Protected: My World Cup Journal 2014

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.

Posted in Classics, Emblems, England, Family, Italy, Language & Etymology, Poetry, Sports & Games, Time | Enter your password to view comments.

“A Vast Wilderness Inhabited Only by Indians and Wild Animals”

Last night I was talking to a friend of mine who had read my recent post on slavery statistics for Franklin County, and she said to me, “Did you notice that there are no Native Americans in any of the censuses at all?” The fact that it did not even occur to me to notice this omission is disturbing, I will admit. Even for those censuses taking place before the Removal in the 1830′s, no Cherokees whatsoever are counted in Franklin County, although they surely were here–some of them even were slave-holders! “It’s like they were squirrels,” my friend remarked.

There’s a certain amount of truth in the way she put it. If you look in the local history by Goodspeed, it begins thus: “The settlement of the territory now composing Franklin County began with the beginning of the present century, when all was a vast wilderness, inhabited only by Indians and wild animals. It was a hazardous undertaking to come here in that day and open up a new country west of the mountains where the light of civilization had never shone, and where neither schools, churches, mills, factories, nor any conveniences existed, such as the pioneers had been accustomed to. None but brave and courageous men and women could ever have accomplished such a dangerous and hazardous undertaking.” (emphasis mine)

But another reason that Native Americans were not counted in the census has to do with the fact they were considered a sovereign people and not part of the United States. On this point, I wrote to Lincoln Mullen (the author of the Smithsonian piece from which I culled the historical data of the county) to ask him about the matter. His gracious response is below:

Dear Christopher,

Thanks for sending me your interesting post; I enjoyed reading it.

The mandate in the Constitution gives two purposes for the Census: to determine direct taxation and representation in Congress, both of which are proportional to population. (That, by the way, is the reason for the three-fifths compromise by which slaves were counted by the proportion for both purposes.) But for those purposes the Constitution excludes “Indians not taxed.” In other words, since Indian nations had their own sovereignty, they were not enumerated in the Census. This is one of the limits of “seeing like a state,” and I’ve tried to account for the absence by indicating places on the map for which data was not available.

The first Census to count Indians was the 1860 Census, which classified people into the decidedly nineteenth-century racial categories “white,” “free colored,” “slave,” “Indian,” “half breed,” and “Asiatic.” You can see a description of the questions asked on each of the censuses here: http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html

Here is the relevant portion of the Constitution.

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

I hope this helps,

All the best,
Lincoln

Posted in Animals, Slavery, Tennessee | Leave a comment

Protected: To See A Fine Lady

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.

Posted in England, Family, Music, Mythology, Oxford, Poetry | Enter your password to view comments.

Protected: The Coin in the Fish’s Mouth

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.

Posted in Animals, Bible, Family, Numismatics, Sewanee | Enter your password to view comments.

Get Rid of Corporal Punishment? That’s “Acting Like Big Brother”

On Monday the issue of corporal punishment in Franklin County schools came before the board, as part of the review of section 6 policies.  We had been due to discuss this in April’s meeting, but because it had been a long one dominated by budget discussions, I moved that we table consideration of the matter to May. And so this past week, Policy 6.314 came up.

I spoke my piece on the matter–that corporal punishment has been dropped by 25 to 30 school systems in the state, that we needed to think about the school as a safe space for children, that principals were inconsistent in the system about its application.  “What people do in their homes with their own children,” I said emphatically,”is generally none of the county’s business. But in the school it is a public matter, and we should re-think whether this policy is achieving the public good we want.”

The response of the rest of the board was negative and hostile to my position.  One member had polled principals who had used the paddle in the last few years. They told him that they used corporal punishment only when everything else had failed.  He did not poll those who had not paddled to ask how they managed to avoid this last desperate measure.  Another member said she thought many people believed that the problems with discipline arose from insufficient spanking at home in the first place.

Yet another told me that my proposal to eliminate corporal punishment was “telling people how to parent and acting like Big Brother.”  This is a real masterpiece of Orwellian thinking, I must say. Taking away the right of a government official to hit children is akin to a dystopian socialist nightmare, in this equation.  Never mind the fact that I am *not* telling people how to parent, unlike my colleague who thinks there should be “more spanking at home,” but only talking about behavior of our employees in our own buildings.  But apparently paddling at school is one of those things that sets off the knee-jerk Tea Party self-pity reflex.  Whatever is, is right, and whoever questions it is wrong.

It was pointed out to me that there is an “opt-out” option, though the director believed that very few parents knew about it.  In fact, I am pretty sure most of the parents in Sewanee don’t know about the paddling policy, period.  The most hostile remarks came from another member for whom I have very little respect. When I noted that a constituent of mine told me about her son who was somewhat traumatized by seeing one of his schoolmates come back in tears from a paddling, this guy noted, “Hey, life is traumatic.”

“The school system doesn’t need to replicate that,” I replied.

“You and your opting out of policies! Opt-out of TCAP, opt-out of paddling. You can’t opt out of life.”

“But you can opt out of paddling, right?”

“What’s your point?”

“My point is that you’re making a non sequitur.”

“Well, you know where I stand on this.”

I think that if he knew what “replicate” or “non sequitur” meant, I might have suffered some paddling of my own.  But I think, all in all, I just came off as judgmental. I now wish I had pushed instead for an “opt-in” policy that might have a chance of passing.  I wonder if the business of spanking at home and paddling at school is, I suspect, a class issue.  The more money you have, the higher your class, the less likely you are to hit your children.  Or put another way, the lower your class, the closer you are to violence and the less inclined you are to think of anybody, even children, as having any personal rights in this regard.

In the end, Policy 6.314 is a descriptive rather than prescriptive policy, a statement not of what should be allowed but what is in fact allowable.  In a county where most residents do physical labor, the concept of making a living and paying your dues with your body is familiar one. To suggest that the body need not be subject to violence is to be introducing an alien idea in this world, one that perhaps separates Sewanee from the rest of the county almost totally.  I am sorry not to have been more convincing on this point, as I am still sure that I am right about paddling as a barbaric practice, but it has certainly been eye-opening to hear the reaction to its removal.  I guess 2014 is simply too early for Franklin County to do away with this policy.

Postscript.  So, the policy came up for discussion on May 12th, and I said, “Move to strike this policy, and I need a second.” It was my intention to wait a few seconds, and then say, “There appears to be no second; withdraw the motion.”  But in fact, the chair seconded it, “for discussion purposes,” as he said.  He then turned to Dr. Sharber and said, “Before we vote, do you have a recommendation?”  All of this was surprising to me, as I fully expected the thing just to die on the vine.

“Yes, I do have a recommendation,” she said.  “I have never spoken on this topic before, but feel I must now.”  She urged us to strike the policy for a variety of reasons.  All the research shows that corporal punishment in schools is counterproductive and that it is only effective when carried out by someone the child knows and trusts (more than they do the school principal).  Furthermore, she noted, it was hard to see how this policy could exist side-by-side with our status as mandatory reporters on child abuse.  “How can we be both paddling children, and at the same time be required to report when children are being hit?”

After her recommendation, other members expressed their opinions to the contrary. Unsurprisingly, the motion failed 6-1 (with one member being absent).  But the victory, to my mind, was that now there were two voices in opposition to corporal punishment in the county’s schools.

I talked with Dr. Sharber afterward, and thanked her for speaking up. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to let the matter drop– I was on the verge of withdrawing the motion, after all.  But she thanked me, instead, for giving her an opportunity to say something she should have said a long time ago.  “Someday, the policy will be struck and nobody will understand why we even had it,” she remarked, and I thought of the lines from “We Shall Overcome”: Deep in my heart, I do believe, We shall overcome someday.

Post-postscript. See now the article in the Winchester Herald Chronicle, “FC School Board votes to keep corporal punishment” (May 20, 2014), which has been posted on Facebook.  The comments are something. To wit,

  • good. if a child needs a spanking, s/he should get one. part of what is so wrong with this country today is the failure of parents to parent their children and spank them when they need it.
  • A good ole butt whipping never hurt anyone!
  • Parents should be responsible for discipline…if a school needs to discipline a student then it should partner with the parent(s)….and if immediate discipline is needed at school, then I am certain that there are more effective discipline methods than beating, hitting, striking, or spanking. This is 2014 people…jeez…
  • inflicting pain on a child is not going to fix the problem. there are better ways to discipline than this. poor decision here in my opinion.
  • This is abuse, we can ‘t spank our children in front of anyone without it being called child abuse, therefore, teachers shouldn’t b allowed to do so and not call it child abuse. I see lawsuits coming.
  • This is a sick sick educational system. We can hit you … Oh Lord help our children! The best we can do is inflict abuse on our children. Wow!
  • I think no man or woman has the right to put there hands on my child..what gives them the right to use a board but let it be you me or a parent.you will be in front of a judge for child abuse and D.C.S up your butt until they turn 18 shame on y’all
  • If a child does not follow the rules and knows that they are going to get a paddling because they did not follow the rules, then they have to face the consequences. Since when is paddling abuse? Now, if a teacher just went up to an child and paddled them for no reason, then yes, that would be abuse. Children have to be held accountable for their actions. They will find that out later in life.
  • The school will never paddle my child. I believe in spanking however if my child acts out in such a way the school feels paddling is needed I want to know about it and I wanna be the one to decide if it is needed. Some school principles and teachers go on power trips.
  • If a child is raised the right way at home he or she should not need to be spanked… No one but me will spank my child…. I don’t care who you are…. I raised my child to respect other and to be on his best behavior at school.
Posted in Education, Tennessee | Leave a comment

Protected: Beatings and Latin again

This content is password-protected. To view it, please enter the password below.

Posted in Classics, Education, England, Language & Etymology, Music, Oxford | Enter your password to view comments.

Saturnalia and American Slavery

The Roman festival of the Saturnalia, “the best of days,” was celebrated between December 17th and 25th as a period of carnivalesque license. The world was ritually turned upside down, masters served slaves, and freedom of speech was encouraged. The relationship of the ancient holidays to Christmas seems obvious.  The purpose of the Saturnalia seems to have been to “let off steam” in an otherwise top-heavy hierarchical society. It has never occurred to me to ask how the slaves must have felt about all this, nor would it have possible to ascertain their feelings given the paucity of evidence. But the passage below, from Chapter 10 of The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (1845), gives some evidence of how a later slave felt about this period of “temporary liberty.” I have highlighted especially interesting remarks.

My term of actual service to Mr. Edward Covey ended on Christmas day, 1833. The days between Christmas and New Year’s day are allowed as holidays; and, accordingly, we were not required to perform any labor, more than to feed and take care of the stock. This time we regarded as our own, by the grace of our masters; and we therefore used or abused it nearly as we pleased. Those of us who had families at a distance, were generally allowed to spend the whole six days in their society. This time, however, was spent in various ways. The staid, sober, thinking and industrious ones of our number would employ themselves in making corn-brooms, mats, horse-collars, and baskets; and another class of us would spend the time in hunting opossums, hares, and coons. But by far the larger part engaged in such sports and merriments as playing ball, wrestling, running foot-races, fiddling, dancing, and drinking whisky; and this latter mode of spending the time was by far the most agreeable to the feelings of our masters. A slave who would work during the holidays was considered by our masters as scarcely deserving them. He was regarded as one who rejected the favor of his master. It was deemed a disgrace not to get drunk at Christmas; and he was regarded as lazy indeed, who had not provided himself with the necessary means, during the year, to get whisky enough to last him through Christmas.

From what I know of the effect of these holidays upon the slave, I believe them to be among the most effective means in the hands of the slaveholder in keeping down the spirit of insurrection. Were the slaveholders at once to abandon this practice, I have not the slightest doubt it would lead to an immediate insurrection among the slaves. These holidays serve as conductors, or safety-valves, to carry off the rebellious spirit of enslaved humanity. But for these, the slave would be forced up to the wildest desperation; and woe betide the slaveholder, the day he ventures to remove or hinder the operation of those conductors! I warn him that, in such an event, a spirit will go forth in their midst, more to be dreaded than the most appalling earthquake.

The holidays are part and parcel of the gross fraud, wrong, and inhumanity of slavery. They are professedly a custom established by the benevolence of the slaveholders; but I undertake to say, it is the result of selfishness, and one of the grossest frauds committed upon the down-trodden slave. They do not give the slaves this time because they would not like to have their work during its continuance, but because they know it would be unsafe to deprive them of it. This will be seen by the fact, that the slaveholders like to have their slaves spend those days just in such a manner as to make them as glad of their ending as of their beginning. Their object seems to be, to disgust their slaves with freedom, by plunging them into the lowest depths of dissipation. For instance, the slaveholders not only like to see the slave drink of his own accord, but will adopt various plans to make him drunk. One plan is, to make bets on their slaves, as to who can drink the most whisky without getting drunk; and in this way they succeed in getting whole multitudes to drink to excess. Thus, when the slave asks for virtuous freedom, the cunning slaveholder, knowing his ignorance, cheats him with a dose of vicious dissipation, artfully labelled with the name of liberty. The most of us used to drink it down, and the result was just what might be supposed; many of us were led to think that there was little to choose between liberty and slavery. We felt, and very properly too, that we had almost as well be slaves to man as to rum. So, when the holidays ended, we staggered up from the filth of our wallowing, took a long breath, and marched to the field,—feeling, upon the whole, rather glad to go, from what our master had deceived us into a belief was freedom, back to the arms of slavery.

I have said that this mode of treatment is a part of the whole system of fraud and inhumanity of slavery. It is so. The mode here adopted to disgust the slave with freedom, by allowing him to see only the abuse of it, is carried out in other things. For instance, a slave loves molasses; he steals some. His master, in many cases, goes off to town, and buys a large quantity; he returns, takes his whip, and commands the slave to eat the molasses, until the poor fellow is made sick at the very mention of it. The same mode is sometimes adopted to make the slaves refrain from asking for more food than their regular allowance. A slave runs through his allowance, and applies for more. His master is enraged at him; but, not willing to send him off without food, gives him more than is necessary, and compels him to eat it within a given time. Then, if he complains that he cannot eat it, he is said to be satisfied neither full nor fasting, and is whipped for being hard to please! I have an abundance of such illustrations of the same principle, drawn from my own observation, but think the cases I have cited sufficient. The practice is a very common one.

Posted in Bible, Classics, Slavery, The South, Time | Leave a comment

Introduction for Christopher Hitchens, “The Moral Necessity of Atheism” (Sewanee, Feb. 2004)

0Introduction for Christopher Hitchens,
“The Moral Necessity of Atheism”

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2004
Convocation Hall
The “How, Then, Shall We Live?” Series

 

I knew that, when we invited Christopher Hitchens to speak, we would draw a large crowd, and sure enough we have, and I am aware, painfully aware, that you all are here to hear him and not me.

Toward that end, let me skip over the elaborate introduction in which Mr. Hitchens’ numerous books and essays would be enumerated at length, to get to the matter at hand, short and sweet. I will not mention Letters to a Young Contrarian, published in 2001, which might be called a guidebook for the gadfly spirit of Socrates, written for the independently-minded person who feels the need to Zag when all the world is Zigging, and which Hitchens wished to call “A Power of Facing,” in reference to George Orwell’s famous quotation about needing to have the power to face unpleasant facts. Since I’m not bringing that up, I won’t mention Hitchens’ incisive volume, Why Orwell Matters (from 2002), nor the very recent introduction he’s written for the new edition of Animal Farm and 1984.

No, not a word on any of that, since, were I to do so, I might give you the wrong impression that Hitchens is simply an Orwell scholar, or enthusiast– which he is, mind you– but since I would be eager to convey to you a fuller sense of who he is and what he writes about, I would be compelled to mention his other literary essays– on Proust in last month’s Atlantic, or John Buchan, in this month’s issue of the same magazine, or the scads upon scads of well-written and thought-provoking reviews in The New York Review of Books, the Times Book Review, and so forth.

And then, to disabuse of the notion that he is merely a literary critic, working in a journalist mode, I woulf have to bring up his book, 2000’s No One Left to Lie To, Hitchens’ manifesto against the dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of the Clintons; I’d probably have to also bring up his sworn statement before the Impeachment committee that Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal had perjured himself in defending the President, an event which earned him the nickname from a fellow columnist at the Nation, “Hitch the Snitch.” And lest anyone get the idea that it’s only Democrats Hitchens skewers, I might then feel the need to describe Hitchens’ book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger, a compelling book and now documentary, in which Hitchens argues that former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, is a war criminal , whose crimes against humanity deserve to and must be punished according to all international law.

I suppose it would be best not to start down that road, since then you might get the idea that he’s just a political writer, and I might have to discuss The Missionary Position, the controversial, indeed scandalous, polemic against Mother Theresa whom, he observes, provided a moral fig-leaf to brutal tyrants and corporate millionaires by accepting their contributions not for the relief for the poor but for missionary work advocating anti-abortion and anti-birthcontrol policies, the hardcore positions of the Catholic Church. And I suppose that might get us into a discusion of other fundamentalisms, particularly Islamic, on which topic Hitchens took a strong stance in the weeks following September 11th, writing, “…the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and there’s no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate about ‘the West,’ to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don’t like and can’t defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from state. Loose talk about chickens coming home to roost is the moral eqivalent of the hateful garbage emitted by Falwell and Robertson, and exhibits about the same intellectual content.”

No, I’m not going to get into any of that, thank God (oops! am I allowed to say that?). No, instead, I’m going to keep it short and sweet, and ask all of you to join me in welcoming our speaker for today, Mr. Christopher Hitchens, who will be discussing “The future of an illusion.”

Hard to believe this was ten years ago! See also my remarks on the discussion panel about Hitchens a week before his arrival.

See also:

http://youtube.suburban.ro/video/By_S3BMevzM.html

http://www.frequency.com/video/christopher-hitchens-moral-necessity-of/67281758/-/5-342957

 

Posted in Astronomical, Bible, England, Mythology, Sewanee | 3 Comments

Remarks on Hitchens Discussion Panel

Introduction to Faculty Panel on
Christopher Hitchens’ “The Moral Necessity of Atheism”

Tuesday, Feb 17, 2004
Women’s Center Living Room
The “How, Then, Shall We Live?” Series

I first came across Christopher Hitchens’ work when I began to subscribe in the mid-nineties to The Nation, the leading leftist periodical in America. If you have ever seen it, the Nation is a decidedly no-frills operation. They take no advertising as a matter of principle, and so the journal is printed on newspaper paper– in this way, he Nation marks by its appearance and feel its stark contrast in ideology to the magazines which are glossy and in the pocket of corporate advertisers. By and large, I liked reading the Nation, since I felt there was a commitment to Truth, or at least there was a freedom from capitalist bias which might help in speaking the Truth. This was an especial interest of mine during the confusing moral era presided over by Bill Clinton. But the fact of the matter is, The Nation just wasn’t much all that much fun– no New Yorker style cartoons, no Harper’s Index, no interesting or provocative book or film reviews– and week after week I left the magazine sit all but unread. All but, as I say, since I always made a point of reading Christopher Hitchens’ Minority Report. Hitchens always struck me as an independent voice in what was, I’d come to think, a journal largely unified in its political interests. Among dissenters, in other words, Hitchens was a dissenter, a voice raised in opposition to the voices raised in opposition. And it’s no simply because I like irony that I liked Hitchens. He also wrote well, memorably and powerfully. Unlike so much of what I’ve read in magazines- whether essays by John Updike, film reviews by Pauline Kael, political commentary by P. J. O’Rourke, etc., etc.,–  Hitchens’ prose tends to stick in my head.

Over the course of the next few years, Hitchens’ name began to appear more and more frequently in whatever magazine I happened to be reading, or TV show I happened to be watching. There he was on Salon.com, slamming Newt Gingrich. There he was on Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC’s political pundit shoutfest, slamming Bill Clinton. In fact, Hitchens’ political insights were always so damned interesting in the late 90’s that I found myself unconsciously taking them for my own opinion and citing them accordingly. During the lead-up to the impeachment proceedings, you may recall, the Clinton Administration bombed a factory in the Sudan which was reportedly was making weapons. Hitchens was the first to actually look at the scientific data and say, You know, that company really was making medicine like the Sudanese said it was, but this was not a mistake in intelligence, it was a deliberate ploy to distract attention from the political situation arising from the affair with Monica Lewinsky. On the basis of such articles, Hitchens wrote his book, No One Left to Lie To, in which the moral bankruptcy of the Clintons was indelibly spelled out.

But Hitchens is no conservative of the Fox News type, mouthing mindless right-wing clap-trap under the dishonest banner of being “Fair and Balanced.” You need only look at the utterly compelling book in which Hitchens calls for and proves that former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, is a war criminal , whose crimes against humanity deserve to and must be punished according to all international law. And if I may build on this, Hitchens is not simply a political analyst; in fact, he has written just this month in The Atlantic a long and acute essay on Marcel Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past. Hitchens is a bona fide literary critic, although he writes in a journalistic style. His review of the King James Bible translation in the NY Times Book Review is extremely perceptive, and I will tell you that, one hearing him discuss Homer on C-SPAN’s Book Chat with translator Stanley Lombardo, I learned a thing or two myself.

So, he’s provocative and smart. Let me end with just an example on which I’d like to digress shortly before I let these fine folks have a crack at this piece on atheism. In a piece in Salon attacking Mother Theresa entitled “Saint to the Rich: There was less- and more- to Mother Teresa than met the eye,” (yes! an attack on Mother Teresa! Hitchens certainly likes his sacred cows roasted up well-done!), the article begins, “”Saints,’ George Orwell wrote in 1949, ‘should always be judged guilty until they are proven innocent.’” He goes on to enumerate the failings of Mother Teresa as a hypocrite who provided a moral fig-leaf to brutal tyrants and corporate millionaires by accepting their contributions which in turn where funneled not to the relief for the poor but to missionary work advocating anti-abortion and anti-birth control policies. But of particular interest to me is the opening of the essay, a quote from George Orwell. In particular, the quote comes from Orwell’s essay on Gandhi, of whom Orwell was deeply suspicious. Gandhi, another holy person of India given a free pass by most Western intellectuals, but who for Orwell was the emperor with no clothes.

In a sense, I think Orwell thinks of himself as a latter-day Orwell– indeed, his latest book is entitled Why Orwell Matters. In particular , I think of Orwell the essayist, the man of letters, who gave beautiful radio addresses on Hopkins’ poetry during the Second World War and wrote movingly about shooting an elephant in Burma. But also in the mix is the Orwell who, though a dedicated socialist, wrote The Road to Wigan Pier, an indictment of the Socialist movement in Britain during the Depression, and who also wrote the powerful condemnation of the inhuman politics of Stalinism in 1984. So let us say that Mother Teresa is Hitchens’ Gandhi; who then are the wrong-headed fellow travelers of Hitchens’ Wigan Pier? In his resignation letter from the Nation in September 2002, Hitchens wrote, “I have come to realize that [this] magazine … is the echo chamber of those who truly believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden.” A year earlier, in his response to the 9/11 attacks, Hitchens wrote an article called “Against Rationalization,” I believe Hitchens found his totalitarian enemy.   As he memorably wrote then, “…the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and there’s no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate about ‘the West,’ to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don’t like and can’t defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from state. Loose talk about chickens coming home to roost is the moral eqivalent of the hateful garbage emitted by Falwell and Robertson, and exhibits about the same intellectual content.”

Bin Laden, the Taliban, Falwell and Robertson– in short the voices of fundamentalist religion, about which, well, Christopher Hitchens has a lot to say.

Link to Hitchens’ talk at Sewanee here.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

One Piece of Silver

IMG_5060

A Tyrian shekel from the James H. Rives Collection of Coins in the Archives of the University of the South.  Silver coins of this type, minted between 125 and 18 BC, were used to pay the Temple tax in Jerusalem (Matthew 17:24-27).  It is likely that Judas was paid with coins of this very type when he betrayed Jesus: “Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What will you give me if I betray him to you?’ They paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he began to look for an opportunity to betray him” (Matthew 26:14-16). For further information, see post on the shekel on Biblical Archeology website.

Posted on Maundy Thursday, 2014 AD

Posted in Bible, Mythology, Numismatics, Rome, Sewanee | Leave a comment