under the Maccabees in so late an age as 500 years after the captivity could never prove the use of Samaritan letters before the captivity; and yet the examiner of Hurwitz has taken up as a capital evidence that very one which Prideaux rejected, and so have others. But the date of the coinage of the larger shekels was also at least uncertain, if not worse proof for Prideaux to employ. To my former catalogue of authors who had mentioned the name of Simon being on those coins before 1715 1 may now add M. Simon in his Bibliotheque de Sanjore in 1708, on account of his remarkable recantation of that argument in favour of the pristine antiquity of Samaritan letters founded on Jewish coins: his 27th and 28th chapters of tom. 2 are expressly concerning this subject. He begins thus: "One ought not to be surprised, that I have in some measure changed my opinion concerning the antiquity of Samaritan letters among the Jews'; in matters of criticism one often makes new discoveries: when I first published my works, I was in the common opinion concerning this subject with almost all other learned men; but I have since had evident proofs that what has been generally said concerning the antiquity of shekels in Samaritan letters, is not altogether well founded." P. 389. "Ancient Jews, and others who have followed them, did not know that these shekels were struck long after Solomon under the Maccabees; as appears visibly, because they were struck in the name of the chief priest Simon, which name is to be found on several coins where some learned authors have read different legends." P. 4 ́0. "It cannot be denied that the Maccabee chiefs made use of Samaritan letters, but it does not necessarily follow hence, that the Jews made use of them in their most early times." P. 409. Possibly Prideaux might have been as well convinced as M. Simon, or by him that no argument in favour of the antiquity of Samaritan letters could be drawn from those coins having the name of Simon on them, yet he appears to have thought otherwise concerning the shekels with the legend of Jerusalem the holy; and yet Reland and Ottius had before 1715 equally reprobated these for not affording any adequate evidence, as M. Simon has both classes. But thus it happens, that some well-known and popular authors instead of assisting us to make further advances in knowledge often pull men back again into the errors of a century or two before, and mislead others to adopt their own exploded errors: it is the business then of those, who sit in judgment upon new books, to form such a better acquaintance with the criticisms of former times as to be able to correct such errors, instead of lending a helping hand to lead us back again into an age of ignorance; of which misconduct the examiner of Mr. Hurwitz has by no means afforded any singular specimen among the public critics. M. Simon goes on to support the propriety of his recantation by quoting some further information concerning Jewish coins from Bouteroue in his Recherches des Monnoyes de France, published as early as 1666; which being a scarce book, and containing some particulars not noticed by Reland and Ottius, I shall copy some articles in further illustration of my preceding letters. Now Bouteroue mentions one silver coin, which which is exactly like the coin of Henrion, having a bunch of grapes on one side and on the other a lyré with the legend liberation of Jerusalem; but in this coin the first letter of Schemoun, namely S, is visible as well as the last two letters: he mentions also another coin, on which it is only the two last letters, which are defaced. These confirm the name to have been Schemoun. The former of these is in silver, but the latter is in bronse: this confirms that the four silver ones of the second class, struck on coins of Trajan, were of the same nature in other respects with the bronse ones, and relative to the same event with those coins examined by Reland and Ottius, which were all in bronse with liberation of Jerusalem on them also; and it does not appear that they knew of any silver ones of those smaller sizes, but only of the large silver shekels worth two shillings and four pence. Bouteroue calls the latter of his above two coins, viz. that in bronse a quarter shekel, but another in bronse he calls a shekel; which cannot be rightly surnamed, yet it still shews how great a difference there must be in the sizes of those bronse coins as well as values. Which then of these different sizes in bronse did Barthelemy mean to say were conformable to the fabric of coins of Syrian kings? It appears by Bouteroue's account of their types and legends, that these were all the very same with those on the smaller bronse coins of Reland and Ottius, which Ottius also had found to be of very different weights. Bouteroue seems more right in the name with respect to the silver coins; for his first, which was like the silver one of Henrion, he calls a quarter shekel, or dracme, of silver. Now a dracme, in French, VOL. IX. F is is an eighth part of an ounce troy; if then an ounce was worth five shillings, the eighth would be seven pence halfpenny, and thus be a quarter part of two shillings and four pence, the greatest value of a shekel. It would be curious therefore to know, whether the two silver ones, in Mr. Hunter's collection, struck on coins of Trajan, weigh a dracme likewise: if they do, or apparently did so before worn and defaced, it would prove that all these silver coins were rather formed in conformity to the silver coins of the Roman Emperors than of Hebrew weights or the Syrian kings. It is indeed possible even that these silver ones of Bouteroue might have been originally coins of Trajan also, although so well superstruck, as that the Roman letters were all obscured: it would also be of some use to know whether there be any others of these silver coins of a different weight from those of a dracme (except the shekels,) or whether all of them are not conformed to the weight of Trajan's silver coins, rather than to Hebrew weights, or to the coins of the Syrian kings. Without knowing some more of these particulars it is impossible to make any thing of Barthelemy's proof of there being a first class conformable to Syrian royal coins: for as Bouteroue confirms the account of Ot'tius, that the bronse ones are of very different weights and sizes, did Barthelemy mean that all of these were conformable to royal Syrian coins, or only some of them; if the latter what are we to think of the rest? Which nevertheless Reland and Ottius thought to be all equally coins of Simon Maccabee; and can any distinction in point of antiquity be made while they are all so similar in their types and legends? Every way thenthat we can survey Barthelemy's argument from such such conformity, for making a difference between the first and third classes it amounts to nothing satisfactory all the above authors have indeed omitted to mention many necessary articles of information, for which reason I have added those of Bouteroue from Simon's Bibliotheque, as the work itself of Bouteroue is scarce. It appears further from Morinus in his Exercitat. Samaritan. p. 125, that a Moses Nachman, who lived before 1300, had mentioned his seeing some Jewish shekels of the larger class, which had on them shekel of Israel and Jerusalem the holy, together with pots of manna and Aaron's rod for types: if these were genuine, still from the similarity of their types to the lesser ones there is no reason to suppose these also to be of greater antiquity than those having Simon on them; therefore Prideaux had no sufficient authority for speaking so confidently of their antiquity, and of the proof arising from such shekels concerning the antiquity of Samaritan letters. But possibly Bayer, whose book is scarce also, may have cleared up some of the above articles of insufficient information; at present I can find no foundation for attributing greater antiquity to some than to others; and as four of them are now with certainty proved not to be more ancient than Trajan, the same is probably the case with all the rest, especially as I have pointed out several circumstances attending them more suitable to Barcochebas than to Simon Maccabee. After having thus invalidated this favourite evidence for the antiquity of Samaritan letters, readers possibly may wish to know whether there be any other which. is more solid. I confess that I think there is not; what F 2 |