Bible Dictionaries
Money (2)

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

Search for…

Enter query below:

or

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Prev Entry
Money

Next Entry
Money-Changers

Resource Toolbox

Print Article

Additional Links

Dictionaries
Hastings' NT Dictionary
• Money (2)
Webster Dictionary
• Money (2)

MONEY.—We propose to treat first of money in general as referred to in the Gospels, and afterwards of the definite sums or coins which are there named.

I. Money in General.—In the Authorized Version six Greek words are rendered ‘money,’ ‘tribute money,’ or ‘piece of money.’ In two cases this is a mistranslation, and is rectified by the Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 . The words are as follows: 1. ἀργύριον (Matthew 25:18; Matthew 25:27; Matthew 28:12; Matthew 28:15, Mark 14:11, Luke 9:3; Luke 19:15; Luke 19:23; Luke 22:5). (In three of the above passages it occurs in the plural without the sense being altered; thus, cf. Matthew 25:18 with 25:27). This word originally means silver, hence silver money (also translation ‘pieces of silver,’ Matthew 27:3; Matthew 27:5-6; Matthew 27:9; see below, under ‘Stater’); finally, as silver was the chief medium of exchange in the ancient world, money in general (cf. Fr. argent). 2. χαλκός (Mark 6:8; Mark 12:41). This word originally means brass, hence coins of brass (or copper), and, as copper money circulated largely among the common people, money in general. 3. κέρμα (John 2:15) comes from a verb meaning to cut, and means originally change or small coins. It is appropriately used in this passage for the stock-in-trade of the money-changers, a part of whose business it was to supply change for larger sums. 4. νόμισμα (Matthew 22:19) comes from a verb meaning to acknowledge as customary or lawful. It means, accordingly, money in the sense of lawful coin. The νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου, or tribute money, was the currency in which the Roman tribute had to be paid, that is, the denarius. 5. τὰ δίδραχμα (Matthew 17:24 Authorized Version ‘tribute money,’ Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 the half-shekel’). As is rightly indicated by the Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 , this word is the name of a definite sum of money which was levied for the maintenance of the Temple (see below, under ‘Didrachm’). 6. στατήρ (Matthew 17:27 Authorized Version ‘piece of money,’ Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘shekel’). Here, too, the Authorized Version is at fault, the word meaning a definite coin (see below, under ‘Stater’).

To the above words used for money in general (though under slightly different aspects) may be added the comprehensive description of money in Matthew 10:9 in terms of the three metals used as specie—gold, silver, and brass (or copper). This verse may be taken as evidence that gold as well as silver and copper coins circulated in Palestine in the time of our Lord, although no gold coin is mentioned in the Gospels. The current gold coin was doubtless the Roman aureus, frequently referred to in the Mishna as a golden denarius. In silver there was more variety. The Roman denarius was, of course, largely, in evidence, and was probably the silver coin in most common use. But there were also coins of larger size, bearing Greek names. When Pompey made Syria a Roman province (b.c. 65), he found in circulation tetradrachms of two different kinds. There were those issued chiefly from Antioch by the Seleucid kings on the Attic standard, weighing 262 grains troy. There were also those issued by the semi-autonomous cities of Phœnicia on the Phœnician standard of 224 grains to the tetradrachm. Tetradrachms of both standards were recognized by Pompey as equivalent to four denarii (Mommsen, Gesch. des Röm. Münzwesens, 36, 715). Both would still be lawful coin in the time of our Lord, though, as Mommsen surmises (ib. 72), the heavier royal tetradrachms would tend to be driven out of circulation by the lighter Phœnician coins, which, besides, as corresponding exactly to the Hebrew shekel, were in special demand in Palestine for religious purposes (see below, under ‘Didrachm’). The supply of silver from the mints at Tyre and Sidon, which continued to issue tetradrachms and didrachms under the Emperors,* [Note: According to most numismatologists; e.g., Head (Hist. Num 675) says: From b.c. 126 down to the reign of Vespasian, we possess a plentiful series of Tyrian tetradrachms and didrachms.’ On the other hand, Mommsen (op. cit. 36) holds that from the time of Pompey the Phœnician cities lost the power of issuing silver money, and points out that the extant Phœnician tetradrachms never bear the names of Emperors or any other indication of Roman sway.] was reinforced from the time of Augustus onwards by the tetradrachms coined in large numbers at Antioch for circulation in the province of Syria. These ranged in weight from 220 to 236 grains, and were no doubt reckoned for ordinary purposes as equal to four denarii, although, in accordance with the regular practice of the Romans of giving a preference to their own silver, they were tariffed for purposes of taxation as only equal to three denarii.

A vexed question, which cannot be held to be yet decided, is whether prior to the time of the first Jewish revolt any silver coins had been produced in Palestine itself. Until lately it has been usual for numismatologists to assign to Simon Meccabaeus certain silver shekels and half-shekels struck on the Phœnician standard, and bearing the inscription in Hebrew, ‘Jerusalem the Holy’ (Madden, Coins of the Jews, 65–71; Head, Hist. Num. 681, 682). Strong historical reasons, however, have been brought by Schürer (HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] i. ii. 379–383) and others for dating these coins rather in the time of the revolt under Nero; and the opinion seems to he making headway that at the time of our Lord, and previously, the Jews were dependent for their silver money upon foreign sources. (For an able statement of the case, see Kennedy in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible , vol. iii. s.v. ‘Money,’ § 5).

On the other hand, the supply of copper money must have been almost, if not quite, exclusively of native production. There were the copper coins of the Hasmonaean princes, those of the various Herods, and those which had been struck since a.d. 6 by successive procurators of Judaea. Unlike the foreign silver money, they have, in deference to Jewish feeling, no Imperial effigy or the likeness of any living thing; even those of the procurators have only the name of the reigning Emperor, and innocent ears of corn, palm-trees, lilies, and the like. As to their denomination we have no sure evidence. Schürer holds that the Romans imposed their monetary standard more rigorously in Palestine than elsewhere, and that even the Herodian coins followed the Roman system (HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. i. 38). Other writers consider it to be more probable that the copper coinage of Palestine followed the subdivisions of the drachm common in Greek-speaking countries. The extant coins contain no indication of value, nor can any safe inference be drawn from their weight, seeing that, where a silver standard prevails, the copper coinage must always be very much of the nature of token money. (See, further, under ‘Assarion,’ ‘Kodrantes,’ and ‘Lepton,’ below).

Before proceeding to speak in detail of the coins named in the Gospels, it will be well to give in tabular form the main elements of the two systems, the Greek and the Roman, which obtained concurrently in Palestine at the time of our Lord. For convenience of reference the average value in sterling money is put opposite the larger sums.

(To this system belong also the stater of four, and the didrachm of two, drachms and the lepton, whose relation to the chalkus is uncertain. See below, under ‘Lepton’).

The point of connexion between the two systems is found in the identification of the Roman denarius with the Attic drachm. This identification was rendered easy by the fact that at the time when Rome began her career of conquest in the East the drachm of the Attic standard had fallen to a weight which only slightly exceeded that of the denarius; but there can be little doubt that it was made deliberately by the Romans as a matter of policy. Alexander the Great had made the Attic drachm the unit of his Imperial coinage, which he imposed upon all the lands he had conquered; and in adopting the Alexandrine drachm as equal to their own denarius, the Romans wished to indicate that they served themselves heirs to his kingdom in the East (Mommsen, op. cit. 691). In imperial times the identification was so completely established that Hellenistic writers regularly refer to the denarius as ‘the Attic drachm.’ This identification enables us to assign values to those coins which follow the Greek system. The weight of the gold aureus is known, and its value admits of easy calculation (see Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible iii. 427), and the other values, as given above, follow at once. This method of ascertaining the value of the silver coins of the Gospels does justice to the fact that, in the Roman Empire then, as in Britain now, the value of silver coins was legally defined in terms of the gold standard.

II. Definite sums of money and coins mentioned in the gospels.—These may most conveniently be treated of under three heads: money of account, silver coins, and copper coins.

(i.) Money of account.—Two sums of money, to which no actual coin corresponded, receive a special name in the Gospels. These are the talent and the mina.

1. Talent (τάλαντον, Matthew 18:24; Matthew 25:15-16; Matthew 25:20; Matthew 25:22; Matthew 25:24-25; Matthew 25:28) is originally the name of the highest weight in the various systems of antiquity, hence the sum of money represented by that weight in gold or silver. The talent of the Gospels, which is, of course, a talent of silver, might conceivably be the Phœnician talent, but is far more probably to be identified with the talent on the reduced Attic scale which bad been formally recognized by the Romans (see above). It contained 6000 Attic drachms or denarii, and was thus worth 240 aurei or £240.

The talent is mentioned twice by our Lord. In the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:23-35) the one servant owes the king 10,000 talents, or nearly two-and-a-half millions of our money—an enormous sum, of which the 100 denarii (= £4) owed him by his fellow-servant represents but an insignificant fraction (1/6000). It may be remarked that the juxtaposition in this parable of the talent and the denarius is a confirmation of the view that it is the Attic talent that is meant). In the parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) the master intrusts his capital of eight talents or £1920 to his three servants in sums of £1200, £480, and £240 respectively. It will be seen that even he who received but one talent had yet quite a respectable capital to trade with, so that the excuse which is sometimes made by commentators on his behalf, viz. that he was discouraged by the smallness of the sum committed to him, is as little valid as that which he offered for himself. The real reason for his conduct was, of course, just his slothfulness.

2. Mina (μνᾶ, Luke 19:13; Luke 19:16; Luke 19:18; Luke 19:20; Luke 19:24-25 Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 pound) is the sixtieth part of the talent. Like the latter, it is to be calculated on the Roman-Attic scale. It contains 100 denarii, and is thus equal to £4.

The only mention of this sum in the Gospels is in the parable of the Pounds (Luke 19:12-27), where a nobleman, going to a far country to get a kingdom, gives one mina to each of his ten servants, bidding them trade with it till his return. The smallness of the sum in such a connexion is remarkable, especially when compared with the companion parable of the Talents. The explanation (as far as the story is concerned) seems to be that the master is not in this case a trader making provision for the suitable employment of his capital in his absence, but one who, having in prospect the acquisition of a kingdom, desires to test capacity of his servants for high office in that kingdom. Ingenuity and diligence would be more thoroughly tested in multiplying a small sum than a large one.

(ii.) Silver coins.—Of these there are mentioned by name, the denarius, the drachm, the didrachm, and the stater. The ‘piece of money’ of the Authorized Version in Matthew 17:27 is the stater, the ‘pieces of silver’ in Luke 15:8 are drachms, while the ‘pieces of silver’ in Matthew 26:15 are probably staters, and are discussed under that heading.

1. Denarius (δηνάριον, Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 penny; American Revisers, more happily, shilling).—This is the most frequently mentioned coin in the Gospels (Matthew 18:28; Matthew 20:2; Matthew 20:9-10; Matthew 20:13; Matthew 22:19, Mark 6:37; Mark 12:15; Mark 14:5, Luke 7:41; Luke 10:35; Luke 20:24, John 6:7; John 12:5). It is the name of the most important Roman coin, which circulated throughout the Empire, and in terms of which all public accounts were made up. It received its name from being originally the equivalent of ten copper asses, but front b.c. 217 onwards it was equivalent to sixteen asses, and weighed 1/84; of the Roman pound, or 60 grains troy. Under Nero (c. [Note: circa, about.] a.d. 60) it was reduced to 1/96; of the pound, or 52½ grains. At the time of our Lord its value was fixed at 1/23; of the aureus, which may be taken under the early emperors as equal on the average to our sovereign; thus the denarius was worth 9–6 pence, or roughly 9½d.

We find the denarius used in the Gospels for the reckoning of even fairly large sums. Thus in the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew 18:28, see above under ‘Talent’) a sum of 100 denarii is mentioned, while in the parable of the Two Debtors (Luke 7:41) the two debts are stated at 500 and 50 denarii respectively (£20 and £2). In Mark 6:37 = John 6:7 the disciples estimate that it would seed bread to the value of at least 200 denarii (£8) to provide for the five thousand. (There is no probability in the suggestion that this figure was named as the amount of money then in ‘the bag.’ It is intended to indicate a sum far beyond the means of the little company). In Mark 14:5 = John 12:5 the vase of ointment with which Mary anointed our Lord is valued at 300 denarii (£12). The ‘exceeding costliness’ of this loving tribute is realized when we remember that the sum named represents at least the annual income of a labourer of those days. This appears from the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15), where a denarius is evidently looked upon as liberal pay for a day’s work; for we may be quite sure that the employer who dealt so generously with the labourers engaged late in the day had struck no niggardly bargain with those hired in the morning. (A passage which may be quoted in confirmation is To 5:14, where the disguised angel is promised by Tobit a drachm a day—at that time a little less than a denarius—for acting as companion to his son. It is true that this was to be exclusive of his necessary expenses; but, on the other hand, the position was one of trust, and would naturally be more highly remunerated than field labour). In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) two denarii are given to the innkeeper as a reasonable payment in advance for the keep of the wounded traveller for a day or two, to he supplemented if necessary on the return of the Samaritan. (This is the most natural way to explain the reference; see Jülicher, Gleichnisreden, ii. 591. On the other hand, Ramsay in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible , Ext. Vol. 394, holds that the two denarii were simply payment for the one night that the two had spent in the inn).

Of special interest is the reference to the denarius in Matthew 22:19 = Mark 12:15 = Luke 20:24 in connexion with the Pharisees’ question as to the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar. The denarius was ‘the money of the tribute’ (Matthew 22:19), all Imperial taxes being payable in terms of it in accordance with a rescript of Germanicus (c. [Note: circa, about.] a.d. 18). It bore upon it the name and title of the reigning Emperor, along with the effigy either of himself or of some member of the Imperial family—the ‘image and superscription’ to which our Lord alluded. It was issued by the Imperial authority, even the Roman Senate having only the right to mint copper coins, and could thus must appropriately be spoken of as ‘that which is Caesar’s.’

2. Drachm (δραχμή, Luke 15:8-9 Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 piece of silver).—This is the name of the unit of the Greek system of silver coinage, and, as such, might be applied to a great variety of coins front different mints and of different standards. In the Gospels it occurs only in the parable of the Lost Coin, where, of course, it must be understood of some coin current in Palestine. Few coins of this denomination were issued from the Phœnician cities or from Antioch, and the city of Caesarea in Cappadocia had only recently begun to coin drachms on the Phœnician standard (of 55 grains) for use in the provinces of Syria and Cappadocia (Mommsen, op. cit. 734, 897; Head, op. cit. 634). Thus, while it is not impossible that the coins in question may have been drachms of the Phœnician standard, they are with greater probability to be identified with the ‘Attic drachms’* [Note: It may not be out of place to remind the reader that the word ‘Attic’ in this connexion implies only a remote association with the coinage of Athens. In his Notes on the Parables, Trench assumes that this drachm was Athenian, stamped with ‘an owl, a tortoise, or a head of Minerva,’ and reluctantly surrenders ‘the resemblance to the human soul, originally stamped with the image and superscription of the great King,’ which earlier expositors had delighted to trace. A sound method of parable exposition will indeed dispense with this fanciful suggestion, but not for Trench’s reasons (see Bruce, Parabolic Teaching, 279).] of the Hellenistic writers, that is, with Roman denarii. In any case, the value for ordinary purposes was the same—about 9½d. of our money. The ‘ten pieces of silver’ possessed by the woman thus amounted to eight shillings.

3. Didrachm (δίδραχμον, Matthew 17:24 Authorized Version ‘tribute money,’ Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘half-shekel’).—As the name implies, this is a coin of the value of two drachms. τὰ δίδραχμα in the passage quoted refers to the tax of half a shekel (Exodus 30:13) levied each year in the month of Adar from all Jews above the age of twenty for the maintenance of the Temple. The only coins then current in Palestine which answered exactly to the ‘shekel of the sanctuary’—leaving out of account the shekels commonly but probably erroneously assigned to Simon Maccabaeus (see above)—were those which had for long been coined in the Phœnician cities; and the Temple tax, along with other sacred dues, was paid in this currency.

The well-established correspondence of the didrachm to the half-shekel has been obscured for some writers by the fact that the LXX Septuagint regularly translate שֶׁקֶל by δ·δραχμον. From the narrative in Mt. it is evident that the tax was a voluntary one, although the Mishna declares that the goods of those who had not paid it by the 25th Adar might be distrained (Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. 112). After the destruction of Jerusalem, Vespasian made compulsory a poll-tax of the same amount to defray the cost of rebuilding the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

4. Stater (στατήρ, Matthew 17:27 Authorized Version piece of money, Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 shekel).—The word στατήρ is derived from the verb ἵστημι in the sense of to weigh. It hence means, in the first place, a standard weight, and then derivatively a standard coin. In Athens it was at first applied to the didrachm, which was looked upon as the standard coin of the monetary system, but afterwards to the tetradrachm or piece of four drachms. It is evidently so used in the passage before us, for the stater to be found in the fish’s mouth was to pay the Temple tax of a didrachm for two persons, our Lord and Peter. The tetradrachm of the Phœnician standard corresponded to the Hebrew shekel, and is no doubt the coin here indicated. Josephus refers in one passage (BJ ii. xxi. 2) to ‘the Tyrian coin which is of the value of four Attic drachms,’ and in another (Ant. iii. viii. 2) he gives the value of the Hebrew shekel as four Attic drachms. The stater would thus be worth 4s. 2d. of our money.

In Matthew 26:15 Cod. D [Note: Deuteronomist.] reads σριἁκοντα στατῆρας; and though this reading is rejected by critical editors, it probably embodies a correct paraphrase of the ἀργύρια (Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘pieces of silver’) of the Textus Receptus . That is, the thirty pieces of silver paid to the traitor as the price of blood were staters of the Phœnician standard. This appears from a comparison of the passages in Mt. where they are spoken of with Zechariah 11:12-13, in which shekels are plainly intended. It has been pointed out (O. Holtzmann, NT Zeitgesch. 110) that just as in Zechariah 11:12 the word שֶׁקֶל does not occur but is suggested by the word וַיִּשְׁקְלוּ, so also the word στατήρ is latent in the verb ἵστησαν in Matthew 26:15. Reckoning the stater at 4 denarii, the sum paid to Judas amounted to £4, 16s. Thirty shekels of silver was the price that had to be paid (Exodus 21:32) as blood-money for a male or female slave; and this coincidence has frequently been used as a striking illustration of the truth expressed in Philippians 2:7 that our Lord took upon Himself the form of a servant.

(iii.) Copper coins.—There are three copper coins mentioned in the Gospels: the assarion, the kodrantes, and the lepton. The last is translation ‘mite’ in the Authorized and Revised Versions , while the two others are called, without distinction, by the name ‘farthing.’

1. Assarion (ἀσσάριον Matthew 10:29, Luke 12:6, Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 farthing, Amer. Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 penny).—The name is derived from the Latin assarius, a variant of as. It may either be the name given in Greek-speaking countries to the Roman as, or else the name of some local copper coin which in some way corresponded to it. Both views have been taken, by different scholars, of the significance of the word in the above passages. On the one hand, Schürer (HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. i. 39) and others hold that it is the Roman as that is here mentioned, in value the sixteenth part of the denarius. In support of this view, it may be urged that copper coins were issued, by authority of the Senate, from the Imperial mint at Antioch for circulation in the province of Syria, that these coins bear Latin inscriptions, and that of the two sizes in which they are found one has been identified (e.g. by Mommsen, op. cit. 718, and Madden, op. cit. 301) with the sestertius or quarter-denarius, and the other with the as. Moreover, the Vulgate not only renders ἀσσάριον back into as in the passage in Mt., but in the corresponding passage in Lk. has dipondio, thus identifying the ‘two farthings’ which are named as the price of two sparrows with the Roman dupondius or piece of two asses. Schürer points out, besides, that the name אִםֶּר (’issar, evidently the Heb. form of ἀσσάριον) occurs frequently in the Mishna, and is sometimes expressly called אסר איסלקי or Italian assarion. If this view is correct, the assarion of the Gospels will represent 6d.—roughly a halfpenny—in English money, or exactly 5 German pfennigs. On the other hand, this simple solution of the problem is challenged, and chiefly on account of those very references in the Mishna to which Schürer appeals. The qualification of certain assaria as ‘Italian’—which is also found in Greek on certain Cretan coins of the time of Claudius (Head, 384) and in a quotation from the Rescript of Germanicus in the Palmyra tariff—seems to imply that there were other coins of the same name, but of different value. And, as a matter of fact, the Mishna speaks of the dînar or denarius as containing 24 ’issârîm, which cannot therefore be Roman asses of 16 to the denarius. If this distinction existed already in the time of our Lord, it is to be presumed that He used the word in the more popular sense.* [Note: Kennedy in Hastings’ DB, s.v. ‘Money,’ § 8, draws an interesting and instructive distinction between the ‘tariff’ and the ‘current’ value of the local copper money. Just as the tetradrachmon of Antioch was tariffed as only equal to three denarii for purposes of taxation, so he supposes that the local assarion (1/24 of the drachm) was rated as equivalent to half of the Italian assarion or as. But this does not affect the calculation made above, for of course the purchase of sparrows would be one of those ‘ordinary purposes’ for which the coin would retain its current value.] In this case the price of the two sparrows (Matthew 10:29) would be 4d., or rather less than a halfpenny—almost exactly 4 centimes.

2. Kodrantes (κοδράντης, Matthew 5:26, Mark 12:42, Authorized Version , Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 , and Amer. Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 farthing).—There can be no question as to the identity of the coin that is intended in these two passages. It is the quadrans or quarter-as, the smallest coin in the Roman system, equal in value to 3/5 of a farthing, or a little more than the pfennig. It may, however, reasonably be doubted whether any coin known by this name was in circulation in Palestine in the time of our Lord. The word does not occur in the Mishna, and it has not been found in any of the inscriptions in Greek-speaking provinces (see ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] x. [1899] 232, 336. where Sir W. M. Ramsay takes Prof. Blass roundly to task for assuming that the name κοδράντης was familiar in the East, and that the provincial cities coined copper money with Roman designations). Nor are the allusions in the Gospels conclusive. Mk.’s explanatory note (λεπτὰ δύο, ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης) is obviously intended for non-Palestinian (possibly Roman) readers. As for the use of the word in Mt., the fact that the parallel passage in Lk. has τὸ ἕσχατον λεπτόν instead of τὸν ἕσχατον κοδράντην, suggests that it may have been inserted by the First Evangelist as the name of the smallest coin in the Roman system in place of the lepton, the smallest coin in the Palestinian system. It is, however, open to us to suppose that there was a local coin which for some purposes was identified with the quadrans, though rarely so named. A coin of Agrippa ii. has been found bearing the name χαλκοῦς (Madden, 146). In the ordinary Greek system the chalkus is equal to 1/48;, of the drachm; but if we suppose that for purposes of taxation local copper was only accepted subject to a discount of 25 per cent., the chalkus would be tariffed as equal to the quadrans, which is 1/64; of the denarius. (Cf. note to last paragraph, and see the already quoted art. by Prof. Kennedy, who works out in detail the relations of the ‘tariff’ and ‘current’ values of the various coins).

3. Lepton (λεπτόν, Mark 12:42, Luke 12:59; Luke 21:2, Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 mite).—This name is originally an adjective meaning ‘thin’ or ‘small.’ It hence denotes a very small coin, but is otherwise indeterminate. ‘In the Oriental provinces of the Roman Empire,’ says Babelon (Monnaies Grecques et Romaines, i. i. 466), ‘the word λεπτόν regularly denoted local copper money as distinguished from coppers of the Roman mint.’ At different times and in various places it was used of coins of very different value. As used in the Gospels, however, there is no ambiguity. It is agreed on all hands that it denotes the smallest coin current among the Jews, known to the Mishna as the פְּרוּמְּה (pĕrûtâh), of which we are expressly told that it was an eighth of the Roman as (see reff. in Lightfoot, ii. 453, and Schürer, ii. i. 40),—a statement which exactly agrees with that of Mk. about the value of the lepton. If, therefore, time quadrans is to be identified with the chalkus, the lepton is a coin of half the value.

Nevertheless, the statement of Mk. (λεττὰ δύο, ὅ ἱστιν κοδράντης), has given much trouble to numismatologists, who, to quote the words of one of them, ‘have serious difficulty in finding among the small coins of Judaea separate denominations for chalkous and lepton’ (G. F. Hill in EBi [Note: Bi Encyclopaedia Biblica.] , s.v. ‘Penny’). Accordingly, many attempts have been made to identify the lepton with the chalkus-quadrans. Thus Madden, following Cavedoni, cuts the knot by supposing Mk. to have meant the ὁ ἰστι, to apply to the λεττον and not to the λεττα δύο (Coins of the Jews, 304), and appeals for corroboration to the correspondence of the kodrantes to the lepton in Matthew 5:26 = Luke 12:59. Hill, on the other hand, following up the suggestion of Prof. Kennedy referred to in the preceding paragraphs, contends that the difference between the lepton and the chalkus-guadrans was only a matter of accounting. The difficulty, as stated by Mr. Hill, depends upon the assumption that the chalkus-quadrans was a current Palestinian coin. This, however, has not been proved. Agrippa’s chalkus need not have been considered as equal to a quadrans.* [Note: Babelon (606) identifies the quadrans with the δίχαλκον and the χαλκοῦς; with the lepton of the Gospels.] As stated by Mr. Madden, ‘it is impossible to get over the fact that at this period the quadrans of the Empire, which still retained the name of χαλκοῦς, had the same weight as the lepton of the time of the Seleucidae’ (Coins of the Jews, 304). The difficulty depends, further, upon an inference from weight,—an inference which, in the case of coins which were little more than tokens, is unusually precarious. In any case, the arguments advanced would need to be much stronger in order to upset the positive statement of St. Mark.

The value, then, as men reckon values, of the widow’s gift was little more than a farthing. But the fact that it consisted of two tiny coins,—a fact which we constantly obscure by talking, in our careless way, of ‘the widow’s mite,’—is full of significance. She might have kept back one.† [Note: ‘Quorum unum vidua retinere potuerat’ (Bengel).] But of her penury she cast in all that she had; and so of her, too, as of another woman who from her larger resources made an equally lavish gift, it is true that, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the whole world (Matthew 26:13), this that she did is told as a memorial of her.

Literature.—Madden’s Coins of the Jews (vol. ii. of Numismata Orientalia) contains an exhaustive account of all the extant Jewish coins, and an appendix (289–310) on the money of the NT. The subject is treated briefly, but clearly, in Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. i. 38–40, and O. Holtzmann, NT Zeitgesch. 110–116. Mommsen’s Gesch. des Röm. Münzwesens is a mine of information on all that concerns the money of the Empire. Articles on ‘Money’ in the various Bible Dictionaries can be read with advantage, esp. the admirably comprehensive and lucid art. by Prof. Kennedy in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible .

Norman Fraser.