Tribute Penny Questions

[OldMoney]

At the risk of re-starting the old debate (and definitely not for
the last time) - I have read an article that raises a few points
that I think are not correct, or not completely correct.

It is on these points that I request a few opinions additional
to my own.

The article in question may be found here:
The Australian Numismatic Society - Library
The Denarius in Mark 12:15, by Peter Lewis
http://the-ans.com/library/2012PeterLewis.html

First of all let me say that I reject the premise put forward,
my reasons will probably make part of an upcoming article.

Among the variously questionable matters raised by Lewis
are the following (just to name a few):

a) "‘Quadrans’ is the name of a bronze coin that circulated only
in Italy."

b) "that Augustan and Tiberian denarii did not circulate in the
province of Syria" (ie: not just Judaea, etc., the whole region)

c) "Presumably the foreign money was then melted down and
minted into local currency"

d) "Exactly what the money changers were doing is unknown."
(I thought they were . . . changing money!)

e) "Large numbers of silver coins were minted in Antioch and
other cities in the north . . . but they did not circulate in the
southern Jewish areas."

There are more, but I'll leave it to readers to add to the list,
and to append their own comments and corrections.

Walter Holt

[Joe Geranio]

There is an interesting take on this? by K. Butcher video, see attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrNLJH0fcIs

I have always thought it was this issue with Gaius and Lucius Caesar?  I will post my coin that I love so much. 

  Augustus. 27 BC-AD 14. AR Denarius (19mm, 3.67 g, 11h). Lugdunum (Lyon) mint. Struck 2 BC-AD 12. Laureate head right / Gaius and Lucius Caesars standing facing, holding shields and spears between them; simpulum and lituus above. RIC I 207; Lyon 82; RSC.  43(Joe Geranio Collection, anyone may use as long as given)

[77HK77]

ADD
"Despite these differences the three gospel accounts are so similar in wording that
biblical scholars have concluded that they are not independent accounts, and the
consensus of opinion is that Mark wrote his gospel first and Matthew and Luke used
Mark’s gospel in writing their own. Therefore the person who was responsible for the
name of the coin being ‘denarius’ was Mark, but who was Mark writing for?"


Although the consensus does favor Mark as first;  the "consensus" also claims much of the Synoptic gospels where derived from an earlier document or collection of documents. How much is influenced from Mark to Luke and matthew or from the earlier documents is still very much an open topic.

I do think the writings are designed to be read by a distinctly Roman audience.
 The idea of using the term denarius as a tool of the author to provide the proper analogy should stand on it's own merit. the author of this article does not need to claim Mark as the originator only to claim the denarius was a universal roman symbol.

HK

[Joe Geranio]

Oh no, I don't want to have the Sinaiticus codex debate? LOL.    I beleive it was the AVG w/ G.L. reverse.  It makes sense at how many were minted and a well travelled AR.

[77HK77]

"If the common denarius of Tiberius was the Tribute Penny, then several problems
arise. First, when Jesus asked the crowd whose portrait, eijkwvn (image), was on the coin,
the correct answer would have been, “Livia and Caesar.” Second, the inscriptions are in
abbreviated Latin, and very few people in Judea were able to read Latin. Therefore the
crowd would not have known what names or titles were on the coin."

It a bit of a stretch to claim the reverse is a "portrait".
You don't need latin to understand the portrait is the Emperor. I remember holding my first roman coin and asking " which emperor?" No latin required

[Joe Geranio]

FOR massive distribution I beleive it was Augustus as Caesar with Gaius and Lucius reverse as Butcher bring out in his video.  I do not think it was Tiberian issue.   

[Robert_Brenchley]

Mark has a habit of Latinising terms, and he carefully translates 'two leptons' as 'a quadrans', implying that his audience are only familiar with the imperial currency. Most likely he wrote in the west, and Rome is hoghly likely; I don't think we can go further than that.

I assume the 'earlier document' is 'Q', if it ever existed. It's regarded as additional to Mark. The story is Markan, with no indication of any additions, so it's not relevant. Matthew's and Luke's versions are so close to Mark's that there's really no doubt that they were copying.

[77HK77]

Robert,
We've had the Q discussion before. I see the what was call "Q" as either a collection of documents or oral stories used in the first years by the adherents. I would place these prior to Mark and influential of Luke and Matthew.

Without any evidence, other than life, the denarius passage strikes me as a candidate for one of those early stories. Taxes have been a universal topic since the day they were invented! But the story rings of an important truth to the people of Judea, They were beholden to God but subject to Caesar. I think this a topic of earliest importance to his followers and would have been discussed before Mark took pen to hand

HK

[OldMoney]

I very much appreciate the additional input, thank you to all.

It is my own fault, I guess I should have worded this a little better,
but I was hoping that my five points below would be addressed.

I am in the process of deconstructing Lewis' web-article, and in fact
have already dealt with several of the additional points raised by
other commenters in this thread. I haven't touched on the theology
very much, trying to concentrate more on the numismatic.

I am yet to decide whether to produce a separate article/note, or
simply have this detailed as a (very long!) footnote/endnote to the
update of my own article (with Rev. Peter Dunstan) from the Celator.

a) "‘Quadrans’ is the name of a bronze coin that circulated only
in Italy." (did it really?)

b) "that Augustan and Tiberian denarii did not circulate in the
province of Syria" (ie: not just Judaea, etc., the whole region)

c) "Presumably the foreign money was then melted down and
minted into local currency"

d) "Exactly what the money changers were doing is unknown."
(I thought they were . . . changing money!)

e) "Large numbers of silver coins were minted in Antioch and
other cities in the north . . . but they did not circulate in the
southern Jewish areas."

In any case, if anyone has additional input on these five points in
particular, then I would love to hear whatever may be suggested.

Thanks again!

Walter Holt

[Andrew McCabe]

Walter

I read the Lewis paper and, as far as numismatics is concerned, it is a complete tissue of nonsense, sloppy work, vacancy and misunderstandings. You have highlighted some issues, but on a more general point, when one looks at the footnotes, you quickly realise there is nothing there, numismatically:

- of the 38 footnotes, only 9 are numismatic, the rest being biblical
- of those 9 numismatic footnotes, one refers to the Celator (a coin gossip magazine) and four refer to very general works (RPC, the Coins of Roman Antioch, Coinage in Roman Syria) that would be of absolutely no use in any academic argument. Of the other three references cited, two are not especially pertinent to the thesis, and only one gives a numismatic fact of relevance to this paper (Roman coins are absent in Jerusalem hoards before 70).

The entire paper is a fabrication of supposition heaped on guess work, that pretends to be a numismatic work. All the author knows is that Roman coins aren't found in Jerusalem hoards before 70. That's the extent of his actual knowledge. He knows nothing numismatically beyond this point. Not even what a quadrans is! The rest is his fictional weaving of a story based on his personal preferences.

How this got accepted to be published as a paper of the Australian Numismatic Society is a mystery.

Andrew

[77HK77]

Any discussion of the coin being something other than a denarius can only be supposition because of the three possible starting points:

1)   The story is a fictional account.
2)   Jesus was God and the writing is the work of God
3)   Jesus was a man and the writings are an account of his life

1 and 2 can only be a denarius.
In the case of 1 the original story teller uses the denarius as a symbol for an analogy. However, which Denarius cannot be determined, as we cannot enter the mind of the writer.
In 2 It is exactly what is says it is. No debate possible as God would make it what he wants it to be; a denarius. Again, which one; you’ll have to ask at the pearly gates.

3 seems to be the trip point. You cannot assume the story as historically true without secondary support which is not available as the other gospels are too closely linked to Mark. We have many, many examples of ancient writing stretching, altering, and guessing at facts to suit the writer’s perspective, so the story can only be taking in a basic form: a question asked, an object produced, question answered.  From here you can play a little with the point of the story. For example change Jesus to a disciple and the impact is less but the point is not changed, change the questioner to a Roman soldier and the meaning is altered. It comes off as all about the taxes. Interestingly change the object to any roman coin and the impact of the story remains the same. Whether a prutah with TAI CAP, or an Aureus the point of the story remains the same, in effect rendering the type of coin historically irrelevant. (Other than being Roman).

HK

[Andrew McCabe]

I agree with this analysis, and I've no problem with a biblically inspired story. I do have an issue with presenting a paper such as this as a scientific numismatic proof, and publishing it in a numismatic society journal, when the author, as Walter already noted, and as evidenced by his lack of academic references, clearly doesn't know his Janus from his Ship (head and tails in ancient Rome).

[OldMoney]

I agree with this analysis, and I've no problem with a biblically inspired story. I do have an issue with presenting a paper such as this as a scientific numismatic proof, and publishing it in a numismatic society journal, when the author, as Walter already noted, and as evidenced by his lack of academic references, clearly doesn't know his Janus from his Ship (head and tails in ancient Rome).

He is the same Peter Lewis who co-wrote the Pocket Guide to
St Paul, Coins encountered by the Apostle on his travels, with
my friend Ron Bolden. It was a collaboration between the two,
with each contributing within his own area of expertise. Ron is a
good numismatist, and Lewis claims to know about theology,
though I have my doubts given the nature of this and his other
writings.
I think it has been well recognised that the numismatic side of
the above book is quite good overall, and where it lacks most is
due to the over emphasis on the flawed theology.
I don't wish to make excuses for my friend, but unfortunately, it
seems that where there was a conflict, Ron's contributions took
something of a second place.
Another numismatic friend, Rev. Peter Dunstan, wrote a review
of this work for the Celator some years ago (issue 17.6 {June
2003}, pp. 35, 50.).

In my own critique/deconstruction of his article, I sum up using
Lewis' own words: "It is perhaps his last paragraph that reveals
the true nature of his writing, wherein he states: 'The argument
presented in this paper . . . is, of course, only a hypothesis. It
involves a large degree of speculation.'" Given all of his other
over-statements, this is perhaps his greatest understatement.

Walter Holt

[OldMoney]

Following on from a previous thread:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=89371.0;all

Andrew from the Numiswiki article on Tribute pennies:
The question, "What type coin was shown to Jesus?" has been pondered for centuries. Rasche's Lexicon
of Ancient Coinage, c. 1790, article Census, refers to the following treatises on the question, all in Latin:
- Marq. Freherus, A treatise on the census coin that the Pharisees asked about, date not given.
- Hermanson, A treatise on the denarius of the census [i.e. the Tribute Penny], 1733.
- Io. Lor. Moschem, Observations on the story of the census coin, 1725.
- Io. Nic. Schulin, A treatise on the census coin, 1685.

Yes thanks that's what i meant exactly. I wonder was it discussed in better known reference such as echkel or the fundamental 16th century books that everyone later followed. I wonder what those referenced authors wrote. Archive.org might be a source for the referenced books

I have tried archive.org and google books, as well as google generally
but cannot find a copy of the relevant volume (v.2-II) of Rasche from which
this information has apparently been drawn.

I searched for "Lexicon of Ancient Coinage" as well as the original Latin
title "Lexicon vniversae rei nvmariae vetervm et praecipve Graecorvm ac
Romanorvm cvm observationibvs antiqvariis geographicis chronologicis
historicis criticis et passim ..." (etc.), but still could not find this volume.

Can anyone provide a link, or perhaps just the relevant pages via pdf?

In fact, any link/pdf to any of the above titles would also be appreciated.

Thanks,

Walter Holt

[OldMoney]

- Marq. Freherus, A treatise on the census coin that the Pharisees asked about, date not given.
- Hermanson, A treatise on the denarius of the census [i.e. the Tribute Penny], 1733.
- Io. Lor. Moschem, Observations on the story of the census coin, 1725.
- Io. Nic. Schulin, A treatise on the census coin, 1685.

Also, what are the full original (ie: Latin) titles of these above works,
and the full names of the authors? None seem to come up anywhere
on any of the book sites, nor on archive.org. Please help!

Walter

[OldMoney]

Update: I believe I have found the titles for two of these.

- Iohann Nicolaus Schülin and Iohann Widmann, De Numismate Census, ad Matth. cap. XXII. vers. 19 (Wittenberg, 1685); and

- Marquardus Freherus, de Numismate census, a Pharisaeis in quaestionem vocato (Heidelberg, 1599).

It seems that there may have been an error of dates, and also perhaps spelling of the names.

Any direction or assistance on the others would be appreciated.

Walter Holt

[Joe Sermarini]

It was Curtis Clay that first posted on Rasche's Lexicon of Ancient Coinage. Perhaps he recalls the title.
 

...

The Tribute Penny ID is not mentioned in Eckhel, or in any other early numismatic work that I can recall, doubtless because these works concentrated on the chronology of the coinage and the explication of the types and legends, not on where the coins circulated and identifying the coins meant whenever the Bible or another ancient literary work mentioned a coin.

However, the question of what coin was handed to Jesus certainly did arise centuries ago, and I presume that the PONTIF MAXIM denarius of Tiberius must have been one of the favorite candidates right from the start!

Rasche's Lexicon of Ancient Coinage, c. 1790, article Census, refers to the following treatises on the question, all in Latin, none of which I have read or had even heard of:  

Marq. Freherus, A treatise on the census coin that the Pharisees asked about, date not given.

Hermanson, A treatise on the denarius of the census [i.e. the Tribute Penny], 1733.

Io. Lor. Moschem, Observations on the story of the census coin, 1725.

Io. Nic. Schulin, A treatise on the census coin, 1685.

[Joe Sermarini]

I found it...

Rasche,  J. C. Lexicon of Ancient Coinage. (1785 - 1805).

14 volumes. Begun before but complete after Eckhel's Historia. J.C. Rasche (1733 - 1805) was born near Eisenach and was the pastor of a place near Meiningen.

[OldMoney]

I found it...
Rasche,  J. C. Lexicon of Ancient Coinage. (1785 - 1805).
14 volumes. Begun before but complete after Eckhel's Historia. J.C. Rasche (1733 - 1805)
was born near Eisenach and was the pastor of a place near Meiningen.

Thanks Joe.
As I mentioned above, I found that particular reference just not the
relevant volume.

I have tried archive.org and google books, as well as google generally but
cannot find a copy of the relevant volume (v.2-II) of Rasche from which
this information has apparently been drawn.

I searched for "Lexicon of Ancient Coinage" as well as the original Latin
title "Lexicon vniversae rei nvmariae vetervm et praecipve Graecorvm ac
Romanorvm cvm observationibvs antiqvariis geographicis chronologicis
historicis criticis et passim ..." (etc.), but still could not find this volume.

Can anyone provide a link, or perhaps just the relevant pages via pdf?

I haven't given up the search . . . yet!

Plus I could still use any help possible with regards to the other two:
- Hermanson, A treatise on the denarius of the census, 1733.
- Io. Lor. Moschem, Observations on the story of the census coin, 1725.

Walter

[Joe Sermarini]

Sorry, I misread your post.  I spent some time looking for other two references, with no luck.  I updated Numiswiki and the Tribute Penny article to include the additional information.

[curtislclay]

Update: I believe I have found the titles for two of these.

- Iohann Nicolaus Schülin and Iohann Widmann, De Numismate Census, ad Matth. cap. XXII. vers. 19 (Wittenberg, 1685); and

- Marquardus Freherus, de Numismate census, a Pharisaeis in quaestionem vocato (Heidelberg, 1599).

It seems that there may have been an error of dates, and also perhaps spelling of the names.

Walter,

What errors do you mean?

The only difference I see is the elimination of the umlaut in Schülin, a change that was made by Rasche not myself.

Not that I am immune to errors, I make them all the time!

I can send you a photocopy of the relevant brief paragraph in Rasche; see my Private Message to you.

[OldMoney]

Hi Curtis,

Thank you very much for yours.

I seem to have mixed two thoughts in that one sentence. It was only to
note that I could find nothing with Schulin, but eventually found 'Schülin'.
Also, and assuming that I had the correct source, I was able to clarify the
publication date for Freherus. I was wondering "out-loud" whether there
may have been an error of transcription, as I could find nothing at all on
the other two, not anywhere. It also crossed my mind that a tiny spelling
error could misdirect a search, or give false results. I was seeking some
clarification, and adding what I thought I had found.

It was not meant to be a criticism, just an observation that there was a
very slight difference between what I was able to find, hoping they were
in fact the correct references, and that which was noted in the Numiswiki
page - which I now understand came via your fine efforts. Mea culpa.

Is there anything else in Rasche that could be used to better identify those
other two references - Hermanson and Moschem?

Walter

[OldMoney]

- Hermanson, A treatise on the denarius of the census, 1733.
- Io. Lor. Moschem, Observations on the story of the census coin, 1725.
Walter

Bump...

Does anyone know of better (Latin?) details for these two references (via Rasche)?

Walter

[curtislclay]

- Hermanson, A treatise on the denarius of the census, 1733.
- Io. Lor. Moschem, Observations on the story of the census coin, 1725.

Does anyone know of better (Latin?) details for these two references (via Rasche)?

All Rasche says is

Hermanson, diss. de denario census. Upsaliae 1733.

Io. Laur. Moshem, Observat. in historiam de numo census. Helmst. 1725.

[OldMoney]

Thank you once again Curtis.

I was able to further track down one of these:
Johann Lorenz von Mosheim & Johann August Steding, In Historiam De Nvmo Censvs Matth. XXII. Observationes (Helmstadt, 1725)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Lorenz_von_Mosheim

The other is proving much more problematic. Still searching....

Walter Holt