Whose Face was on the Coin?

Discuss the world of the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Whose Face was on the Coin?

Post by DCHindley »

Ged wrote:Interesting. The dual-faced coins like this one were minted in Antioch. As best as I know it is the mint from where Judean currency came from too.

As for Roman currency such as the 'denarri', if it found its way into Judah, would it have been accepted as legal tender? Just asking.
There is some question as to whether Judea had a closed monetary system like there was in Egypt. I think you will find that the local bronze "fractional" currency issued by the provincial governors was not minted in the same place as the "Tyrian" shekels accepted in the temple for temple tax purposes and presumably as offerings by pilgrims or payment of tithes when not paid "in kind."

The mint in Tyre, IIRC, was closed somewhere around 19 BCE. From that point on, it is believed that Herod had secured from the Romans the right for the temple authorities to continue minting these shekels, although not under Herod's or the temple establishment's name, probably from somewhere near Jerusalem. The shekels retained the old pagan imagery and purity of silver, but did have distinctive mint marks different than those of shekels minted in Tyre.

However, if pilgrims were bringing in "foreign" coins (including drachmae and denarii) which the money changers exchanged, there must have been denarii to be found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. That they are not found in hoards in Judea would suggest that they were not permitted to be circulated as money in the local economy. In other words, the local merchants would not have accepted them as payment for products or services, so they had no use in the local economy as instruments of exchange.

As for the form of payment of poll or property taxes, these may have been specified in denarii, but in this period all the other coins were pegged to the denarius at set exchange rates, so payment of the tax would have been in local currency ("Tyrian" shekels and/or Syrian drachmae).

Some time ago I summarized the tax information found in the revised English translation of Schürer's Jewish People and came up with this:
D) What taxes were involved?

“From these it is evident that there were two kinds of direct taxes for the provinces: [and from here on I am paraphrasing pp. 401-403, but keep the original wording whenever I can]”

(1) a tax on agricultural produce, *tributum soli*. [This] was paid partly in kind, partly in money. [e.g., Egypt and parts of Africa supplied through taxes paid "in kind" enough grain to feed all Italy].

(2) a poll-tax, *tributum capitis*. The second included various kinds of personal taxes:

(a) a property tax which varied according to a person’s capital valuation. For example, in Appian’s time non-Roman citizens resident in Syria and Cilicia paid a tax of 1% of the amount of valuation. There does appear to be a question as to whether the valuation tax was further split between landed property and moveable possessions.

(b) a poll-tax proper at a flat rate per all capita [“heads”]. Women and slaves were also subject to this tax. Only children and old people were exempt. In Egypt a poll-tax was levied that was not identical for all the inhabitants but varied for each category of the population. This was accomplished by segregating the country into communities with a privileged class of “metropolites” subject to a lower rate. In Syria, men aged 14-65 and women aged 12-65, were subject to poll-taxes. In Egypt, the obligation lasted from the age of 14 to 60 or 61.

“In both [the above] cases [of poll-taxes] the expressions *edere* [i.e., to put forth, or give out, (documents or data)], *deferre censum* [i.e., to report, or bring certain things, to the place where the census was conducted in his area], [and] *profitari* [i.e., to make a public statement, or make a (tax) return of property] were used, from which it is evident that the taxpayer himself had to submit the necessary data, which were then checked by the officials. This declaration had to be made in the chief town of each taxation district; indeed, landed estates were required to be registered for taxation in the communities in which they are situated.” (p. 403).
You will notice that there is no mention of a specific coin for payment.

Fabian Udoh, in his 1996 Doctoral Thesis at Duke University, Tribute and Taxes in Early Roman Palestine (LC NO DS121 .U46 1996a OCLC # 44750220 Isn/std # .b52273647, but later published as a monograph), which examines taxation in Jewish Palestine from 63 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.
looked at elements of the story: "Did a Roman tax exist in Jesus's time that everyone was required to pay? Was payment required in a particular Roman coin? Would that coin have borne the likeness of the emperor, and if so, would it have been circulating in such abundance that Jesus could have reasonably expected one to be produced on the spot?"

Udoh found "no evidence from the period of a census-based, per-capita tribute or 'poll tax,' as the word in Matthew and Mark is customarily translated." Instead, assessments likely would have been based on agricultural production and paid in-kind with farm products like grain. In Udoh's analysis "Rome did not impose a "per capita" tribute on the people in Judea until 70 A.D. He also finds no evidence of a direct tribute requiring payment in Roman money. Finally, he observes that since colonial taxes are notoriously difficult to collect, requiring payment in a specific coin would have only made collection more difficult." Udoh says "archeological findings suggest they were not the silver coin being used at the time. That coin was the Tyrian shekel." http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/au2001/bible.html Autumn 2001 Notre Dame Magazine Online <link is now dead as a doorknob>
DCH
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Whose Face was on the Coin?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Moved here from "Faith and Philosophy."
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ged
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:35 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Whose Face was on the Coin?

Post by Ged »

Thanks for the detailed information DCH.
DCHindley wrote: However, if pilgrims were bringing in "foreign" coins (including drachmae and denarii) which the money changers exchanged, there must have been denarii to be found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. That they are not found in hoards in Judea would suggest that they were not permitted to be circulated as money in the local economy. In other words, the local merchants would not have accepted them as payment for products or services, so they had no use in the local economy as instruments of exchange.

DCH
O.K, but any medium of exchange is as good as people deem it to be. Here in New Zealand local shop keepers usually accept Australian currency at face value, but Jews are not as easy-going as us. That is probably why money changers were to be found in the temple. The 'divine' Augustus would have gone down like a lead balloon in Jerusalem.
The science of arranging time in periods and ascertaining the dates and historical order of past events.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Whose Face was on the Coin?

Post by andrewcriddle »

DCHindley wrote:Fabian Udoh, in his 1996 Doctoral Thesis at Duke University, Tribute and Taxes in Early Roman Palestine (LC NO DS121 .U46 1996a OCLC # 44750220 Isn/std # .b52273647, but later published as a monograph), which examines taxation in Jewish Palestine from 63 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.
looked at elements of the story: "Did a Roman tax exist in Jesus's time that everyone was required to pay? Was payment required in a particular Roman coin? Would that coin have borne the likeness of the emperor, and if so, would it have been circulating in such abundance that Jesus could have reasonably expected one to be produced on the spot?"

Udoh found "no evidence from the period of a census-based, per-capita tribute or 'poll tax,' as the word in Matthew and Mark is customarily translated." Instead, assessments likely would have been based on agricultural production and paid in-kind with farm products like grain. In Udoh's analysis "Rome did not impose a "per capita" tribute on the people in Judea until 70 A.D. He also finds no evidence of a direct tribute requiring payment in Roman money. Finally, he observes that since colonial taxes are notoriously difficult to collect, requiring payment in a specific coin would have only made collection more difficult." Udoh says "archeological findings suggest they were not the silver coin being used at the time. That coin was the Tyrian shekel." http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/au2001/bible.html Autumn 2001 Notre Dame Magazine Online <link is now dead as a doorknob>
DCH
Use https://web.archive.org/web/20080808133 ... bible.html

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply