Shekel of Tyre That Was Likely in The Temple Treasury?

[Joe Sermarini]

• Josephus has 2 incidents where he refers to Herod minting coins in precious metals. It appears both these cases refer to creating bullion.

What is creating bullion?  Refining ore?  If you have them handy, please post quotes (ideally English translations).

[Aarmale]

Not schooled well in greek silver, I could use some help on the first point

"in the places where Rome asserted its hegemony, if there had been a pre-existing tradition of gold or silver coinage, these areas were allowed to continue to mint in those metals."

In the time period of 40BCE to 65CE I m aware of some provincial silver was allowed to be minted but I not aware of silver coinage where the image remained intact to the Greek original other than Tyre and Rhodes. But I really don't know how these stack up in terms of usage relative to the Tyrian Shekel

What clients where granted this right to produce "greek style" silver or gold?

The citation given is to Braund's "Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of Client Kingship" (1984) page 125.

Incidentally, I have the book:

"...The key point is that in all the cases there was no tradition of minting in gold before the advent of Rome: therefore, it can hardly be argued that gold was not subsequently minted in these cases because of some supposed Roman regulation. By contrast, as we have seen, in those areas where gold coinage was usual before the advent of Rome, as in Britain and the Bosporus, it continued into the Principate. [...]
"Nor are the Herods unusual in following the local tradition of coinage: precisely the same is true of other cases which have been taken to support the Mommsen view [i.e. that client kings had limited rights to mint coins of precious metals] – Thrace, Osrhoene, Commagene, Cappadocia and Nabataea. In short, there is no kingdom where a traditional use of precious metals in minting coins was abandoned with the advent of Rome."

• Josephus has 2 incidents where he refers to Herod minting coins in precious metals. It appears both these cases refer to creating bullion.

What is creating bullion?  Refining ore?  If you have them handy, please post quotes (ideally English translations).

Here is the translation from A&F:

#1. "'Finding his funds now reduced, [Herod] converted all the valuables in his possession into money, which he then transmitted to Antony and his staff' (καὶ κατὰ σπάνιν ἤδη χρημάτων ὅσον εἶχεν κόσμον κατανομιστεύσἀς Ἀ ντωνίῳ καὶ τοῖς περὶ αὐτὸν ἀνέπεμψεν; BJ i.358)."

#2. Herod “cut up into coinage all the ornaments of gold and silver in his palace, without sparing even objects made with special care or having artistic value. And this money he sent to Egypt . . .” (τὸν ὄντα κόσμον ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις αὐτοῦ συνέκοψεν ἀργύρου καὶ χρυσοῦ, μήτε τῆς ἐν ταῖς κατασκευαῖς ἐπιμελείας μήτ’ εἴ τι τέχνῃ τίμιον ἦν τούτου φεισάμενος. ἔπεμπε δ’ ἐπ’ Αἰγύπτου τὰ χρήματα; Ant. xv.306–307)

A&F say "In both cases Josephus may have been writing figuratively, without expecting the reader to believe the gold and silver which Herod “cut up” was literally struck into coins. [...]
"...it is possible that [gifts to Antony and his staff] would have accepted bullion, and in fact Ant. xv.5 does not refer to conversion into coins, but only that the valuables were used to make gifts. But in BJ the verb used is κατανομιστεύω, a very rare word without a well established meaning"

Richardson and Pastor believe that in the second case, the ornaments were cut up into bullion. There is no reason to mint coins specifically for the reason of sending it to Egypt. Bullion would have sufficed.

[Joe Sermarini]

Tyre was not a client kingdom, but Judaea was, so the Braund quote doesn't quite support Tyre as the mint.

Clearly those quotes for Josephus have nothing to do with shekels, but that makes them irrelevant, not evidence against striking in Jerusalem.

"Herod, for all of his influence with Augustus and the regent Agrippa, never behaves as if he were in a position to flaunt his relationship and overstep his role as rex sociusque et amicus populi Romani."

Striking coins without any indication on the coins that he is doing it, isn't what I would call flaunting.

There are a number of styles of Tyrian silver coins over the two centuries they were minted and the fabric of the KP coins is not exceptional.

I think the difference is exceptional.

The early and late shekels appear in about the same quantities in hoards. The Tyrian silver coins are also 'well-represented in Lebanon".

I am not sure why the ratio of early to late is important, but I do agree that if the KP shekels are "well-represented" in Lebanon it could indicate they were struck in Tyre, particularly if the finds are in Tyre.

The statement in the Tosefta regarding Tyrian and Jerusalmite silver probably was likely referring to the use of Tyrian silver for taxation at the Temple, and not the relocation of the mint.

This seems to be restating the conclusion, not providing evidence for it.

Although it would be irrational not to accept coins with idolatrous images, "it is not likely that the Temple authorities would have countenanced the striking of these types on imitations in Jerusalem itself". Herod's "bronze coins normally took Jewish sensitivities into account"

I do not see the difference between using the coins and striking them as so important that it precludes the possibility that they were struck by Jews in Jerusalem. Others clearly disagree. Both opinions are biased by modern minds trying to understand ancient ones. Modern opinions on this matter are not very good evidence.

[77HK77]

The Braund quote is incorrectly applied in this instance.

Rome was careful in the application of coinage to local economies and actively sought to maintain balances. Yes where local coinage included precious metals and economies required it, silver and gold existed.

In this case the statement would support Herod minting Shekels. the Judaea economy required the influx of temple tax.

Within Herod's authority and local economy bronze dominated the daily activity, But silver was an very active part of the Judaean economy, in fact inseparable, and the act of allowing the silver to continue would be consistent with Rome's treatment of other areas.

What hangs over the argument is how Rome saw the Tyrian Shekel. If they recognized the importance to Herod's economy than then the continuation is consistent. I tend to think Rome was typically on the mark with these types of issues and would have recognized the need

[Aarmale]

Tyre was not a client kingdom, but Judaea was, so the Braund quote doesn't quite support Tyre as the mint.

The Braund quote is relevant, as it points out the unlikelihood of beginning mintage in Judea in the first place while under Roman hegemony.

Clearly those quotes for Josephus have nothing to do with shekels, but that makes them irrelevant, not evidence against striking in Jerusalem.

It is also relevant because it makes a case for Herod minting silver coinage. A&F argue as to why this is not the case.

Striking coins without any indication on the coins that he is doing it, isn't what I would call flaunting.

I assume A&F are referring to the initiation of silver mintage, which they view as a flaunting. This is especially in light of Braund's points.

I think the difference is exceptional.

Levy traces stylistic development of the Tyrian shekel over about two centuries.

The early and late shekels appear in about the same quantities in hoards. The Tyrian silver coins are also 'well-represented in Lebanon".

I am not sure why the ratio of early to late is important, but I do agree that if the KP shekels are "well-represented" in Lebanon it could indicate they were struck in Tyre, particularly if the finds are in Tyre.

The significance of the chronology is based on Meshorer's claim:
"Further, in excavated materials of single coins as well as of hoards found in Israel in with Tyrian shekels were present, mostly coins from the second group, depicting the letters KP, were represented" (AJC 2:7)
Note that, for example, the famous Isfiya hoard was found closer to Tyre than Jerusalem.

This seems to be restating the conclusion, not providing evidence for it.

A&F are providing an explanation for why this quote does not necessarily indicate that Jerusalem was the mint.

I do not see the difference between using the coins and striking them as so important that it precludes the possibility that they were struck by Jews in Jerusalem. Others clearly disagree. Both opinions are biased by modern minds trying to understand ancient ones. Modern opinions on this matter are not very good evidence.

The first Jewish coins to bear blatantly pagan images are on coins of Philip. Philip's territories were far north and it is generally assumed that he was able to mint such images due to a small Jewish population.
In Jerusalem, pagan images were not minted on coins until after the end of Jewish autonomy. There is a clear concern for Jewish sensitivities at that mint. I advance that Jews would not mind using iconic coins, they would not be keen on minting them themselves in Jerusalem, at least not during the 1st century CE.

[77HK77]

Clearly those quotes for Josephus have nothing to do with shekels, but that makes them irrelevant, not evidence against striking in Jerusalem.

"It is also relevant because it makes a case for Herod minting silver coinage. A&F argue as to why this is not the case."





I really cannot see the relevance in these two quotes to Herod minting shekels. Both instances are cases of emergency funding not a mint program to introduce a new form of currency to the local economy.

The intent was to deliver money to a foreign location and knowing a little about Josephus I suspect he was trying to tell us how Herod reacted to certain situations i.e.melting household Gold and silver to support Rome, and not really making a point about his authority to mint anything

[Aarmale]

Clearly those quotes for Josephus have nothing to do with shekels, but that makes them irrelevant, not evidence against striking in Jerusalem.

"It is also relevant because it makes a case for Herod minting silver coinage. A&F argue as to why this is not the case."





I really cannot see the relevance in these two quotes to Herod minting shekels. Both instances are cases of emergency funding not a mint program to introduce a new form of currency to the local economy.

The intent was to deliver money to a foreign location and knowing a little about Josephus I suspect he was trying to tell us how Herod reacted to certain situations i.e.melting household Gold and silver to support Rome, and not really making a point about his authority to mint anything

Well, the point is that Josephus says, albeit indirectly, that Herod minted silver coins. A&F argue that Josephus is not to be taken literally and that he did not in fact mint silver coins.

[77HK77]

To the third point
"Herod, for all of his influence with Augustus and the regent Agrippa, never behaves as if he were in a position to flaunt his relationship and overstep his role as rex sociusque et amicus populi Romani."

This is very subjective and frankly were are talking about a ruler who played the political game of Rome better than most romans.
if anyone could have pulled off the minting of silver where it should have not been minted I vote for Herod.
Antipater and then Herod switched sides from Caesar to Cassius to Antony to Octavian and manage to become King. The man was a politician; he knew exactly how far he could push the envelope

Purely subjective and not proof either way

[Aarmale]

To the third point
"Herod, for all of his influence with Augustus and the regent Agrippa, never behaves as if he were in a position to flaunt his relationship and overstep his role as rex sociusque et amicus populi Romani."

This is very subjective and frankly were are talking about a ruler who played the political game of Rome better than most romans.
if anyone could have pulled off the minting of silver where it should have not been minted I vote for Herod.
Antipater and then Herod switched sides from Caesar to Cassius to Antony to Octavian and manage to become King. The man was a politician; he knew exactly how far he could push the envelope

Purely subjective and not proof either way

In itself it is not meant to be a proof. However, this point, along with many other compelling arguments outlined in the sources I have mentioned, compel me to believe that Tyrian silver was always struck in Tyre. I find them also much more convincing than Meshorer's arguments, which strike me has highly speculatory.

[77HK77]

On your Fourth point I defer to Joe. I have not handled enough shekels or studied the earlier forms

On point five the Hoard evidence; we typically do not know exactly why a hoard was buried in a particular location so we need to take the hoard evidence in total and look at the general distribution pattern to help us on this problem. Of which I need to go back and read up on so I'll defer on this question.
However I would point out that the hoard evidence would need to show some significant usage outside of Judaea to be convincing against a Jerusalem mint

[77HK77]

On the sixth point
"The statement in the Tosefta regarding Tyrian and Jerusalmite silver probably was likely referring to the use of Tyrian silver for taxation at the Temple, and not the relocation of the mint."

"was likely referring" is not a very strong term to use in supporting the argument.
I don't think the statement has meaning to either side of the argument because of it's vagueness.


On your final point - we stand on opposite sides of the fence- I stated my reasoning earlier in the thread. I simple do not see a compelling religious concern that would prevent a accepted coin from be minted locally

[Aarmale]

On your Fourth point I defer to Joe. I have not handled enough shekels or studied the earlier forms

On point five the Hoard evidence; we typically do not know exactly why a hoard was buried in a particular location so we need to take the hoard evidence in total and look at the general distribution pattern to help us on this problem. Of which I need to go back and read up on so I'll defer on this question.
However I would point out that the hoard evidence would need to show some significant usage outside of Judaea to be convincing against a Jerusalem mint

On this I will quote A&F again:

"Using hoard evidence, Levy also rejected Meshorer’s third argument, that the distribution of the later sheqels was focused in Jerusalem (Levy 1993:268). Burnett, Amandry, Ripollès and Butcher concurred (RPC 1:656; Butcher 2004:180 n. 85). The isolated finds in Table 1—where there is little or no difference in the distribution of isolated finds in excavations of the earlier and later sheqel—provides additional evidence. There is very little published evidence for the distribution of isolated Tyrian sheqels in Lebanon. Meshorer’s unsupported statement that early sheqels mostly derive from the area of Lebanon was most probably based on his impressions of their frequencies in the Lebanese antiquities market. If, however, the coins in the collection of the American University in Beirut are any indication of the currency of the later sheqels in Lebanon, then these coins too were well-represented in Lebanon (Baramki 1974:233–235, Nos. 78–91)."

On your final point - we stand on opposite sides of the fence- I stated my reasoning earlier in the thread. I simple do not see a compelling religious concern that would prevent a accepted coin from be minted locally

If it wasn't a concern, why did Herod or his predecessors not mint coins with his bust and the bust of the Emperor on bronze issues? Herod (and his sons) had no issue with iconic design as is clear by the dedicatory inscriptions of his outside of Judaea.
But I don't see any reason that the mint of Tyrian silver coins would move (and not change in design!) simply because of the preference of this coin-type by the Jews.

[77HK77]

"If it wasn't a concern, why did Herod or his predecessors not mint coins with his bust and the bust of the Emperor on bronze issues? Herod (and his sons) had no issue with iconic design as is clear by the dedicatory inscriptions of his outside of Judaea.
But I don't see any reason that the mint of Tyrian silver coins would move (and not change in design!) simply because of the preference of this coin-type by the Jews."


There is a difference between a coin struck in a rulers name and the anonymous strike of the Tyrian shekel.
For Herod to put a graven image on his coin would have been offensive to the sensibility of the people..The ruler had overstepped his bounds, usurped God. Hence, as you mentioned, outside the area Herod's inscriptions change dramatically

But the Shekel is a requirement of God and the coin/image was accepted by the temple. Commentary is provide on what is acceptable and how payments are made.  Where or how the shekel was produced was less important then the necessity to meet ones obligation in providing a proper payment. So if the image was not offensive to God why would it offend any man?

I think you are hung up on Herod minting the Shekel. He was the King who rebuilt the temple; what better way to cap the achievement by preserving the Shekel (pure speculation!!)


 On the hoard info I need to read up, it's been awhile, but I don't recall significant finds outside of Jewish areas

[Aarmale]

There is a difference between a coin struck in a rulers name and the anonymous strike of the Tyrian shekel.
For Herod to put a graven image on his coin would have been offensive to the sensibility of the people..The ruler had overstepped his bounds, usurped God. Hence, as you mentioned, outside the area Herod's inscriptions change dramatically

But the Shekel is a requirement of God and the coin/image was accepted by the temple. Commentary is provide on what is acceptable and how payments are made.  Where or how the shekel was produced was less important then the necessity to meet ones obligation in providing a proper payment. So if the image was not offensive to God why would it offend any man?

I think you are hung up on Herod minting the Shekel. He was the King who rebuilt the temple; what better way to cap the achievement by preserving the Shekel (pure speculation!!)


 On the hoard info I need to read up, it's been awhile, but I don't recall significant finds outside of Jewish areas

The easy solution for Herod would be to change the design on the shekel when it was struck on Jerusalem. There is no reason to maintain old Tyrian designs.

[77HK77]

I would disagree and find changing the design the more difficult action.

"If" he took the critical step of minting he's pushed an envelope, even if the tyrian mint is troubled and can no longer supply the coins

Minting the same design leaves no imprint of Herod on the coin. If he changes the design it focuses attention on Herods intention

However we are viewing history and it is difficult to truly understand the thought process of Herod and his contemporaries.

[Aarmale]

I would disagree and find changing the design the more difficult action.

"If" he took the critical step of minting he's pushed an envelope, even if the tyrian mint is troubled and can no longer supply the coins

Minting the same design leaves no imprint of Herod on the coin. If he changes the design it focuses attention on Herods intention

However we are viewing history and it is difficult to truly understand the thought process of Herod and his contemporaries.

I do not see making new dies as being difficult or unnecessary. If Herod could mint silver coins I see no reason why he wouldn't issue it under his own name like his bronze coinage.
I don't believe we can attribute the changing of cities of an entire minting operation on poor literary sources, unqualified distribution data, a change in iconographic style and an enigmatic monogram. It just is too far fetched.

[77HK77]

I do not have the expertise to judge Meshorer's hypothesis as based on "on poor literary sources, unqualified distribution data, a change in iconographic style and an enigmatic monogram"

I will state that an argument can be built for both sides

For me however, given the importance of the Tyrian shekel to the Jewish economy, the changes seen in the minting (fabric, Monogram, style) and the relationship between Herod and Rome, a very strong possibility exists that the mint came under his control maybe in Jerusalem but I would not rule out Caesarea. In fact I like the idea Caesarea considering what happen in Jerusalem after Herod's death

As I stated early on in this thread I think the answer will come from some other Archaeological source.

[Joe Sermarini]

I do not see making new dies as being difficult or unnecessary.

Of course new dies were made.

If Herod could mint silver coins I see no reason why he wouldn't issue it under his own name like his bronze coinage.

If Herod had struck coins in his own name, the coins would no longer be shekels of Tyre, which is apparently what was needed or at least desired for the temple tax. That Herod might consider himself important enough to change the coin used for the temple tax might have been perceived as more radical, egotistical or abhorrent than striking the currently accepted coin, regardless of the pagan types. Also, Herod may have received permission from Augustus to strike shekels of Tyre, but not shekels of Herod or Judaea. You cannot accept that Jews at this time might strike coins with pagan images in Jerusalem, but I don't find it incredible. I believe both our opinions are impacted by presentism and that our personal incredulity is not evidence.

I don't believe we can attribute the changing of cities of an entire minting operation on poor literary sources, unqualified distribution data, a change in iconographic style and an enigmatic monogram. It just is too far fetched.

Literary sources are clearly lacking but entire dynasties are know only from numismatic evidence. That silver shekels of Tyre continued to be produced under Roman rule was an unusual exception to the disappearance of silver civic coinage during this time. That in itself is odd enough for me to consider possibilities, regardless of a lack of literary sources.

I think the change in the coinage was more than a change in iconographic style and an enigmatic monogram. In the past, it was accepted by many numismatist that the crudest of the KP shekels were struck by an unofficial barbaric mint. That seems to indicate others have found a difference more significant than style. A difference big enough to indicate a different mint. In my examination of a hoard of half shekels, I came to the conclusion that the "barbaric" shekels were not struck at a different mint but rather were struck with very worn and carelessly re-engraved probably sometimes decades old dies. The question then becomes, where is that one mint that issued both the better and the barbaric coins. Despite a profound lack of civic pride, I can accept it might still be Tyre, but I cannot agree that this numismatic evidence should be dismissed as only a change in iconographic style and an enigmatic monogram.      

I agree that distribution data could indicate the location of the mint.

BTW, I would like to mention that if you look at Forum's shop we attribute the KP coins to "Tyre or Jerusalem mint." Our historical info says: "At the Great Temple in Jerusalem the annual tax levied was 1/2 shekel per male. The 1/2 shekel and shekel were the only coins accepted by the temple. Some experts believe that after the coinage of Tyre was debased under Roman control, Herod the Great began to strike "Tyre" shekels in Jerusalem. These coins were of cruder fabric and style, but maintained the silver purity required to pay the temple tax. The "Jerusalem" shekels have the letters KP or KAP to the right of the eagle and dates range from PH (18/17 B.C.) to PKE (69/70 A.D.). The Greek letters KP or KAP are probably an abbreviation for KAICAP, Greek for Caesar." 

[Aarmale]

Of course new dies were made.

If Herod had struck coins in his own name, the coins would no longer be shekels of Tyre, which is apparently what was needed or at least desired for the temple tax. That Herod might consider himself important enough to change the coin used for the temple tax might have been perceived as more radical, egotistical or abhorrent than striking the currently accepted coin, regardless of the pagan types. Also, Herod may have received permission from Augustus to strike shekels of Tyre, but not shekels of Herod or Judaea. You cannot accept that Jews at this time might strike coins with pagan images in Jerusalem, but I don't find it incredible. I believe both our opinions are impacted by presentism and that our personal incredulity is not evidence.

I am unable to believe that Tyrian shekels were so standardized that they could not be changed. The Shekels of the first revolt were unquestionably not Tyrian and the high silver content leads me to believe they were accepted at the temple.
Agrippa I freely minted coins with busts, but never in Jerusalem. Herod was not one to shy away from iconic figures, but his bronze coinage has (nearly) none.

Literary sources are clearly lacking but entire dynasties are know only from numismatic evidence. That silver shekels of Tyre continued to be produced under Roman rule was an unusual exception to the disappearance of silver civic coinage during this time. That in itself is odd enough for me to consider possibilities, regardless of a lack of literary sources.

I believe Herod and his antecedents simply just lobbied for continual minting of silver at Tyre.

I agree that distribution data could indicate the location of the mint.

This seems like the way to go. Unfortunately, a paucity of recorded excavation data from Lebanon makes this impossible currently.

[Joe Sermarini]

I am unable to believe that Tyrian shekels were so standardized that they could not be changed.

OK, but that does not mean they felt a need for change.

The Shekels of the first revolt were unquestionably not Tyrian and the high silver content leads me to believe they were accepted at the temple.

I agree.  And using coinage to advertise the revolt and defy Rome was a reason to change the design.

Agrippa I freely minted coins with busts, but never in Jerusalem. Herod was not one to shy away from iconic figures, but his bronze coinage has (nearly) none.

I think that Agrippa's portrait coinage was from a different time and place, and struck with a different purpose so not very relevant. 

Herod was not one to shy away from iconic figures, but his bronze coinage has (nearly) none.

You believe that Herod and others with influence would have preferred changing to a Herodian type. I expect they may have preferred maintaining as near as possible to the status quo. Or perhaps Rome said, you said: You needed shekels of Tyre, you got shekels of Tyre, don't ask for more.

I believe Herod and his antecedents simply just lobbied for continual minting of silver at Tyre.

Maybe. But I don't think to believe that Jerusalem is possible is "far fetched."

[Aarmale]

OK, but that does not mean they felt a need for change.

A change of mint and change of dies would have made any change easy. Why didn't they just cut down on the pagan images when the chance arose? The Jews clearly would put up with pagan coinage, but if they had the choice I am sure they would have enjoyed a change of design.

I agree.  And using coinage to advertise the revolt and defy Rome was a reason to change the design.

Sure, but that is irrelevant. The Tyrian coins did nothing to flatter Rome and Herod could have changed that.

I think that Agrippa's portrait coinage was from a different time and place, and struck with a different purpose so not very relevant. 

It is clear that Agrippa (only about 40 years after Herod) had no issue with graven images, yet he depicted none on coins from his Jerusalem mint. I cannot believe this is coincidental or irrelevant.
Herod had no issues with pagan images either.
Another relevant Herodian is Antipas. He has inscriptions from Greece that went along with pagan statues, so he clearly didn't have an issue with iconism. Yet in his highly Jewish territory of Galilee, he refrained completely from minting coins with pagan images.

[Joe Sermarini]

You believe that there would have been significant concern about striking pagan images in Jerusalem that should have created strong desire for a change. I believe it is possible they didn't have any concern at all. In fact, since the whole purpose was to maintain an existing coinage with an important role in the existing system, I believe they likely had a very strong desire to keep it the coinage as much the same as possible.

Agrippa and Antipas were creating new coin types. They actually had to think about what types to use. That is, I believe, quite different from simply maintaining an already excepted type. Any change in design would likely have been controversial to someone. Maintaining the design may not have been controversial to anyone.   

[77HK77]

The issue of the mint is not happening in isolation.
Although the picture of Herod is a little blurry in the decade (20's BCE) leading up to the potential mint change we can see the tensions of his position.

Herod is the appointed King of Judea balancing the favor of the people against political rivalry with the Priestly class while remaining loyal to his benefactor in Rome.
Early in the decade he acts decisively to help the people during a famine (early reference melting gold and silver)
Still while sensitive to the needs of Judaism Herod is expanding Judea in a secular fashion adding athletic contest in Jerusalem with a theater and amphitheater (ant. 15.260-271)
There is movement against him where Josephus cites objections to "trophies" decorating one building but the charges are found false (ant. 15.272)
He discovers a plot by 10 people against him and reacts decisively (ant.15.280) in the same period he supports Gallus expedition into Arabia (ant.15.317)

What this history points to is a complex period of grayness, balancing the needs of the people, the demands of the religion (including the priestly class) and the needs of Rome.
In that environment of fuzzy political and religious boundaries the concept of Tyrian coins minted inside Judea does is not appear as definitively prohibited and can be argued as a logical extension of Herod's actions in meeting needs of the people and the desire of the religion.

Of course Herod would benefit personally by controlling the flow of Shekels to the Temple; an action also consistent with his balancing act.

[DitrasetMan]

Thank you everyone, for your great replies. I understand the debate, but I happen to fall on the side of it that "KP" on the shekel might mean that it was minted in Jerusalem, so I will buy a KP one.

My next question, would I have a greater chance of buying a coin that was in the temple if I buy a half-shekel as opposed to a full shekel? The half shekel was the tax, so I assume I am increasing my chances (as opposed to the full shekels which the temple would have taken only for people paying for two, like a couple).

Any other markings on the coin I can look out for that might increase my chances?