(9) Weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. —The Hebrew presents the singular combination, seven shekels and ten [ pieces of ] silver, and is followed by the LXX. and Vulg. There is no ground for thinking that there is any difference between the coins or bullion ...
Show full excerpt
(9) Weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. —The Hebrew presents the singular combination, seven shekels and ten [ pieces of ] silver, and is followed by the LXX. and Vulg. There is no ground for thinking that there is any difference between the coins or bullion so described, and the formula was probably one of the technicalities of Jewish conveyancing. As regards the price it is not easy, in the absence of any measurement of the field, to form an estimate of its value; but, speaking roughly, as compared with the four hundred shekels paid by Abraham for the field of Ephron ( Genesis 23:16 ), or the fifty paid by David for the threshing-floor and oxen of Araunah ( 2Samuel 24:24 ; in 1Chronicles 21:25 the price is fixed at six hundred shekels of gold), or to the thirty shekels paid for the potter’s field in Matthew 27:9 , or to the market price of a slave varying from fifteen ( Hosea 3:2 ) to thirty shekels ( Zechariah 11:12 ), the price, under £2 sterling, would seem to have been far below its average market value, and in this respect the story falls short of the dignity of its Roman parallel (see Note on Jeremiah 32:7 ). Hanameel, as said above, was probably glad to part with it at any price. It is possible, however, that the smallness of the sum was owing to the fact that the sale, as above suggested, conveyed possession only for the unexpired term of a tenancy which was to end with the next year of Jubilee.