On Hebrew-Samaritan Coins

Regarding the first point, Mr. Tychsen Olaus Gerhard Tychsen (1734–1815), a German Orientalist and numismatist who argued that these coins were medieval forgeries. brings forward no witness to support him, nor could he even if he wished to. Indeed, the very coins we are discussing most clearly prove that his assumption is false. The letters of Antiochus Antiochus VII Sidetes, King of the Seleucid Empire. were sealed at the end of the year 173 of the Seleucid era Approximately 139 BCE., and perhaps were sent from the Islands of the Sea to Simon in Jerusalem at the beginning of the following year. Therefore, if any coins were to be struck by "impostors" based on those letters, they would necessarily have to display that same year or the subsequent years of Simon’s rule. Yet, on the contrary, all the Hebrew-Samaritan coins in existence that bear an explicit date actually predate the year 173 of the Seleucid era and the letters of Antiochus. On these coins, one reads year first, second, third, etc., of free Jerusalem and of redeemed Zion: these dates correspond to the year 170 of the Seleucid era and the two years following it.

But even if we were to admit that coin-makers had learned from the Greek copies of the First Book of Maccabees that Simon had been granted the power to mint money by Antiochus: who, I ask, would have further taught them the correct weight of the shekels, the most appropriate symbols, and an exact accounting of history and chronology? Who would have taught them the fixed festivals of the Hebrews and their rites? Who would have shown them the ancient forms of the Samaritan letters, and finally, many other details which are expressed or clearly indicated on the shekels and coins? From where could they have drawn such a clear idea of these things? I pass over the further conjectures that could be drawn from the manufacture of the coins, their character, and their circular shape in favor of their authenticity and integrity.

As for the Syriac version of the text of Maccabees—which was the second of Mr. Tychsen’s opinions—I hardly know why he wishes to grant it such a weight of authority, since it is anonymous, much more recent than the Greek, and furthermore, stands alone in its readings. I, on the contrary, consider the Greek version (from which the old Latin flowed) to be the most ancient of all. It was contemporary with the original Hebrew text itself, which Jerome St. Jerome (c. 347–420 CE), the translator of the Vulgate Bible. claims to have found (1), and perhaps it sprang from the same source as that original (2); thus, I believe it is to be preferred over the others. It is further supported by the testimony of the Arabic Translator, namely: وعائن لك أن تصنع ضرب الدراهم المختصة لك في بلدك, that is: And I permit you to make the striking of your own (special) coins in your region. And one should note here the energeia original Greek: ἐνέργεια — the "force" or "literal power" of the word. of the verb daraba original Arabic: ضرب — to strike., which properly signifies the blow or striking of a hammer, as the illustrious Michaelis Johann David Michaelis (1717–1791), a famous German biblical scholar. has observed (3). What then? Antiochus would have done nothing at all, or would have been doing what was already done, by granting Simon—

(1) Jerome, Prologue to the Galatians on the 1st Book of Maccabees.
(2) Johannes Drusius, Commentary in the explanation of the title.
(3) Notes to the Lectures of the illustrious Robert Lowth on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, lecture 1, note 8.