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Money-changers

How indispensable were the services of the ‘money-changers’ (Matthew 21:12. Mark 11:15). ‘changers of money’ (John 2:14). ‘changers’ (v. 15), and ‘excnangers’ (Matthew 25:27 AV, RV ‘bankers’) in the first century of our era in Palestine may be seen from the summary of the varied currencies of the period in the preceding article (§§ 6. 7). The Jewish money-changer, UKe his modern counterpart the sarraf (for whom see PEFSt, 1904, p. 49 ff., wnere the complexity of excnange in the Palestine of to-day is grapnicady set forth) , cnanged the large denominations into the smaller, giinng aenarii, for example, for tetradrachms, and gave silver for gold, copper for silver. An Important department of his business was the exchange of foreign money and even money of the country of a non-Phcenician standard for shekels and half-shekels on this standard, the latter alone being accepted in payment of the Temple dues (cf . money, §§4.6.7). It was mainly for the convenience of the Jews of the Dispersion that the changers were allowed to set up their tables in the outer court of the Temple (Matthew 21:12 ff.). The wealthier members of the profession, the ‘exchangers’ (RV ‘bankers’) of Matthew 25:27 (cf. Luke 19:23). received money on deposit for purposes of investment, on which interest was paid (see TJstjky).

The money-changers had constantly to be on their guard against false money. This gives point to the frequently quoted unwritten saying (.affraphon) of our Lord to His disciples: ‘Be ye expert money-changer^’ — be skilful in distinguishing true doctrine from false.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

Month

See Time.

Monument

Isaiah 65:4. ‘which remain among the graves and lodge in the monuments,’ that is, among the tombs. In the Rhemish Version ‘monument’ is the usual word for tomb or sepulchre, after Vulg. monumentum. The reference in Is. is to the custom of obtaining oracles by incubation, that is, spending the night in subterranean sacred places.

Mooli

Mooli (1 Esdras 8:47) =Mahli, Ezra 8:18.