WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, HEBREW. I.

Measures of Length. Larger Measures of Length (§ 5).

Absolute Values (§ 3).

Basis andDevelopmentofSyatem (§1). II. Measures of Surface. IV. Weights.

Basal Hebrew Measure (§ 2).

III.

Measures of Capacity. The Shekel (§ 1).

Ezekiel's

Two Cubits (§ 3).

Dry and Liquid Measure (§ 1).

The Talent; Absolute values (§ 2).

The Cubit, Hebrew, Egyptian, Baby- The Basis Sesagesimal (§2).

Changes Introduced (§ 3).

Ionian (§ 4).

I. Measures of Length: As in modern systems of measures, so in the ancient, measures of length furnished the basis. The original units of measurement were taken by man from his own body-fingerbreadth, hand-breadth, span, arm, foot, and step, and these are found among all peoples. r. Basis and But such measures are only relative,

Develop- since the bases are not of the same ab- meat of solute length in different individuals. Systems. There was therefore need for an arti ficial normalization in order to obtain from these relative measures an absolute, secure, and generally applicable measure. This normalization has naturally worked out in different ways among different peoples, so far as they have not borrowed one from another. And yet this process of borrowing has been very extensive. The various systems of weights, measures, and coinage known to us as used in the ancient world appear to go back to the same fundamental system. But whether this fundamen tal system was of Babylonian or of Egyptian par entage is a question which has of late years once more come to the front; though it must not be for gotten that Egyptian culture was not uninfluenced by the Babylonian. The conclusion must be that the basis for the system of weights and measures used in Hither Asia was given in Babylonia; but again this does not exclude modification of this or that particular measure so as to agree more closely with Egyptian than with Babylonian norms. The system of Hebrew weights and measures can not be considered as a thing apart and by itself; it must be studied in connection with the varied systems in use in Asia. As instruments of measurement there are men tioned in the Old Testament the measuring reed or rod (Hebr. keneh hammiddah, also shebe,E, Gk. ,kala snos, kan6re, Lat. pertica mensoria, Assyr. kanu; Ezek. xl. 3, 5, xlii. 16 sqq.; Jer. x. 16, li. 19; Rev. xi. 1), and the line (Hebr, kaw, pethil pishtim, hebhel middah, Septuagint metron, schoinion, spartion; II Kings xxi. 13; Ezek. xl. 3, xlvii. 3; z. Basal II Sam. viii. 2). Of the relative size of Hebrew these two instruments of measurement Measure. nothing is known, though they were doubtless related to some basal unit. There is a tradition that in the Second Temple, as at Athens and in Rome, there was deposited a meas ure which was the norm and an ell (cubit) in length.

In fact, among Hebrews, as in Asia generally, the cubit was the unit of length, and was designated 'ammah. Whether this term originally meant the fore-arm is not certain; the term is found in the Siloam Inscription (q.v.), and corresponds to the Assyrian ammatu. The New-Testament term for the same is pechos (Matt. vi. 27; Luke xii. 25; Rev. xxi. 17). This unit was employed as the basal measure in building-operations (as in the Tabernacle, the Temple, and the "house of the forest of Lebanon "; Ex. xxvi. 15 sqq.; I Kings vi. 2 sqq., vii. 2 sqq.,), in the making of furniture and furnishings (I Kings vii. 23 sqq.,), was applied to such materials as curtains (Ex. xxvi. 1 sqq.,), and to ground measures (Ezek. xlviii. 1 sqq.,); it is indeed designated the most general measure (Deut. iii. 11, " the cubit of a man," i.e., the common cubit), and upon it other units were based (Ezek. xl. 5, " a measuring reed of six cubits long by the cubit and a handbreadth," i.e., a handbreadth longer than the common cubit; the reed here is six cubits). The cubit divides into spans (Hebr. zereth, Ex. xxviii. 16; I Sam. xvii. 4; Ezek. xliii. 13), and this into handbreadths (Hebr. tephah, I Kings vii. 26, or fophah., Ex. xxv. 25, xxxvii. 12; LXX. palaiste); while the smallest measure is the fingerbreadth (Hebr. 'ebza`, Gk. daktylos, Jer. Iii. 21). In an ascending scale, it will be remembered, is to be placed the reed as above, which was equivalent to six cubits (Ezek. xli. 8). Mention is made once (Judges iii. 16) of a unit of measure called the gomedh (Judges iii. 16, " cubit "), the relation of which to the ordinary cubit is not at all defined, the Septuagint equating it with the span, the Syriac and Arabic versions with the cubit. Concerning the varied relations of the cubit to other measures (apart from the reed) nothing exact is given in the Old Testament; but there are available the rabbinic statements, and, what is of still greater importance, the analogy of the entire orient, so that it is with comparative certainty ascertained that the cubit contained six handbreadths or twentyfour fingerbreadths. The following table therefore results, showing a duodecimal basis:

Reed 1 .. .. Cubit 8 1 .. Span 12 2 1 Handbreadth 36 8 3 I Fingerbreadth 144 24 12 4 There are met in the Old Testament two different

288

cubits. To be sure, from the expression "cubit of a man" (ut sup.; Deut. iii. 11) one is not to expect a distinction such as between a "holy" 3. Ezekiel's and a "secular" cubit, for there is no Two Cubits. foundation in Scripture for acceptance of the fact of a " holy " cubit, the expression " cubit of a man " having no other meaning than "common cubit" (cf. for a parallel expression, Isa. viii. 1, " man's pen "). Yet it is seen with great definiteness from Ezekiel that in his time there was in use a cubit other than that employed in an earlier period. He speaks in xl. 5, xliii. 13 of the cubit employed in measuring his temple as being a handbreadth greater than that which was in common use and was known to his readers. Apparently the exact length of his cubit is defined either because it had wholly fallen out of use or was less commonly known. The whole passage leads to the conclusion that Ezekiel's use of the longer cubit implies that this was the measure after which Solomon's Temple was constructed. Similarly the Chronicler (II Chron. iii. 3) knew that the Temple was built " by cubits after the first (i.e., old) measure." Therefore there had been an earlier and greater cubit which was superseded by the later and lesser. Unfortunately nothing is known of when and how this supersession took place, when the lesser came into recognition alongside of the larger and when it came into universal use. It has been held that the small cubit was already very early in existence, reference being made to the Siloam inscription. According to this the Siloam tunnel is 1,200 cubits long, and Conder' gives the measurement as 337.60 meters; this would give for the cubit a length of .448 meter [ =17.6 inches], and this is a close approximation to the Egyptian cubit of .450 meter. However, 1,200 is a round number, and whoever knows the Siloam tunnel will regard neither the one nor the other measurement as giving so exact a result that a conclusion may be reached upon the question whether the cubit meant was the greater or the lesser. A full reserve is therefore becoming with reference to the absolute length of the older unit. And it does not follow that the lesser cubit of Ezekiel could not have been employed in the earlier period. The one indication apparently in possession is that the cubit of Ezekiel's time was divided into six handbreadths, the old cubit being one handbreadth larger, giving the proportion of 6: 7; really, however, this is not absolutely certain, for the statement of Ezekiel may be taken to mean that the later cubit was a handbreadth smaller than the earlier, giving the relation of 5 : 6. And indeed the rabbis speak of a cubit applied to furnishings of the Temple which was five handbreadths in length and of one applied to the structure which was six in length.

These questions have interest because of the fact that for the definition of the absolute length of the Hebrew cubit recourse has to be had entirely to comparison with the Egyptian or the Babylonian cubit. No aid comes from the Old Testament. Just as from the Siloam tunnel no exact result is obtained, so fails the attempt by taking into account the brazen layer (which held 2,000 baths) to deduce the length of the cubit. No better results follow from the rabbinic assertion that the legal

cubit had according to tradition the length of 144

barleycorns laid side by side. On the other hand,

the size of the Babylonian and the

4. The Egyptian cubit is known. The first is

Cubit, settled by the discovery at Telloh in

Hebrew, South Babylonia (see BnsrroNm, IV.,

Egyptian, § 6) of a statue of King Gudea (see

Babylonian. Besyrorne, VI., 3, § 3) which carries upon its knees a measure which occurs sixteen times upon the statue. This measure appears

as a little unit of the length of 16.5-16.6 millimeters

[the equivalent of-.65845 of an inch], and this unit

is doubtless the fingerbreadth which is so often

mentioned in antiquity. Since in the Babylonian sys tem the duodecimal method rules, there would be a measure sixty times the length of the unit just given,

which would be 990-996 millimeters ([or 38.9

inches]; it will be noticed that there is a margin of variation or error of six millimeters). The measure ment thus given is in agreement with other data; the Babylonian brick had a measurement of 330 millimeters on one side of its square surface. In all

systems of the orient that are known the foot is

two-thirds of the cubit; hence from the brick there

could be inferred a cubit of about 495 millimeters

[19.45 inches], and this is exactly half of the 990

millimeters given above (or 38.9 inches). But the

Babylonians had two systems, one of which was twice the other in proportions (as appears also in the table from Senkereh, where two sets of measures are given in which this relationship exists). While the Babylonian system is sexagesimal, it is impor tant to note, in connection with the question of the relationship of the Hebrew system to the Baby lonian, that there are indications of this kind of sub division in the Hebrew measures; the reed, Baby

lonian and Hebrew, is of six cubits, as opposed to

the Egyptian. Taking the. foot of two-thirds of a

cubit into consideration, if Herodotus is right in his

statement of a " royal " and a " common " cubit,

the division of the cubit into twenty-four finger

breadths follows, each of 20.6 millimeters in length.

According to Herodotua, the "royal" cubit was

longer by three fingerbreadths than the "common"

cubit, and the foot held to this cubit the relation of

3 :5, and this is the measure constantly met in

Babylonian structures, and its length is at least 550

millimeters (21.6 inches). A cubit from Uahak in

Phrygia measures 555 millimeters, and this does not greatly differ from the result of deduction from the figures of Herodotus which would make the

royal cubit 556.4-557 millimeters. The Egyptian cubit does not differ much from the Babylonian royal cubit, and in Egypt also there appears a double

system-a large " royal " cubit and the - common "

one-the latter of six handbreadths or twenty-four

fingerbreadths (=450 millimeters [17.685 inches]),

the former of seven handbreadths or twenty-eight

fingerbreadths (525 millimeters [or 20.6325 inches]).

At first glance one might be disposed to identify the Egyptian and the Hebrew cubit; in both the relation of the large to the small cubit is the same, as are the subdivisions. But, on the other hand, the Babylonian and the Hebrew reed correspond,

while the Egyptians have a "fathom" which con

tains only four cubits; also, the traces of the duo-

289

decimal system exist in the Babylonian measures. It is therefore well as yet to be reserved in regard to the relation of the Hebrew to the Egyptian set of measures. It is of considerable significance that inllthe fifteenth century a.e. Babylonian culture was dominant in western Asia; on the other hand, while the Hebrew may be derived ultimately from the Babylonian, the supposition is not excluded that commerce with Egypt introduced modifications.

It is possible, then, to equate the Hebrew cubit with that of Gudea (of 495 millimeters, ut sup.; for Gudea see Babylonia, VI., 3, § 3), and after such a standard the Phenician owners of vessels seem to have reckoned the tonnage of their ships (their measurements reduce to a solid standard of 121.2, and the basis of a cubit of 495 millimeters gives as a result a solid standard of 121.28, and this can hardly be accidental). The larger cubit would correspond to a smaller of 424-425 millimeters, but this is not in evidence at all elsewhere. If it could be assumed that Ezekiel's expression is inexact and that the small cubit is five-sixths of the larger, the latter would then be 412.5 millimeters long (the size of the early Italian cubit, which was derived from the Babylonian). But this does not furnish satisfactory proof. In modern times standards indifferent places do not exactly correspond, even with the advantages of scientific methods; still less can exact correspondence be supposed for antiquity. Moreover, the "royal" cubit may have been precisely defined, yet not followed with exactness in the provinces, and in the course of time the standards may have varied considerably.

In ascending scale the Hebrews have above the cubit only the reed, which in name and proportions (six cubits) agrees with the Babylonian reed. All further designations for measures

5. Larger of distance indicate not measures in Measures the strict sense of closely defined

of Length. length, but simple approximations like our term "hour's journey" (cf. the expressions in Gen. xxxv. 16, xlviii. 7, which the Septuagint renders by hiPpodromos, " post-station," and the Syriac by parasang; owing to this last the expression has been taken to be equivalent to parasang, the Persian measure, = 5.67 kilometers [or nearly three and a half miles]; others take it as = 6.3 kilometers). Similarly the expression " a day's journey " which occurs so often in the Bible has no definite limits. The ordinary journey of a caravan means travel during about six to eight hours; Herodotus reckoned the day's march of Persians at 150 to 200 stadia, representing continuous travel for eight to ten hours, and of Romans at 160 stadia. The case is different with respect to the " Sabbath day's journey " (Acts i. 12; the expression does not occur in the Old Testament, though the rabbis had the expression tehum hasshabbath). From the prohibition to gather manna on the Sabbath or to go forth from the camp (Ex. xvi. 26 sqq.) and from the delimitation of the Levitical cities (Nom. xxxv. 5) the rabbis concluded that 2,000 cubits was the utmost distance allowed for travel on the Sabbath. There was a tradition that the distance of the Tabernacle from the limits of the camp was 2,000 cubits. In the case of cities the starting-point of XIL-19

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Weights and Xeasures

measurement for the Sabbath day's journey was the outer wall; within, even were the city as large as Nineveh, it was permissible to travel without limitation. There were also casuistic methods of circumventing the rabbinic limitation to 2,000 cubits and extending it to 4,000, though the purpose for which this extension could be sought was defined within certain bounds. Similarly, a Jew who on the Sabbath was caught on a journey at a distance from a dwelling might travel more than 2,000 cubits to the nearest travelers' shelter. It seems not unlikely that this distance of 2,000 cubits corresponds to an early measurement or unit of distance; there was an Egyptian unit of 1,000 double steps, and the Talmud mentions a tradition that the Sabbath day's journey was 2,000 steps, while in the same collection pace and cubit are practical equivalents. With the inrush of Greek civilization after the time of Alexander the Great the stadion became a part of the oriental system (cf. II Macc. xi. 5, xii. 9; John vi. 19, xi. 18; Rev. xiv. 20); the Olympic stadion measured 192.27 meters [=629.7 feet], the Attic stadion, 177.6 or 197.3 meters, according to the length given to. the Attic foot. The Romans introduced their mile, with a length of 1,478.7 meters (=approximately 1,600 yards].

II. Measures of Surface: As a surface measure there appears in the Bible only the yoke (Hebr. zemedh.), a piece of land which a man might plow in a day with a yoke of oxen. It has been compared with the Egyptian measure which Herodotus (Hist., ii. 168) calls aroura, measuring 100 royal cubits square. But this and other comparisons with the Babylonian measures of surface are pure conjectures. A similai system of measuring land obtains among the modern fellaheen of Egypt and Palestine.

III. Measures of Capacity: While the measures for liquids (water, wine, and oil) and those for such things as meal and grain were not the same among the Hebrews, they belonged to the r. Dry and same system. The smallest unit, the Liquid multiple of which made up other meas-

Measure. ores, was in Hebrew the log (Septua gint, kotyle; Lev. xiv. 10, 12, etc.), equivalent in volume, according to the rabbis, to six medium-sized hen's eggs. In the one passage in the Old Testament where this occurs, it is as a meas ure for liquids, but this doffs not exclude its use as a dry measure. The next measure in size mentioned in the Old Testament is the cab (Hebr. kab; Sep tuagint kabos), named in II Kings vi 25. Later data imply that this was used as a dry measure (Photius calls it a "measure for grain," and Hesy chius one " for grain and wine "). According to Josephus, paraphrasing the passage, the cab equaled 4 log, which agrees with the Talmud when it makes a cab equal one-sixth of a seah and one-third of a hin. The latter collection divides the cab into halves, fourths, and . eighths, and this in connection with II Kings vi. 25 suggests that the designation "log" wasseldominuse. Theomer (orhomer) (Hebr. `omer, Septuagint gomer; Ex. xvi. 16) seems to have been a measure for grain, and a gloss to the passage cited makes it equal the tenth of an ephah; it is then the equivalent of the 'issarori (Septuagint dekaton, Jo-

290

sephus, assaron; Ex. xxix. 40), designated usually as " a tenth " or as the " tenth of an ephah." Josephus gives the omer as equivalent to seven Attic cotyla' (Ant., III., vi. 6). The corresponding measure for liquids appears as the tenth of a bath (see below, and cf. Ezek. xlv. 14), but no proper name is given for it. For liquids the most common measure is the hin, corresponding to the ephah for dry measure. Consequently the parts or fractions are often mentioned (one-half, one-third, one-fourth, one-sixth; Ex. xxix. 40; Num. xv. 4; Ezek. iv. 11). Josephus (Ant., III., viii. 3) and Jerome (on Ezek. iv. 11) define the hin as equal to two Attic choas, that is, to a sixth of a metretes [that is about one and one-half gallons]; this gives the equation 1 hin=12 log = one-half sash = one-sixth bath, and the Talmud often defines the hin in this way. The corresponding dry measure is designated in Ezekiel (xlv. 13) as one-sixth of an ephah, and no proper name for this dry measure is known. The sash (Gen. xviii. 6 [A. V., " measure "]; Josephus, Ant., IX., iv. 5, saton; Septuagint, matron) seems to have been a dry measure, though the Talmud knows of it as also used for liquids. From the translation by the Sep-

sages the kor appears as a dry measure. Josephus regards the kor as the equivalent of ten medimne. The table of measures of capacity given herewith results from the preceding discussion.

From the last series one might easily receive the impression that here is not.a pure sexageaimal system, but a crossing with the decimal system. Especially does the series 1 homer =10 z. The Basis ephaha =100 omers have this appearSesagesima]. ante. But an examination of the series shows that the ephah or bath, the middle factor of the series, is in the Babylonian series purely aexagesimal, ,consisting of seventy-two unite (the mina), and exactly so the kor consists of 720 minas, its position in the aexagesimal system making it not ten times the ephah but twelve times the maris, a unit which fell out of the Hebrew system; consequently the presence of what looks like the decimal system is quite fortuitous. The only remnant of the decimal system left is the issaron, ut sup.; the measures indicated by asterisks in the table below and their relations show that the issaron was not an original part of the system and is mentioned in P only, though Ezekiel has the divi-

4 log = 1 cab *71 log = *11 cab 12 log = 3 cab 24 log = 6 cab = 72 log = 18 cab = [360 log = 90 cab = *1 omer *1f omer = 1 hin *3t omer = 2 hin = 1 sash 10 omer = 6 hin = 3 sash = 1 ephah 50 omer = 30 hin = 15 sash = 5 ephah = 1 lethekh] 720 log = 180 cab = 100 omer = 60 hin = 30 sash = 10 ephah = 2 lethekh = 1 homer

tuagint of epha,h by "three measures" and of "third" in Pa. Lax. 5 by the same word, it appears that the sash was equivalent to one-third ephah or 24 log. The dry measure moat in use was the ephah, and it receives correspondingly frequent mention (Ex. xvi. 36; Lev. v. 11, etc.). The passages in the Bible indicate that in early times as in late it was in common use. Fractions of it which appear in the Old Testament are the third (Ps. LQOC. 5; disguised in the A. Y. by the translation " measure ") and the sixth (Ezek. xlv. 13). The liquid measure corresponding to the ephah was the bath (e.g,, I Kings vii. 36; Septuagint batos, or metretes; Josephus, Ant., VIII., ii. 9, bados), and Josephus makes this equivalent to the Attic metretes (about nine gallons), while Ezekiel equates bath and ephah. A tenth is mentioned in Ezek. xlv. 14, corresponding to the tenth of an ephah, ut sup. A lethekh appears in Hos. iii. 2 (the only place where it is mentioned) as a dry measure (for barley), and is the equivalent of half a homer according to tradition (e.g., Septuagint hemikoros; Vulg. cores dimidius); but it is doubtful whether a unit of this capacity existed; the Vatican manuscript has instead "bottle of wine," which better suits the context. The largest measure is the homer (Lev. xxvii. 16; Isa. v. 10); Ezekiel (xlv. 11) makes it the equivalent of ten baths and also of ten ephaha, a conclusion from which is that the homer served both for liquids and for such things as seed, as was the case with the Assyrian imir. According to Ezek. xlv. 14, the kor and the homer were identical measures; and in a number of pas-

sion of the bath into tenths. In Ezekiel in the same connection there is met the division of the bath into sixths, but the early division of the ephah-bath was into thirds. The bath (for liquids) does not appear to have been divided into tenths; P speaks of the hin and its parts, which are not derived from the decimal system. In dry measure, conversely, the sexagesimal sash and cab disappear and in P are displaced by the tenth of an ephah; this is probably tb be placed alongside of the introduction of certain coin-values and weights in the later period. For the original system both the issaron and the lethekh are to be stricken out. A distinction of the dry measure from liquid measure results in the tables on page 291, which exhibit purely sexagesimal features. To these the modern equivalents are added.

As an assistance toward finding the absolute value of the capacity of these measures Thenius (in TSK, 1846, pp. 72 sqq., 297 sqq.) started with the assertion

of the rabbis already noted that the vol3. Absolute ume for the log was equivalent to that Values. of six eggs, from which he deduced that

the modern equivalent of the log is .2945 liter and of the bath 20.1215 liters. But it is evident that ouch data afford no sure conclusion, and neither for cubit nor bath are secure data available. With regard to the origins of the Hebrew system, it is to be remembered that not merely the relative proportions of the different measures but the fundamental measure remained the same in the adoption of the system by the Hebrews. The Egyptian system can not be brought into connection here,

291

for its standards proceed in regular geometrical ratio-1, 10, 20, 40, (80), 160 hin. The Babylonian system rests upon a sexageaimal basis; even though no direct inscriptional data confirm this, all that is known of Persian, Phenician, and Syrian-Hebrew measures of capacity is consonant with the supposition that all these systems are one in their main features with the Babylonian, the source of them all. A means of calculation is afforded by the fact that in quite early times the Babylonians defined their measures of capacity by the weight of water or wine.

lation to spices (Ex. xxx. 23), food (Ezek. iv. 10), and Absalom's hair (II Sam. xiv. 26); always the mention is of the shekel or its multiple [or parts].

As an instrument of weighing the ba,] t. The ance is named (Hebr. mo'zenayim, Lev.

Shekel. xix. 36; Job vi. 2; Prov. xi. 1, etc.) also

the Rehr. peles, or Icaneh (Prow. xvi., 11; Isa. xlvi. 6). The weights were usually of stone (Lev. xix. 36; Deut. xxxv. 13, etc.), which lost less by abrasion and rust than metals, though lead is named in Zech. v. 7. The standard of reference was

DRY MEASURE. log =.506 liter [_ .4 quart 4 log = 1 cab = 2.024 liters [= 1.8 quarts] 24 log = 8 cab = 1 seah=12.148 liters [= 11 quarts] 72 log= 18 cab = 3 seah = 1 ephah = 38.44 liters [ = 3 pecks] ephah = 1 homer = 384.4 liters [= 74 bushels] LIQUID MEASURE. log = .506 liter [_ .4 quart] 4 log = 1 cab = 2.024 liters [= 2.13 quarts] 12 log = 3 cab = 1 bin = 8.074 liters [= 8.78 quarts] 72 log = 1S cab = 6 bin = 1 bath = 38.44 liters [_ [10.1 gallons] 720 log = 180 cab = 60 hin = 10 bath = 1 kor =384.4 liters [= 101.4 gallons] 720 log = 180 cab = 30 seah =10

Thus the unit of the system was a measure (the Persian marls) which would contain water the equivalent in weight of a royal talent (which we would fix at 30.3 kilograms [=66.78 lbs.] were it not that the temperature of water in the East is higher than the temperature assumed in reckoning the standard liter; an approximate reckoning, taking this into account, places the value at 30.37 liters). Only approximate and theoretical conclusions may be looked for in this field. The marls was probably divided into six parts, resulting in the following table.

It is not necessary to look very far in order to see that the incorporation of the decimal system here (5 and 10 hin, 10 bath) is only apparent, and that the sexagesimal system rules; the basis is seen in

the shekel, and in II Sam. xiv. 26 the royal shekel is named; by this is meant not a special standard differing from that in common use, but the implication is rather that of a normalized standard. The priestly codex speaks of a "shekel of the sanctuary" (Ex. xxx. 13, 24, and often). The shekel is divided into halves (beka`; Gen. xxiv. 22) and fourths (I Sam. ix. 8), which are met as pieces of silver money belonging in the system of weights, since in those times a system of money [coins] had not been worked out as distinct from the system of weights. On the other hand, the "third part of a shekel" of Neh. x. 32 is rather a value than a definite weight in common use, and it is to be regarded as in connection with the introduction of a system of money. In Ezekiel (xlv. 12) there is mention of a gera (" grain ") or

4 mina 12 mina 24 mina 80 mina 72 mina 120 mina 720 mina = 180 kapithe = 60 bin = 30 sate

1 kapitho 3 kapithe = 1 bin 8 kapithe = 2 bin = 15 kapithe = 5 bin = 18 kapithe = 8 bin = 30 kapithe = 10 bin = 1 Baton 21 eats = 1 marls 3 Bata = 1$ marls = 1 bath 5 eats = 2 marls = 1 1 bath = 1 metretes = 12 marls = 10 bath = 8 metretes -1 kor

the relations of the mina. The identity with the Hebrew system is clear, except that in the latter the measures of 160 and 120 log are missing; comparison shows that one may equate the Hebrew log with the Babylonian mina. The other possibility would be to equate the log with the sextarius, which would make the homer equal to 393.95 liters; but the very complete agreement of the Hebrew and the Babylonian systems render departure from the position taken above unnecessary. .

IV. Weights: In this department also the data given by the Old Testament are scanty. Apart from connection with the noble metals, which were weighed out, in payments, definition of weights is seldom found. Incidental mention is found in re-

the twentieth of a shekel as a money standard, belonging therefore to a mintage system; wherever it appears elsewhere, it is as part of a system by which payment is made on the basis of the shekel (not the silver shekel; cf. on these matters Benzinger, Archäologie, pp. 196 sqq.). As multiples of the shekel are named the mina (maneh) and the talent. It is interesting to note respecting the mina that before the time of Ezekiel it is not mentioned (I Kings x. 17, the minim of the Hebrew text is to be changed to me'oth, "three hundred" [shekels]), as shown by the figures in Judges viii. 26; I Sam. xvii. 5, 7; II Sam. xxi. 16, xiv. 26; II Chron. iii. 9, where the weights are given in shekels, not in minas. So in later times when the mention is of minas, the discussion is of

292

money, not of weight pure and simple (Ezek. xlv. 12; Ezra ii. 69). It may be concluded that in the earlier period the reckoning of weights by the mina was not the usual one. Of the relation of the mina to the shekel only late data are afforded; in Ex. xxxviii. 25 the free-will offerings for the sanctuary of 603,550 individuals at half a shekel each amounted to 100 talents and 1,775 shekels, according to which the talent equaled 3,000 shekels, that is, a talent is 60 minas and a mina is 50 shekels. This is the reckoning prescribed by Ezekiel (xlv. 12), where the connection with the apparently new division of the shekel into twenty gera and the mina into 50 shekels makes the impression that Ezekiel is recommending either a new or a not-general method of reckoning for universe[ recognition; and this suspicion is confirmed by the history of the development of the Babylonian system of weights.

The talent (Hebrew kikkar, " round," Septuagint and New Testament, talanton) is spoken of in con-

heavy talent is reckoned as equivalent to 60,600 grams [or 133.56 lbs.], and the light or small talent at half that; the heavy mina at 1,010 grams [or about 2.214 lbw.], and the light mina, at half that; and the heavy shekel at 982:4 grams [or a little less than 2 lbs.]. A reckoning is given by Lehmann (Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1889, p. 372) which makes the large mina from ten to twenty-two grams heavier. Alongside of the "royal" standard, then, was current a lighter "common" standard. From the three weights which are known as coming from about 2000 B.C. Lehmann reckons the value of the light mina at 491.2 grams; and of the heavy at 932.4 grams. The smaller corresponds exactly to the Roman pound, according to the ordinary reckoning the equivalent of 327.45 grams. It was this smaller mina which passed over to the people of Hither Asia and therefore to the Hebrews. -Confirmation of the equivalents stated here is the remark of Josephus (Ant., XIV., vii. 1) that the gold mina

1 shekel = 16.37 grams [_ .5778 os.] 80 shekels= 1 mina =982.4 grams [= 2.165 lbw.] 3,600 shekels = 60 minas=1 talent= 58.944 kilograms(= 129.94791ba.] LATER AVOISDDPOIB AND GOLD TABLE. 1 shekel = 16.37grama [_ .b778 oz. I 50 shekels= 1 mina =818.60 grams (= 1.804 lbs.] 3,000 shekels = 60 min =I talent= 49.11 laoograma [=108.29 lba.3 JEWISH SILVER. 1 shekel = 14.55 grams [_ .5136 oz.] 50 shekels= 1 mina =727.5 grams [= 1.6lbw.] 3,000 shekels = 80 minas=1 talent= 43.659 kilograms [= 96 Ibs.] PERSIAN SILVER. i shekel = 5.61-5.73 grams [_ .178 os.] 100 shekels = 1 mina =561-573 grams [= 1.135Iba.] 8,000 shekels = 60 minas=1 talent= 34.380 kilograms [= 68.1lbs.l

nection with gold (Ex. xxv. 39 and often), silver (Ex. xxxviii. 25, and often), copper, "brass" (Ex.

xxxviii. 29), and iron (I Chron. xxix. z. The 7, where all four metals are mentioned). Talent; The data in the Old Testament are too Absolute scanty to afford a secure basis for calValues. culating either the relative or the absolute magnitude of Hebrew weights; recourse moat again be had to the Babylonian system, which unquestionably was at the basis of the Hebrew system. In the sixteenth century s.c., long before the settlement of the Hebrews in Palestine, all Syria and Palestine used the Babylonian weights, the tribute to the Egyptian overlord being so reckoned. In the inscription at Karnak there is evident the transference from Babylonian to Egyptian systems, with the former as the basis. Originally in the Babylonian system of weights the sexagesimal order prevailed, and a talent was 3,600 shekels or 60 minas. The weights, found by Layard, in the shape of a lion and a duck (cf. Benzinger, Archaeologie, p. 195) show that, as in measures of length, two systems obtained, one of them double that of the other. The weights found in the excavations are usually inscribed as so many minas "of the king." The

weighed two (Roman) pounds, the shekel therefore (one-fiftieth of a mina) was 16.37 grams, and consequently the mina of avoirdupois (of sixty shekels) would from this datum equal 982. 2 grams, almost that given above. The Hebrew shekel may therefore be set down as 16.37 grams, the avoirdupois mina (if such was in use) at 982.2 grams, and the talent as 58.944 kilograms [ut sup., where equivalents in ounces and pounds are given].

But in the course of time this system underwent change. While the talent of sixty minas remained, there is found in use among Greeks, Persians, and Hebrews the division of the mina into

3. Changes fifty shekels; but while the shekel reIatroduced. twined its value, the mina, and the talent were correspondingly reduced. This alteration seems to have come from a mintage system, in which reckoning was based upon the shekel. Since this was found more convenient in use, 3,000 being an easier number to reckon than 3,600, the same division passed over into the system of weights, and there came into use an avoirdupois talent of 3,000 shekels. There is here the beginning of that strife between the decimal and the sexagesimal system which has waged ever since.

293

Support for the former came from Egypt, mediated by the Phenicians. The influence of the decimal system is seen in the priest code, and first near the time of the exile this method made its way among the Israelites. Inasmuch as the shekel always remained the same, it is not with the change just spoken of that the priest code has to do when it speaks of the "shekel of the sanctuary." It has been suspected by some that a standard shekel was kept in the Temple. This is possible, but in any case there is not involved a "common" weight which was according to the rabbis only half as large, of which there is no other indication. Yet it is known that the silver shekel of the coinage was smaller, weighing only 14.55 grams. Since in all cases where the adjunct "of the sanctuary" is given the discussion concerns payment to the sanctuary, it would be self-evident, if nothing more were said, that the expression "shekel," without reference to the shekel of mintage, would not be understood as referring to the shekel of avoirdupois. According to the preceding, the result will be the two tables for Hebrew weights, as given on page 292.

In both systems the small mina (which was not in use by the Hebrews) was half as large.

For use in commerce as currency, if the name system applied to gold and silver, great difficulty arose on account of the ratio of value (1: 13) which was constant in antiquity. This ratio was one which was unusable as reduced to weight. Convenience, therefore, required another basis in the reckoning of values in silver and gold, a basis which would produce an easy subdivision with reference to the gold unit and on the other hand would fit well into the system of weights. So for gold there was in use the later proportion as given in the last table. The result was twofold. There came into being a silver shekel which was a tenth of the value of the gold shekel; but among Phenicians the silver shekel was one-fifteenth of the value of the gold shekel. This gives a weight for the Babylonian shekel (one-sixtieth of the small common mina) of 10.91 grams and for the Jews of 14.55 grams (since they had not the small mina); the silver shekel of the Maccabees varies between 14.50 and 14.65 grams. The tables for Jewish and Persian silver above will afford comparison with the tables of weights.

(I. Benzinger.)

Bibliography: R. Hussey, Essay on the Ancient Weights and Money, and the Roman and Greek Liquid Measures, with an Appendix on the Roman and Greek Pool, Oxford, 1836; A, Boekh, Metrologische Unlersuchungen über Gevrichte, Münzfiisse and Masse des AZtertums, Berlin, 1838; E. Bertheau, Zur Geschichte der Israelites, Dissertation 2, Göttingen, 1842; O. Thenius, in TSK, 1846, parts 1-2; L. Fenner von Fennerberg, Unterauchunges über die L6ngen-, Feld,- and Wegmasse des Alterlhums, Berlin, 1859; V. V. Queipo, Essai sur Zes aystlhnes metriques et monetaires des aneiens peoples, 3 vols., Paris, 1859; L. Herzfeld, Metrologische Voruntersuchungen zu einer Geschichte des israelitischen Handels, 2 parts, Leipsic, 1863-1865; idem, Handelsgeschichte der Jades des Alterthums, pp. 171 sqq., Brunswick, 1879; J. Brandis, Manz-, Mass-, and Gewichlwesen in Vorderasien, Berlin, 1884; F. Hultach, Metrologicorum scriptorum reliquice, 2 vols., Berlin, 1864-1866; idem, Griechische and römische MetroZogie, 2d ed., ib. 1882; idem, in the Abhandlunges of the Royal Saxon Academy of Sciences, iv (1899); B. Zuckermann, Das jvdische Masssystertt oral seine Beziehungen z um prieekischen and römischen, Breslau, 1867; J. Oppert. L'i;'talon des mesures assyriennea, Paris, 1875; C. R. Lepsius, in

the Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, 1882, nos. 39, 45; idem, LSngenmasse der Alten, Berlin, 1884; C. Rodenbaeh, Metrologie. La Coud6e, &Won lin6aire des Egyptiens, Brussels, 1883; M. C. Soutzo, Etalons ponderaux primitifs, Paris, 1884; idem, Recherches s ur les origines de quelques poids antiques, ib. 1895; L. Borchardt, in SBA, 1888, pp. 129-137; C. F. Lehmann, in the Verhandlungen of the Berlin Anthropological Society, 1889, pp. 245-328, 1891, pp. 515 sqq., 1893, pp. 25 sqq., 1898, pp. 216 sqq., 420 sqq.; idem, in the Actes of the Eighth Congress of Orientalists, Leyden, 1889, sect. 1 B, pp. 165 sqq.; idem, in the Verhandlungen of the Berlin Physical Society, Berlin, 1889; H. Nissen, in Handbuch der klassischen Alter tumswissenschaft, i (1892), 833-890; F. L. Griffith, in PSBA, xiv (1892), 403-450; W. Ridgeway, Origin of Metallic Currency and Weight-Standards, Cambridge, 1892; PEF, Quarterly Statements, 1892, pp. 289-290, 1897-99, passim; Manes, in Revue arch_olvgique, 1892-93; C. F. Howard. Tables of Hebrew Weights and Measures, Melbourne. 1896; R. Mimpert, Lexikon der Münzen, Masse, Gewichte . . . alter Larder, Berlin, 1896; U. Wileken, Griechische Ostraka, i. 438-480, Leipsic, 1899; ClermontGanneau, in Recueil d'archeologie orientate, iv. 1-2 (1900), 18 sqq.; A. E. Weigall, in PSBA, xxiii (1901), 378-395; C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents, vol, ii., chap. iii., London, 1901; W. Shaw-Caldecott, Biblical Archeology, ib. 1902; Sir C. Warren, The Ancient Cubit and our Weights and Measures, ib. 1903; J. A. Deeourdemanehe, Traits des poids et mesures des peoples ancaens et des Arabes, Paris, 1910; Schrader, KAT, pp. 337-342; Benzinger, Archäologie, pp. 188-204; Nowack, Archäologie, pp. 208-209; DB, iv, 901-913; EB, iv. 5292-99; JE, au. 483-490; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, f$sc. xxvi. 1042-1045, xxxii. 482-488; and the literature under Money of the Bible.