Achan’s second theft was silver, and that 200 shekels; concerning which — since various things are asked — I will briefly run through a few. 1. On the name. All agree that the name “shekel” [siclus] is entirely from the Hebrew שקל; and this [is] from the verb שקל [shakal], which is “to weigh out and to weigh” — partly because, as in many places even today, silver money used also to be weighed; partly because among the Hebrews this kind of coin was, as it were, the form and pattern by which they weighed [valued] all the other coins. But if the modern Hebrews’ system of [vowel-]points were to be held, it would rather be said seqel than shekel [siclus] — against all the Greek and Latin interpreters, and Josephus and Philo themselves. 2. On the figure. Since today great study is put into the investigation and understanding of ancient coins, many shekels are now everywhere to be seen; of which [shekels], of genuine silver, I have seen one or two — with several others of lead — with the most Reverend and Illustrious Julius, Bishop of Würzburg [Herbipolensis], a most great lover of learning and of all the learned; and another likewise of silver with the Noble and Distinguished Lord Bernhard von Rosenbach. And the figure of the former [shekel] was described by Antonio Agustín (dialogue 2), and depicted at the beginning; likewise by Arias Montanus in the Apparatus, and by Bellarmine at the end of [his] Hebrew Grammar; [and by] Villalpando on Ezekiel (Apparatus, bk. 2, On Weights, disp. 4, ch. 21 and following); R. Azariah [de’ Rossi] (bk. 3, ch. 56, fol. 171b); and, of all, as I think, first by Guillaume Postel (in the book On the Twelve Languages), in the Samaritan tongue and alphabet. But whether the form of the latter [shekel] has been rendered by anyone, I know not. I will set both before the reader’s eyes, giving two images for each — as it were, the two faces which each has.
[Figure: a row of four coin-engravings — two shekels, each shown obverse and reverse.]
The former shekel (in Samaritan / paleo-Hebrew letters): — Obverse: a chalice-like cup (the Urn of the manna), a mark at its mouth, encircled by the legend שקל ישראל (“Sheqel Yisrael,” “Shekel of Israel”). — Reverse: a triple-branched flowering rod (the budded rod of Aaron), encircled by the legend ירושלם קדשה (“Yerushalem Qedoshah,” “Jerusalem the Holy”).
The latter shekel (in ordinary square-Hebrew letters): — Obverse: a cup / censer with smoke rising from it (the daily incense), encircled by the legend שקל ישראל (“Shekel of Israel”). — Reverse: a flowering branch, encircled by the legend ירושלים הקדושה (“Yerushalayim ha-Qedoshah,” “Jerusalem the Holy”).
On the first face of the former [shekel] there is [an image], like a chalice — [the image] of that Urn in which the manna is said to have been stored (Exod. 16) — with “Lebanese” [Phoenician] or Samaritan letters, Seqel Israel, that is, “Shekel of Israel”; with an א [aleph] added, as it were, in the mouth of the chalice — of which afterward; but according to Beza and Masius, ש and מ [shin and mem, standing for] “Salomon Rex” [King Solomon]. On the other face of the same former coin there is a flower, which is said to signify the flowering rod of Aaron (Num. 17; Heb. 9); and, with the same letters, Ierusalem Kedoschah, that is, “Jerusalem the Holy.” On the latter [shekel], on one face there is the same [urn] — or rather a censer [acerra] of the daily incense, as the ascending smoke indicates; on the other face, the same flower. But on both, the inscriptions [are] the same — yet in the usual Hebrew letters. But before there was a tabernacle and ark, [that] the shekel had another figure cannot be doubted;
(col. 831)
can be doubted; nay, that among other peoples [it had] yet another. For the shekels which Achan took — the Jerichoite [ones] — did they not have other images?
3. On [its] antiquity. The antiquity of this coin is most clear from Gen. 2 [recte 23]:15, when Abraham bought, for Sarah’s burial, a field for four hundred shekels. But of those [shekels] which are shown today, the age I know not whether it can be traced back to those times in which Jerusalem either stood or was overthrown. For it is certain that some were struck in this very age, in imitation of older ones; but the older ones I almost suspect began first to be struck in these European shores about 400 years ago, [in imitation of] those which R. Moses of Gerona [Nachmanides] saw at Ptolemais, or Acre, and describes — [their] exemplar and pattern — at the end of his commentaries on the Pentateuch. For Arias Montanus interspersed in his book On the Shekel a little history — not unfitting for illustrating these [matters] — in these words: “R. Moses son of Nachman, of Gerona, relates that, in that year in which he was writing those [words] in Palestine, [having come thither] from Spain to visit the holy places — for having been brought to Acon, which they now call Iacham — there was shown to him by the inhabitants a most ancient silver coin, conspicuous with stamped signs and letters, on one side of which was the form of that little vessel which, full of Manna, had been placed in the sacred ark for a monument of the ages, by God’s command and Moses’s management; and on the other, that admirable branch which — [Aaron’s rod,] brought in among a bundle of very many rods under Aaron’s name (when his priestly dignity was being carried at by certain rivals) — on the following day all the people saw flowering and unfolding almonds. [And] that there were also inscriptions on the same coin in Samaritan characters, which of old had been the common letters of all Israel, before the secession of the ten tribes from the two, in plainly Hebrew language: the sample of which, on the one side, was Sekel Israel, which in Latin sounds ‘shekel of Israel’; on the other, Ierusalaim Kedessah, that is, ‘Jerusalem the Holy.’ Which coin proved a very great antiquity, as being struck in the name of Israel at that time when all twelve tribes by common concord held the name of Israel; and when Jerusalem was to them all the royal and holy city, and the same [system] was common to all — of religion, and of the commonwealth, and of the coinage, and of the letters — which afterward, the secession being made, was different for each part. For the Jews, as almost all writers assert, that they might have no communion in any use of sacred things with the schismatic Israelites, devised that form of letters which now too is in use — that is, the square [character] — the shapes of the former character being greatly changed.” Yet if from Ptolemais, or from any other part of Palestine, shekels have flown hither, the more ancient they are, the more genuine, and the more welcome to the students of these things.
4. On [its] weight. Rashi had written, on Exod. 39, that the shekel’s weight was half an ounce [semuncial]; or that the shekel is half an ounce. But R. [Moses] of Gerona, already cited, was reluctant to assent to him, writing on the same place. Yet, returned from Palestine, he corrected his opinion, and, in a certain special disputation at the end of his commentaries, subscribed to that former Rabbi [Rashi]. For he says that he put a shekel on the scales and carefully weighed [it], and found [it] altogether half an ounce. And this is the opinion received by all today, which from what follows will be still more explained and confirmed.
5. On [its] valuation, or price and value. Josephus (bk. 3, ch. 9): ὁ σίκλος νόμισμα Ἑβραίων ὢν, Ἀττικὰς δέχεται δραχμὰς τέσσαρας [ho siklos nomisma Hebraiōn ōn, Attikas dechetai drachmas tessaras] — “the shekel,” he says, “being a coin of the Hebrews, contains four Attic drachmas.” And he repeats the same in bk. 7 of the [Jewish War]. St. Jerome, on Ezekiel ch. 4, bk. 1: “the shekel,” he says, “that is, the stater, has four drachmas. And eight drachmas make a Latin ounce.” Hence indeed a comparison of the shekel to the coinage of the Romans and other peoples can be made however [one likes]. But [for] what is enough for this place, I say the shekel is worth 8 German batzen; 14 Belgic kreuzer; 4 Spanish reals; 4 Roman giulii; 2 Venetian mocenighi; French sous, according to Lyra, two — that is, 24 [petty Tours pennies]; small Tours [coins], according to the same Lyra on Exodus (who is refuted by all); according to Budé (bk. On the As), 14 sous — but this [was] true in his own time, says Maldonatus in the place cited, and Masius; twenty modern French sous, says Maldonatus (on Matt. 17, num. 24); [or] one franc, says the same Maldonatus in the same place. But against these [reckonings] there is one and another very weighty objection: that the Seventy [LXX], here and elsewhere, call the shekel διδράχμον [didrachmon, “a double-drachma”], and likewise St. Epiphanius (in the book On Weights and Measures). Then St. Jerome (on Gen. 24) and Isidore (bk. 16, ch. 24) say the shekel is an ounce. It will be answered more opportunely a little later.
6. On other names. We have already heard, from St. Jerome on Ezekiel, that it is also called “stater”; and it is clearly plain from Matthew ch. 17. Where, when the collectors of Capernaum were exacting from CHRIST the Lord and St. Peter two didrachmas — that is, 4 drachmas, or a shekel — the stater given [was found] in the fish caught; and therefore for the shekels of this Joshua-passage (ch. 7) Symmachus put “staters.” Again it is called ἀργύριον [argyrion, “a silver-piece”], “a silver [coin],” by our interpreter (Gen. 20:14; 2 [Sam.] ch. 18) — for which Josephus (bk. 7 of the Antiquities) puts “shekel,” and likewise the Chaldee [Targum]. Of the Xenophontic shekel, [more] afterward.
7. On [its] parts. 1. The smallest part of the shekel is called gerah [גרה], and of these there were 20 in it, as is had [at] Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27; Num. 3:47; Ezek. 45:12 and 25 — where the Seventy and our [Vulgate] render “obols.” But these are to be taken [as] Hebrew, not Greek, because 48 of these make an ounce, and therefore 24 [make] half an ounce, or a shekel. And the Hebrew [obol] was greater than the Attic obol by a fifth part. From gerah Arias [Montanus], in the cited place, derives the Arabic cerath [qirat / carat] — which, however, can be from the Greek physicians, among whom [there is] κεράτιον [keration, “carob-seed, carat”] and κερμάτιον [kermation, “small coin”]. 2. The second, larger part [is at] 1 Sam. 9:8, Rebah shekel keseph [רבע שקל כסף], that is, a quarter of a silver shekel: namely one drachma, two batzen, one real. 3. The larger part [is at] Neh. 10:32, schelischith hasshekel [שלישית השקל], a third, or the third part, of a shekel: 2 batzen, 4 pfennigs, and a third of two pfennigs. 4. The [fourth] part [is at] Exod. 30:13 and 15, machatsith hasshekel [מחצית השקל], that is, half a shekel — namely, a didrachm, two reals, 4 batzen. And it is to be noted that the Gerundensian Rabbi [Nachmanides] cited above teaches, in the place cited, that a coin of the same figure as the whole shekel, but of half-less weight, was shown to him at Acon — which was not [a] shekel, but chatsi shekel [חצי שקל], that is, a halved shekel.
8. On the division of the shekel. The shekel is wont to be divided in three ways. First, by material — so that one is silver, another
(col. 833)
another bronze. For some say that all metals had their shekels, to which they [the coins] were weighed out. Secondly, by use — so that one is civil or common, another sacred. Thirdly, by [the biblical] writers [i.e. context]. For if it be among the Prophets, it is of one mina; if among others, it is semuncial [half-ounce], as was said above. So Rashi, on 1 Sam. 17:7. Concerning the silver [shekel] enough has been said hitherto; and often in Scripture the name “of silver” is expressly added to it (Gen. 23:16; Lev. 27:3; Num. 18:16; Deut. 22 and 29; 2 Sam. 18:11; ch. 24; 1 Kings 10:29; and, to omit others, in this very chapter). But of a gold [shekel] there is mention [at] Num. 7:14, ch. [7]:86; Judges 8:26; 1 Kings 10; 1 Chron. 21:25. Of a bronze [shekel] there is [mention at] 2 Kings 17:5.
9. In the first division. Arias Montanus, in the book On the Shekel, contends that there was no [shekel] properly gold or bronze, as to material; but that they are only called “gold” or “bronze” when the material of another thing — either of a coin, or of some object — was indeed gold or bronze, but it had only as much weight as so-many or so-many silver shekels made. But others think that there was indeed a golden shekel, which in size was equal to the silver [one], but double heavier in weight, tenfold better in value — so that it was worth 40 drachmas, [or] 80 batzen. But that former opinion seems rightly proved from this very [passage of] Joshua, ch. 7, v. 21. For the third theft of Achan was, as will be said afterward, [something] golden as to material, and yet in the Hebrew it is added that its weight was 50 shekels. But the very author of this opinion supplies the arguments for it. “We do not think,” he says, “that there was any golden coin which was called a shekel, nor a bronze one either — although we will not deny that there were golden and bronze coins, [but] called by other names, as we shall explain of some afterward. [We think] that certain golden coins of twenty shekels, some of twenty-five, others of fifteen, were in use, which were called parts of a mina, as Cambius explains on Ezekiel 45:12. But a fixed gold or bronze shekel called by the same name we do not easily recognize in the books of the ancients; but when Scripture makes mention of a shekel of gold or of silver, we judge that the weight itself, not the value, is to be reckoned” — of which thing we subjoin some examples clear enough. In the book of Num. 7:87 [it is said] that the weight of the golden spoons was ten shekels each, which our interpreter [Vulgate] renders “little mortars.” In which place it is indicated that not the value of the gold, but the whole weight, is to be known from that reckoning. “For if, as some will, it were a shekel of gold, and the golden shekel were worth as much as the silver — that is, [that] less weight of gold which would equal the value of a [silver] shekel — the golden shekel would be worth four silver drachmas, and would weigh at most two gerah, that is, two grains of a carob-seed. The whole spoon, therefore, would be [of] twenty grains of silver, that is, of the weight of four drachmas. But how large the spoon could be of this material, and how much incense a spoon of this kind could hold — since it is written ‘a golden little-mortar weighing ten shekels, full of incense’ — four, or even two, grains of incense could abundantly fill the half-ounce cup of the spoon. Wherefore we interpret [it] that the golden material of the individual spoons weighed ten shekels each, that is, five ounces. But from five ounces of gold scarcely convenient enough spoons can be made — since the silver spoons which are in use among us are not large, [being] of two-and-a-half ounces, which corresponds to as much silver material as is set with five ounces of gold. And these things more openly the Scripture itself signifies — that in that place it treats not of the value of the spoons, but of the weight of the gold; for so we read verbatim, in the description of the individual spoons: ‘And a golden spoon weighing ten shekels.’ And at the end of the chapter, when the sum of all is reckoned up: ‘Twelve golden spoons full of incense’ — that is, together, 120 gold shekels, by the weight of the sanctuary — as was noted in the preceding verse in the same chapter. That total gold-weight also, which was gathered from the various numbered kinds [of items], [amounting] to sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels, is thus to be understood of weight, not of the value of the gold. For otherwise, if only the value of the gold were indicated in that place, [it] would not be a large enough spoil — 1,675 shekels — from the number of the warriors whom the tribunes and centurions had under their hand, none excepted, from whom all the golden ornaments had been received (that is, anklets, bracelets, rings, armlets, [and] chains), captured from so great a number of women and men, among whom were found thirty-two thousand virgins. The place is in the book Num. 31[:52]. That golden plate also, which Ghacham [Achan] confessed had been secretly taken by him from the anathema, [of] fifty shekels’ weight, we interpret by reckonings of weight, not of valuation. For if we should expound [it] by the valuation of silver shekels, we can scarcely find [it] can be said that a plate which is equal in weight to five shekels — that is, two-and-a-half ounces [could be worth so much]; for a fairly small portion of gold weighs two-and-a-half ounces. And those earrings offered to Gideon from the spoils of the Israelites [i.e. Ishmaelites] are to be referred to this reckoning, so that the weight of all [the earrings] bound together was one thousand seven hundred shekels — that is, eight hundred ounces — and fifty of gold; which sum is nearly of six thousand eight hundred common gold [coins] which in our time they call ‘crowns’ [coronati] (Judges 8:25 [recte 8:26]). The gold also, of which the candlesticks were made, is written [as] weighed out by weight (1 Chron. 28:15). And in this way all weights of gold and silver seem to be expounded by the reckoning of shekels — that is, of half-ounces — unless it be otherwise expressly indicated. In the same way, too, we understand that the hooks of gold made for holding the doors [leaves] of the temple were of fifty shekels each. For smaller [ones] could not bear the weight of the doors to be turned. The place is in [2 Chron.] 3:[9]. Moreover, those [things] which are sometimes read in the sacred Scriptures concerning weights of iron, of steel, and of bronze, where they are signified by the name of shekels, are to be referred by us entirely to this reckoning too.”
10. In the second division. That every shekel is sacred, or “of the sanctuary,” Arias will have, in the same book; and this can be proved. First: from the cited inscriptions. Secondly: because the value of the sacred and the common [shekel] would have to be different; but no such difference can be found from the Scriptures or from the ancients. For as to what some say — that the sacred [shekel] is of 4 drachmas, the other of two — that is refuted from the Seventy [LXX] themselves, who do not recognize this distinction, but even where the sacred [shekel] is treated, render [it] διδράχμον [didrachmon], as at Exod. 30. Thirdly: because before there was a sanctuary the shekel was already most common, as appeared above from Gen. 23. Fourthly: because wherever in Scripture it is treated of the shekel “according to the measure of the sanctuary” — as Exod. 30:13, Lev. 27:25 — it means as much as if it were said “a good measure, and of just weight.” For in Hebrew it is besechel haccodesch [בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ, “in the shekel of holiness”], that is, [a shekel] which suits holiness, or the sanctuary, and is therefore whole and approved. Fifthly: because neither St. Jerome nor Josephus make any distinction, but universally say the shekel is of 4 drachmas — as, namely, we have seen.
(col. 835)
On the contrary, however, many will have [it] that the sacred [shekel] was [that] which weighed 4 drachmas, and the civil [that] which [weighed] two; and that the one is called “sacred” because its use was in sacred things — as when someone’s name was entered on the sacred registers (Exod. 30), when the redemption of certain things owed to God was made. So, among Catholics: Pagninus (on the word שקל [shekel]); Masius (in this place); Pererius (on Gen. 20:14); Ribera (on Amos 8); Covarrubias (in the book On the Comparison of Ancient Coins, ch. 2, n. 9); but among the Innovators [Protestants]: Junius (on Gen. 23 and Exod. 30); Beza (on Matt. 17); Georgius Agricola (bk. 2 On the Weight of Coins); Molinaeus (treatise On Contracts, q. 100, num. 795). But they have no reason [for this], except that they say the phrase “shekel of the sanctuary” is added in some places so that it may be distinguished from the other. But this has already been expounded otherwise. And I add that some hand down that a single shekel was kept in the sanctuary or temple, to which — if any controversy should arise — all others were tested, as to a Lydian stone [touchstone]; just as at Rome a [standard] foot was kept.
11. In the third division. A mina, or Mna, is sometimes indeed used for schekel [shekel] by the Chaldee Paraphrast [Targum] (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70; and Radak notes [it], 2 Chron. 9:16; the Talmud, tractate Nezikin, ch. 4). Sometimes for a pound [libra], which contains 12 ounces — that is, 24 shekels — and so among the Latins. Sometimes for a pound which, by Priscian, [contains] 75 drachmas. By Pliny (bk. 21) it comprises 100 drachmas, as Budé says (bk. 1); or 100 denarii; and so “pound” is [used] in the Chaldee (1 Kings 10:17; Jer. 32:9; and Elias the Tishbite [Levita]). Fourthly: finally, in Ezekiel ch. 45, a Mna has 60 shekels, which make 1200 obols, as St. Jerome says there. If, therefore, the “prophetic shekel” is taken for a Mna, for which of those now mentioned [is it taken]? Baronius indeed, the most Reverend, when he discusses (tome 1) the selling of CHRIST the Lord, which was made for 30 pieces of silver, embraces this exposition; and I have expounded it according to the second of the four proposed significations of Mna, in [my treatise on] Judas, no. 6. Yet Arias (in the cited book) and Suárez (tome 2, fol. 406) disapprove [it]; and certainly nothing firm can be brought [forward] for it.
12. How did the Seventy [LXX], here and at Exod. 30 and elsewhere, render schekel by διδράχμον [didrachmon, “two-drachma”]? Those who distinguish the gold and civil shekel from the silver and sacred think they have untied this knot, if they say the gold and sacred [shekel] is of 4 drachmas. But they ought to have noticed [that], where the sacred and silver [shekels] too are treated, [they] are rendered by those [same LXX] διδράχμον; and why not even once τετράδραχμον [tetradrachmon, “four-drachma”]? Arias Montanus (in the cited book), and almost Masius in this place (fol. 135), seem to think the Seventy slipped through some ignorance. But far be it! I confess the greatest ignorance rather in us, than the least in them. Yet two things now seem [right] to me. I. That there was prefixed to the drachma itself the letter delta [δ], which signifies four; and that in the Seventy it was written δ. δραχμῶν [d. drachmōn] or δ. δραχμὸν — that is, τετράδραχμον — and that from these, by the addition of the little letter iota, was made by the copyists διδράχμον. For, first, according to the customary alphabetic manner of numbering, δ. δραχμαὶ [d. drachmai] are a τετράδραχμον, or 4 drachmas; and this occasion of error is very easy. Secondly: Josephus is wont to follow the Seventy, and yet he never says διδράχμον for the shekel. Thirdly, the same Josephus, at the end of bk. 3, says that in a time of famine an assaron [ʿomer-measure] of grain sold ὡς τεττάρων δραχμῶν [hōs tettarōn drachmōn, “for about four drachmas”]; where, if it had been written more briefly, δ. δραχμῶν, someone rather unskilled would have thought διδράχμον was meant. II. In [reading] the Seventy, the circumstance of place and time — where and when they wrote — must be considered. For there and then one drachma was equal to two Attic [drachmas]; and so διδράχμον among them [meant] the same as afterward was τετράδραχμον. For of coins of this kind we see the greatest variety, according to the variety of places and times, both in modern and in ancient [coins]. In [the case of] the Mina it has already appeared, and of the pound: what in the Latins’ as? in the Hebrews’ selach [sela]? Is it not sometimes a shekel, as in the Chaldee at Gen. 23, Exod. 31 and 38 — sometimes a double shekel, in the Talmud, tractate On Vows [Nedarim], ch. 4; and On the Corner [Peah], ch. 8; and On the Second Tithe [Maaser Sheni], ch. 2? Those who considered not the error, not of the Seventy, but of the manual copyists, nor the difference of place and time — they thought of the shekel otherwise than the matter itself has [it], as in the cited place Epiphanius, and others. But in St. Jerome and Isidore, in the cited places, the shekel is not an ounce, but a half-ounce, as Antonio Agustín noted (bk. 2 of the Emendations, ch. 8).
13. Is the siclus [shekel] the same as the siglus in Xenophon (bk. 1 of the Anabasis)? There is some similarity of the names; and the latter perhaps [is derived] from the former; but the valuation [is] different. For, by the same Xenophon’s authority, the siglus is worth 7½ Attic obols; by Hesychius, 8 — who adds that it is a Persian and Sardian coin. But the shekel has 24 Attic obols, as was said above.
14. What, finally, [is] the sum of the silver which Achan stole from the anathema? “Two hundred shekels,” says Masius, “make one hundred just German thalers.” “Just” I say — not such as are commonly struck of so diluted an alloy that the goldsmith’s art cannot subsist apart [from adulteration] — but such as in a former age used to be stamped with the image of Lord Joachim [the Joachimsthaler]. But if it be treated of our florins, or [those] of Frankfurt, each of which is valued at 15 batzen, Achan’s [silver] theft would be [worth] 106 florins and 10 batzen.