• metà emesse dalla zecca di Lugdunum; si trattava in questo caso di denari (peso 3,60 ÷ 3,85 g);
• e metà dalla zecca di Cesarea in Cappadocia; si trattava in questo caso di dracme (peso c. 3,45 g). 

Dall'esame della tabella emerge che, se si escludono le tipologie più rare, rimangono due sole monete come possibili candidate al ruolo di denari del tributo, la RIC 26 e la RIC 30, tra loro molto simili, in quanto si differenziano per piccoli particolari del rovescio. Devo aggiungere che le monete della zecca di Cesarea non sono propriamente denari mentre RIC 2 e RIC 4 furono battute solo agli inizi del regno, talché la tesi dell'individuazione del denaro del tributo in uno dei due tipi sopra indicati sembrerebbe trovare consistenza. Ma è effettivamente così? La questione viene in parte analizzata dal sito: http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac60tri.html il quale afferma, a mio parere correttamente, che la moneta potrebbe essere ricercata tra i denari battuti sotto Augusto o sotto Cesare, in quanto recano comunque la parola "CAESAR" nella leggenda ed erano, ai tempi di Tiberio, ancora in circolazione. Ma io aggiungerei anche il seguente dubbio, siamo certi che il denaro citato dagli Evangelisti fosse proprio un "denario"?  Denaro è un termine generico, mentre "denario" è uno specifico nominale. Se così fosse la ricerca andrebbe estesa anche ai sesterzi, agli assi, ai dupondi e alle dracme. Le fonti evangeliche sono in lingua greca e un approfondimento glottologico non è francamente alla mia portata. Ho interpellato il forum di numismatica di Yahoo "Moneta-L" (iscrizione gratuita) per accertare se in Palestina, al tempo di Cristo, circolassero monete provinciali oltre alle classiche monete romane. Mi è stato fatto osservare che nei tesori rinvenuti da quelle parti ve ne fossero dell'uno¹ e dell'altro tipo². La discussione si è estesa a considerazioni sul significato della risposta di Cristo ai farisei che lo provocavano³ ma qui mi fermo, in quanto il dettaglio delle risposte può essere letto direttamente sul sito di Yahoo, gruppo Moneta-L, ricercando i "post" disponibili sotto la voce "penny", lungo l'arco temporale compreso tra il 12 ed il 16 del mese in corso.

Un saluto cordiale.
Giulio De Florio
---------
Note:
 

(1) The local currency consisted of small bronze coins, protot and lepta. 
(2)  I have a lot of exposure to hoards from Israel, and it seems, although may be totally coincidence, that you either found hoards with totally provincial silver, or nearly fully Imperial.
(3) Yes, the denarius did circulate in Palestine/ Israel back in Jesus' day, Tiberius Tribute denarii are offered for auction regularly that have been recovered in Israel, Jordan and Syria. There are good reasons to pick this coin besides "convention". To say, "there is no real evidence that Jesus saw this coin" is an argument from silence - there is no evidence to say he did not either. It does stand to reason however that if they were being copied as far off as India <http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac5.html> ,there is no reason to beleive they were not already in Israel at the time of Christ. In the passages that deal with the coin, Christ points to the coin to make apoint: Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they mightensnare him in (his) talk. 16 And they send to him their disciples, withthe Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest theway of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not theperson of men. 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful togive tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived theirwickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? 19Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a denarius. 20 Andhe saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They sayunto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar thethings that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. 22 Andwhen they heard it, they marvelled, and left him, and went away. Now why did Jesus call them hypocrites? They asked the person who in the text is the presumed Son of God or God incarnate if it was OK to pay taxes to Caesar. The "Tribute Penny" of Tiberius would have not merely fit the historical period properly but it also would have been particularly blasphemous to a practicing Jew. The inscription uses the word DIVI - Divine, in other words, Tiberius is calling himself a god on the coin. Also, by way of Christian theology, Jesus is the only bridge to heaven: 1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; For Tiberius to embrace both the title PONTIF[EX] MAXIM[VS] and DIVI, he was saying he was a god and the bridge to heaven. This is why the Tiberius "Tribute Penny" is uniquely suited to be the coin mentioned in the New Testament. Jesus was calling the priests hypocrites in part for mocking Him by asking Him such a question. A Pontifex Maximus is a sort of "master bridgefixer" in a religious sort of way, a high priest who acts as a bridge between man and the gods. For him to point to the coin and say, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" is to point out that Tiberius was guilty of blasphemy -calling himself God when he was not God. Verse 22 says they heard/understood and marveled ( akousantes ethaumasan) and left. In other words they understood what he meant and were astounded in His response to their challenge. I don't think a coin like Sear GIC 289 or 296 would work well for such aquestion and response. If you insert Tiberius' PONTIF MAXIM coin into thecontext of those verses, it makes a lot of sense. Early Christians were quite steadfast in their belief that the Roman Emperor's proclaimed divinity was a belief that could cost you your soul and were willingto die to defy it if necessary. In these modern times, recent Roman historians have played down the importance of that belief as if to say that the Romans' own belief in the Emperor's divinity was not a big deal and if the early Christians would have just gone through the motions of giving a nod, they could have spared themselves martyrdom easily. But then the case can easily be made to the contrary, "Why bother at all?" Why was it so important for them to sacrifice to the Emperor and recognize the emperor's claim of divinity if nobody really did believe it? Because Christianity like Judaism holds to a doctrine of exclusivity - that is to say, "There is only room for one God in this belief system." The answer Jesus gave was cautiously revolutionary, Jesus was not saying withhold taxes from the emperor as head of state but He was saying that they should withhold their worship of the emperor's genius. It was a call to choose spiritual loyalties. Who owns your soul? Rome or God? Who do you trust to take you to Heaven? The God of Israel or the Emperor of Rome? The hereditary Levitical priesthood was pretty much history at this point and many priests serving in the temple would have been doing so at the emperor's pleasure. What Jesus said would have been particulary embarrassing for a man who was in office by bribery and very vindicating to one who was there by his own merits. With any other coin, the passage sort of loses its punch. Jim McGarigle Polymath Numismatics.