Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:44:50.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on Luke's Parable of the Minas and the Ancient Practice of Burying Coin Hoards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2019

Anthony Giambrone
Anthony Giambrone*
Affiliation:
École biblique de Jérusalem, 83 Nablus Rd, POB 19053, 9119001 Jerusalem, Israel. Email: anthony.giambrone@opeast.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The archaeology of ancient coin hoards and some basic numismatic analysis help to understand certain cultural presuppositions informing Luke's tangled discourse in his Parable of the Minas. Stories of political unrest and stories of hidden treasure naturally belong together.

Keywords

numismaticsminatalentstreasurefear
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 589 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wenkel, D., Coins as Cultural Texts in the World of the New Testament (T&T Clark Biblical Studies; London: Bloomsbury, 2017)Google Scholar.

2 See e.g. the interesting but uncertain proposal made by Lau, M., ‘Capta et devicta? Eine mk Gegenerzählung zur römischen Judaea-Capta-Münzprägung: Anmerkungen zur literarischen Technik einer narrativen Münzüberprägung in Mk 5,1–20’, RB 126 (2019, forthcoming)Google Scholar; and the equally interesting, but very different, suggestion of Zeichmann, C. B., ‘The Date of Mark's Gospel apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The Taxation Episode (12:13–17) as Evidence’, CBQ 79 (2017) 422–37Google Scholar.

3 Wenkel, Coins as Cultural Texts, 45–79.

4 Wenkel, Coins as Cultural Texts, 53–64.

5 Howgego, C., Ancient History from Coins (Approaching the Ancient World; London: Routledge, 1995) 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Wenkel, Coins as Cultural Texts, 57.

7 Waner, M. and Safrai, Z., ‘A Catalogue of Coin Hoards and the Shelf Life of Coins in Palestine Hoards during the Roman and Byzantine Periods’, Liber Annuus 51 (2001) 305–36, at 308CrossRefGoogle Scholar.   See also Ariel, D. T., ‘A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem (until the End of the Byzantine Period)’, Liber Annuus 32 (1982) 273–326Google Scholar.

8 Davies, W. D. and Allison, D., The Gospel according to St. Matthew, vol. ii (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) 436Google Scholar.

9 They do cite their earlier comment on Matt 13.44 in passing, but no substantive engagement with this evocative observation is offered in either place.

10 For a good treatment of the double tradition, see Snodgrass, K. R., Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) 519–42Google Scholar.  For a bibliography on the parable, see Nolland, J., Luke 18:35–24:53 (WBC 35c; Dallas: Word Books, 1993) 908–9Google Scholar.  The version of the Parable of the Talents in the Gospel of the Hebrews (as recounted by Eusebius in his Theophania) depicts the first servant spending his sum on harlots and flute players, an option not considered by any of the characters in the canonical versions (see Aland, K., ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005 15)Google Scholar §299 line 81).

11 Fitzmyer, J. (The Gospel according to Luke X–XXIV (AB 28A; New York: Doubleday, 1983) 1237)Google Scholar is certainly correct to reject the strained, allegorical explanation of fear offer by McGaughy, L. C., ‘The Fear of Yahweh and the Mission of Judaism: A Postexilic Maxim and its Early Christian Expansion in the Parable of the Talents’, JBL 94 (1975) 235–45Google Scholar.  At the same time, the reading proposed here suggests that there is more to the parable's allegorical fear motif than simply what ‘is explained in the following phrases’ (i.e. Luke 19.21b), as Fitzmyer would have it.  Too little is, in fact, explained by the servant's explanation – as the master sees.

12 See INJ 2 (1964) 1–2.

13 Nolland, Luke, 913.

14 Large expenditures and state-to-state money transfers, etc. were frequently reckoned in talents, often on the order of many hundreds or thousands.  For instance, according to Caesar's disposition of Herod the Great's will (Josephus, Ant. 17.11.4), Archelaus received an annual tribute of 600 talents from his territories (Idumea, Judea, Samaria, Strato's Tower, Sebaste, Joppa, Jerusalem), while Antipas received 200 (Peraea, Galilee) and Philip 100 (Batanea, Trachonitis, Auronitis).

15 See the comprehensive survey of weights in the Hellenistic Levant offered by Finkielsztejn, G., ‘The Weight Standards of the Hellenistic Levant, Part One: The Evidence of the Syrian Scale Weights’, Israel Numismatics Review 9 (2014) 61–94Google Scholar.

16 See the detailed, if dated, article ‘Mina (μνᾶ)’ by Babelon, E. in Le dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, vol. iii.2 (ed. Daremberg, C. and Saglio, E.; Paris: Hachette, 1904) 1907–10Google Scholar.  One thing made clear by Babelon is the precarious state of our knowledge.

17 Babelon describes several extant minas associated with Antioch and/or the Seleucids and Finkielsztejn (‘Weight Standards’, 68) says plainly: ‘In Hellenistic Syria the weight standard was the mina (μνᾶ). This is the only unit appearing in the inscriptions found on weights.’  Luke's explicit mention of the Greek silver drachma in the Parable of the Lost Coin (Luke 15.13–10) also suggests an economic reference point in the Greek east.  On the other hand, a cultural mix is clearly reflected: Luke 7.41 and 10.35 speak of Roman denarii (cf. Luke 20.24 // Mark 12.15) and Josephus reports that the mina was in common use in Judea (Ant. 14.105–16).  It is of some interest in judging the foreign associations of the mina, however, that Bar Kokhba later adopted the sela, not the mina, as his weight standard, with weights at times bearing inscriptions in the nationalistically charged paleo-Hebraic script.  See Deutsch, R., ‘A Lead Weight of Shimon Bar Kokhba’, Israel Exploration Journal 51 (2001) 96–9Google Scholar.

18 See e.g. the elegant Middle Babylonian basalt duck weighing 30 minas (about 15 kg) in the British Museum (British Museum no. 91433).  See also e.g. BM nos. 91435, 91447, 91434, 1882.0323.5228 and the illustrations of various single mina weights in Babelon, ‘Mina (μνᾶ)’, 1909–10.

19 See the discussion, chart and illustrations in chapter xii (‘Weights’) of Madden, F., History of Jewish Coinage and of Money in the Old and New Testament (Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1968), esp. 253–68Google Scholar.

20 Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, Band 8: Mer-Op (Stuttgart/Weimar: J. B. Metzler, 2000) col. 208Google Scholar: ‘Die über lange Jahre gültige Forschungsmeinung, daß jede M. 100 Drachmen schwer war, ist widerlegt.’ In his entry, K. Hitzl provides evidence of variable conversion rates in locations such as Aegina (1 mina = 70 drachms) and Corinth (1:150).  In Athens the conversion shifted over time, from 100 to 105 to 110 to 138 and finally to 150 drachms to a mina.  Hitzl does not address the mina-to-talent ratio, which appears to be a fixed theoretical constant.  The existence of so-called ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ (and ‘double’) minas further complicates the picture.  See Finkielsztejn, ‘Weight Standards’, 68–70, and the charts and tables at the end of his article.

21 On these two treasures, see Kadman, L., ‘Temple Dues and Currency in Ancient Palestine in Light of Recently Discovered Coin Hoards’, Israel Numismatic Bulletin 1 (1962) 9–11Google Scholar and Negev, A., ‘The Mempsis (Kurnub) Hoard of Roman Provincial Silver: A Preliminary Note’, INJ 3 (1965) 27–31Google Scholar. A discrepancy exists in the number of coins listed for the Ussafiya/Carmel hoard by Kadman and by Waner and Safrai. In the Gospel commentary literature, 6,000 denarii are the widely reported equivalent of 1 talent.

22 The Ussafiya/Carmel Hoard is unusually uniform, containing about 3,400 Tyrian shekels, 1,000 half-shekels and 160 Roman denarii of Augustus.  This precise distribution represents the ritually exact payment of the annual Temple Tax for a group of 7,800 males, presumably hindered in its transport to Jerusalem during the early stages of the First Revolt and thus buried.  See Kadman, ‘Temple Dues’, 9.  The Mempsis hoard was similarly comprised of only two denominations: denarii and tetradrachms (Negev, ‘Hoard of Roman and Provincial Silver’, 28).  Smaller deposits by contrast often display a greater diversity.

23 Burial is ultimately a protective behaviour of the relatively poor.  Two evident reasons why buried hoards that are measured on the order of talents do not generally appear in the archaeological record is thus because (i) such amassed treasures were naturally much more rare and (ii) the actors involved with such sums had much more secure ways of protecting their treasure than napkins and holes in the ground, i.e. fortresses and soldiers, etc., which when taken passed into the hands of the opposing force.

24 The quality of such a cloth might vary greatly; fine linen worthy of a dowry could even be envisaged.  See Moulton, J. H. and Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914–30) s.vGoogle Scholar.

25 At most commentators observe that Matthew's talent would not fit in a napkin, as Luke's mina would, which is, of course, probably true, but not at all revealing about the napkin; see e.g. Nolland, Luke, 915 and Bovon, F., Luke 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013) 608Google Scholar.  There seems to be a wide assumption that hiding with the cloth is a strict alternative to burial in the ground, which is incorrect.  See below.

26 See e.g. Rachmani, L. Y., ‘Two Hoards of Byzantine Coins and a Roman Charm from Khirbet deir Dassawi’, INJ 2 (1964) 19–23, at 19Google Scholar; Stern, E., ‘Buried Treasure: The Silver Hoard from Dor’, BAR 24 (1998) 46–51Google Scholar; and Negev, ‘Hoard of Roman and Provincial Silver’, 27–8.  Unfortunately, many (especially older) reports make no mention of the exact circumstances of the finding and unprovenanced artefacts are a problem, as many hoards were not discovered by archaeologists in situ, but rather by locals, who often enough traded in their newly found treasure on the black market (e.g. Spaer, A., ‘A Hoard of Alexander Tetradrachms from Galilee’, INJ 3 (1965) 1–7, at 1Google Scholar).

27 Meshorer, Y., ‘The Coins of Masada, 1963–65’, Masada i: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–65. Final Reports (ed. Aviram, J., Foerster, G. and Nezer, E.; Jerusalem: Hebrew University & Israel Exploration Society, 1989) 71–132, at 73Google Scholar.

28 One must appreciate the nuance in the Parable of the Minas of Luke's use of a political scenario to allegorise the coming Kingdom, precisely in order to simultaneously discount reactions involving fear of that Kingdom as one might fear a political scenario such as the Jewish Revolt.  I would gesture here to Rowe's, C. K. important attempt to articulate this subtly at-once-political-and-apolitical dimension of Lukan theology in World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.