New Testament money (part 2) - updated

 You'll need to read part 1 for this to make sense.

Some examples:

Judas betrayed Jesus 

for 30 pieces of silver - that's £3,000

Parable of the talents

He gave them 5, 2 and 1 talents - £50,000, £20,000, and £10,000 respectively. Not just a few pounds!

Parable of the two debtors 

One was forgiven a debt of 500 denarii, the other a debt of 50 - that's £50,000 compared to £5,000

Parable of the unmerciful servant

The servant was forgiven a debt of 10,000 talents, yet threw his fellow servant in jail for a debt of 100 denarii. The first debt was £100 million(!), the second was £10,000.

So it's important not to imply that the smaller debt was insignificant. It was a real debt - other people do us real wrongs (for some people - horrendous wrongs. And Jesus is not saying these don't matter). We should forgive, not because it doesn't matter, but because we realise how impossibly large is the debt God has forgiven us (do we?)

Widow's mite

She put in two small copper coins - that's £1

It was not 2p, as we sometimes imply. 2p is worthless, so you might as well put it in. £1 could buy something to eat, yet she gave it.

New Testament money (part 1) - updated

Back in 2017 I wrote a couple of posts on how much Bible prices would be now. But the minimum wage has changed a lot since then - so here's an adapted version for 2025. I also used a squiggly equals sign this time ≈ because I've been illustrating a maths book that used them!

 

---

I find it really helpful, when reading (or teaching) passages that involve sums of money, to translate them into modern money. After all, what does 'silver coin' or 'talent' or 'copper coin' actually mean to the average 21st century person? Was it a lot? A little? How much? How little?

So here's how I do it. It's not foolproof, but it's helpful

Denarius

(aka silver coin/drachma - same thing, different translations )

http://www.cngcoins.com

1 Denarius = a days's wage for a worker.
So take this to be minimum wage.

In the UK the minimum wage is currently £12.21 per hour. (You can substitute the minimum wage in your country.)
Assuming an average 8 hour workday, that's £97.68 a day.

So 1 denarius ≈ £100. 

 

Talent

A talent was 100 denarii.
That's £100 x 100

So 1 talent ≈ £10,000

 

Mite

(aka copper coin)

This was the smallest coin at the time.
192 in a denarius (what a weird number!)

£100÷192=0.520833

So 1 mite ≈ 50p


Of course, different things had different value in those days - clothes were incredibly expensive; rent was cheap. Some food was dearer than for us; I think some was cheaper. Still, it's a help.

Read part 2 of this enthralling story here... 

The Hebrew words for clothes are driving me maḏ (pun intended)

Thinking out loud here, for some illustrations I'm doing, but it might be interesting to other people. Sorry I haven't linked the verses - that would be a massive faff.

In 1 Samuel 18v4:

Then Jonathan removed the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military tunic, his sword, his bow, and his belt.

The clothing words chosen by translators can vary widely, so it's always worth checking out the original Hebrew (While looking up an interlinear is not a substitute for actually knowing Hebrew, I do know about ancient clothes, which, by the word choices they sometimes make, most translators don't. Not their fault - they can't know details of every subject!)

So, what Jonathan gave David was a mᵊʿîl, a maḏ and a ḥăḡôr (plus the sword and bow).

---

mᵊʿîl is a fairly clear clothing word. 

• The high priest wore a blue one over his tunic (kutōneṯ), with pomegranates & bells round the hem and an opening in the center. Exodus 39v23-25
• Samuel's mother made him a little one every year 1 Samuel 2v19, and he wore one as an adult too 1 Samuel 15v27 (and as a ghost 1 Samuel 28v14). Saul wore one too - and in both cases they had a corner (or edge) that could be torn/cut off 1 Samuel 24v4.
• The 'long-sleeved/decorated robes' (pas kutōneṯ) that David's daughters wore were a kind of mᵊʿîl 2 Samuel 13v18 - and since Joseph also wore a pas kutōneṯ Genesis 37v3, I'm guessing his was also a kind of mᵊʿîl.  
• David wore a linen one (plus an ephod) to dance before the ark 1 Chronicles 15v27.
• Various people also tore theirs when mourning, but that doesn't really tell us what they're like, except that they're occasionally mentioned in addition to 'beḡeḏ' (clothes)  e.g. Ezra 9v3. And some random princes in a prophecy took them off Ezekiel 26v16.
• It's also used metaphorically for being clothed in joy, wrath or strength.
  

Therefore, I think 'robe' sounds like a good translation. Not a basic everyday tunic, but serving a similar purpose of clothing the whole body. Sometimes (always?) worn over a tunic. And, based on the descriptions, I think a voluminous, belted-poncho type robe, common in many ancient societies, such as Egypt, Persia, Greece & Rome.

Persian guard in the British Museum

My reconstruction. It's just a rectangle with a hole, but gives the impression of long sleeves.

I like to draw their style based (loosely) on the rather unintelligible clothes on this ivory from Megiddo:

This is bronze age, therefore close to David's time.

---

ḥăḡôr is definitely a belt, or anything you gird yourself (ḥāḡar) with Genesis 3v7 - sometimes specifically a military belt 2 Samuel 20v8 (and sometimes used as a metonymy for being armed 2 Kings 3v21) . Sometimes not military at all Isaiah 3v24. 

In context, a military belt would make sense.

---

And then there's the maḏ. Unfortunately there aren't that many instances of it, and they don't all appear to be referring the the same thing.

• It is once used to refer to a priest's linen robe (usually called a kutōneṯ) Leviticus 6v10.
• Ehud strapped his 18" sword to his right thigh under his maḏ, and was able to access it quickly with his left hand Judges 3v16-21. 
• In a clearly military context, Saul lent his to David, and he strapped his sword over it 1 Samuel 17v38-39. Joab also wore one with a belt and sword over it 2 Samuel 20v8. An unnamed Benjamite fled from battle with a torn one (in mourning?) 1 Samuel 4v12.
  
• People who travel the roads on white donkeys sit on them 🤷‍♀️ Judges 5v10.  
• It's used metaphorically in a Psalm - 'He wore cursing like his maḏ" - which could be any kind of clothing Psalm 109v18.
• And that's it*. 

In three of those instances someone 'puts it on' (lāḇaš), but Joab 'girded himself' (ḥāḡar) with his. So are we talking about a kilt? A military kilt? Kilts certainly were worn in warfare, sometimes with nothing else - see the armed man in the ivory above. 

But what style of kilt? Why did Saul think it would help David, instead of him just wearing the armour over normal clothes? Were his normal clothes loose and baggy? Or was the kilt reinforced or padded in some way? What would it look like? Was Jonathan wearing it over his mᵊʿîl (certainly a kilt over a robe was sometimes worn by people like Philistines, Syrians, and Kushites)? Or, based on the order the clothes are mentioned, was he at that point only wearing the mᵊʿîl (presumably over a tunic), not any of his military gear, which it doesn't specifically mention him taking off?

Watch this space for my solutions...

---

*It also seems to mean 'measure' Jeremiah 13v25, but that doesn't help, as the etymology of clothing words is often weird - in English, 'shirt' and 'skirt' come fom the same root!

Colosseum / Herod's temple size comparison

 Answer to question in previous post:

(very simplified plans)

The odd things I notice

I have not seen the new TV series The Chosen, although I've heard good things about it.

I have seen a few clips, though, and one thing I noticed that pleased me - you can see Jesus' knees!

I don't think I've ever seen that. But he's a first-century working class man - he wouldn't be swanning about in impractical long robes. They were for important (or would-be important) people.

A problem with illustrating the Bible

Many persons suppose he was on horseback, and painters thus represent him; but this is utterly without foundation. Painters are, in almost every case, wretched commentators.
~ Clarke*

He's right - but I do try very hard not to do this. 

But at the end of the day, you have to draw something. And unless the Bible spells it out, your choice does say something. If you draw him on a horse, you're saying he was on a horse. But if, because it doesn't say so, you don't draw a horse, you're not leaving it open to interpretation - you are saying that he was not on a horse.

Actually, in this case, the fact that Paul was later led by the hand suggests to me that he was not on a horse - and personally I avoid drawing horses whenever possible anyway!

But there's so many things: was the person old or young? fat or thin? tall or short? brown or black or white**? And if we avoid any of these extremes, are we saying that the Bible is about boring, characterless people instead of real-life people like us?

What colour were Adam & Eve? Did Mary & Joseph ride a donkey? Were there three wise men? Was Mary Magdalene the same person as Mary of Bethany? Was she the sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet? Was 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' John? Do angels have wings? ***

Every picture you draw makes a statement.

---

* Sorry, I have no idea this guy's full name - it was a quote in the commentary on my Bible app 
** Not such an issue in the OT (though there certainly was more racial diversity than we tend to imagine or draw - which is also saying something). But by the NT - especially Acts - with the racial mix of the Roman empire...
*** My decisions for illustrations:

• Adam & Eve were mid brown, with all the genes necessary for the whole human race
• No
• Not necessarily, but three is a nice number, so I often draw three
• Yes
• No
• Yes
• Probably not - I tend to draw them glowing instead. But I have no objection to including wings, and I have done so if needed to make it clear these are angels

And all these may be wrong!

Planning an outfit for King David

I went for a golden brown colour as it's similar to his shepherd clothes, but also looks regal.

Assumptions

I'm working on some commissioned illustrations about Nicodemus, to match with some previous illustrations I did of the woman at the well.

As always, apologies for paranoid watermarking - I do this when posting commissioned work to protect my clients' rights.

Interestingly, both stories mention the time of day the person spoke to Jesus - Nicodemus came to see Jesus at night; the woman met Jesus when she went to the well around midday. I might reflect this in the colours of the borders.

We are often told - as a fact - that Nicodemus came at night because he was worried that others would see him during the day, and that the woman came to the well at midday because she was a social outcast as a result of her immoral behaviour*, and she knew no-one else would be around at that time.

Maybe.

Or maybe Nicodemus was extremely busy during the day, and he came at the first opportunity he had. Maybe the woman had accidentally spilt the water she had already gathered at the normal time, and this was an unscheduled emergency trip.

Maybe.

The point is we don't know, and any suggested reasons - however plausible - should be clearly pointed out as speculation, and definitely not used to make important points.

---

*It's also assumed that she had been divorced 5 times. But maybe she had been widowed 5 times (or a mixture).

The romanticism of the past

[Door opens with a spooky creeeeaaak]
And a drear enough place it was. Tallow candles glimmered in their niches, casting long flickering shadows out across the tall oaken desks and the ink-spattered ledgers that sat thereon. In short, it was the very acme of a soulless modern office.
"Why," said I, "This is the least spooky place imaginable."

~ John Finnemore's Souvenir Programme series 8 episode 1

Biblical geekery (patriarchs' ages)

As I pointed out previously, when you do the maths, Jacob was 77 when when ran away. BUT the patriarchs lived a really long time, so maybe they didn't age as quickly?

This affects how I draw them. Jacob and Abraham were more or less ages with each other when they left home, yet we think of - and draw - Jacob as a young man and Abraham as an old man. Which makes no sense.

So, I made a graph.

I set three points:

• I made 17 the same on both, because I can't imagine Jacob sending his treasured son 50 miles on his own when he was a little kid.
• I made Sarah's age at the birth of Isaac the equivalent of 60. This made her definitely too old to have a baby. I didn't want to make her much younger, as Abraham also doubted that he could father a child.
• The oldest to die were Isaac and Abraham - and they were a lot older than the others. So I set the upper limit at 120, the oldest age that people live in modern times.

Then I made a curve, and drew lines.

Grey shaded bit = 'old' but not necessarily very old.

What I like about this is that all the age equivalents (except the ones that are meant to be laughable) seem sensible. People die at sensible ages. Jacob gets married late, but not ridiculously old (George Clooney, not Hugh Hefner 😀).

Now I'm going back over my other patriarchs PowerPoints to make greyness of hair a bit more consistent - though of course people vary widely.

---

Here's a list if you prefer. Equivalents in brackets.

Joe sold - 17 (17)
Esau married  - 40 (34)
Isaac married - 40 (34)

Isaac when J&E born - 60 (46)
Sarah leaves - 65 (48)

Abraham leaves - 75 (53)
Jacob runs away - 77 (54)
Jacob gets married - 84 (57)
Abraham has Ishmael - 86 (58)

Sarah has Isaac - 90 (60)
Jacob has Joseph - 91 (61)
Abraham has Isaac - 100 (65)
Jacob when Joe sold - 108 (68)
Joe dies - 110 (69)

Sarah dies - 127 (77)
Jacob goes to Egypt - 130 (78)

Isaac blind - 137 (82)
Jacob dies - 147 (88)

Abraham dies - 175 (113)
Isaac dies - 180 (120)

Biblical geekery (Jacob)

This is some stuff I worked out ages ago.

Sometimes we can get the completely wrong idea about how old people in the Bible were, or how long stuff took. But sometimes all it needs is careful reading and simple maths.

Here's some working for Jacob.

• Jacob runs away
• Works 7 years, then marries Rachel & Leah
• Works 7 more years, during which time he has 12 children - it is possible! (see below) Joseph is born near the end of this time. (Gen 30v25)
• Works 6 years to gain his flocks. (Gen 31v41)
• After 20 years with Laban, he leaves. (Gen 31v38,41)
  
• Joseph was 17 when he was sold (Gen 37v2)
• He became Prime Minister of Egypt at the age of 30 (Gen 41v46)
• There were 7 good years 
• Two years into the famine, (Gen 45v11) Joseph sent for Jacob - Jacob was 130 (Gen 47v9)

If Jacob came to Egypt when he was 130, and Joseph was 39 (30 +7+2), Joseph was born when Jacob was 91.

Here's a chart showing how you can fit the birth of 12 children into 7 years.

 

This means that what we are often told - Joseph was much younger than his brothers - is wrong.

And here's a table showing how old Jacob and each of his children was at each point in the story.

 

Jacob seems very old - but presumably, since they lived so long, they also got older slower. We could perhaps imagine Jacob as being the equivalent of in his 30s/40s when he leaves? I need to do more work on this. [Edit - I have now done so, and he's in his mid 50's!]

Which also has implications for how we imagine Abraham - he was 75 when he left Harran. And if Jacob wasn't yet old at 77, Abraham wasn't yet old either. And all it says about Sarah at this point (aged 65) is that she was unable to have children - not yet that she was too old.

Roman belt

First part of a Roman soldier costume I'm making.

Old belt, fun foam and aluminium foil tape.
Decoration and rivets done by pressing in the ends of various pens.

 

 

 

Historical info from here (though I didn't leave a space for a dagger because there won't be one.)

Cave art

By Pline [GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0 ], from Wikimedia Commons

The evolutionist stands staring in the painted cavern at the things that are too large to be seen and too simple to be understood. He tries to deduce all sorts of other indirect and doubtful things from the details of the pictures, because he cannot see the primary significance of the whole; thin and theoretical deductions about the absence of religion or the presence of superstition; about tribal government and hunting and human sacrifice and heaven knows what. [...]

When all is said, the main fact that the record of the reindeer men attests, along with all other records, is that the reindeer man could draw and the reindeer could not. If the reindeer man was as much an animal as the reindeer, it was all the more extraordinary that he could do what all other animals could not. If he was an ordinary product of biological growth, like any other beast or bird, then it is all the more extraordinary that he was not in the least like any other beast or bird. He seems rather more supernatural as a natural product than as a supernatural one.

GK Chesterton

Solomon's mobile basins

I've been looking at Solomon's temple for doing a PowerPoint (put on hold for the moment).
In the furniture described are these bronze mobile basin stands, explained in great detail - which unfortunately no-one nowadays can make head or tail of.

I did come across this, though. I really don't think they looked like this (and I don't think he's seriously suggesting it) but it's pretty cool!


First Temple laver stand with omni wheels from Yoav Elan on Vimeo.
 (Here's his blog post about it)

Lachish relief clothes

I did a Google image search for 'Lachish relief clothes', and one of my Daniel illustrations came up on row 6!

New testament money (part 2)

You'll need to read part 1 for this to make sense.

Some examples

Judas betrayed Jesus 

for 30 pieces of silver - that's £1,800

Parable of the talents

He gave them 5, 2 and 1 talents - £30,000, £12,000, and £6,000 respectively. Not just a few pounds!

Parable of the two debtors 

One was forgiven a debt of 500 denarii, the other a debt of 50 - that's £30,000 compared to £3,000

Parable of the unmerciful servant

The servant was forgiven a debt of 10,000 talents, yet threw his fellow servant in jail for a debt of 100 denarii. The first debt was £600 million(!) [Edit - my maths went wrong - should be 60 million], the second was £6,000.

So it's important not to imply that the smaller debt was insignificant. It was a real debt - other people do us real wrongs (for some people - horrendous wrongs. And Jesus is not saying these don't matter). We should forgive, not because it doesn't matter, but because we realise how impossibly large is the debt God has forgiven us (do we?)

Widow's mite

She put in two small copper coins - that's 62p.

It was not 2p, as we sometimes imply. 2p is worthless, so you might as well put it in. 62p could buy something to eat, yet she gave it.

New testament money (part 1)

I find it really helpful, when reading (or teaching) passages that involve sums of money, to translate them into modern money. After all, what does 'silver coin' or 'talent' or 'copper coin' actually mean to the average 21st century person? Was it a lot? A little? How much? How little?

So here's how I do it. It's not foolproof, but it's helpful

Denarius

(aka silver coin/drachma*)

http://www.cngcoins.com

1 Denarius = a days's wage for a worker.
So take this to be minimum wage.

In the UK the minimum wage is currently £7.50 per hour.
Assuming an average 8 hour workday, that's £60 a day.

So 1 denarius = £60.

 

Talent

A talent was 100 denarii.
That's £60 x 100

So 1 talent = £6,000

 

Mite

(aka copper coin*)

This was the smallest coin at the time.
192 in a denarius (what a weird number!)

£60÷192=0.3125

So 1 mite = 31p


Of course, different things had different value in those days - clothes were incredibly expensive; rent was cheap. Some food was dearer than for us; I think some was cheaper. Still, it's a help.

Come back for part 2 of this enthralling story tomorrow...

---

*Same thing, different translations

Judean to Babylonian

Started work on Daniel chapter 1.

This was fun!

The Judean clothes are based on the seige of Lachish reliefs that are in the British Museum.

In that the younger boys wear simpler clothes, and the older boys are dressed like adults. I've gone for the adult version, but omitted the turbans as a) I think it makes them look younger and more vulnerable and b) they're difficult to draw!

I have no idea how their tunic/kilt thing is constructed. That's the good thing about simple pics like this - just draw it as they drew it; no need to understand.

Also, although they're all barefoot in this picture, I've drawn the leggings and boots from this other relief which looks to me like Judeans too.

Here's a Babylonian picture (not a great one - there are better ones). I'm pretty certain what they're wearing is essentially an ankle length Scottish style kilt.

2 Grecian cross-tied hairstyles for Women

Lovely ancient Greek hairstyles. Lovely hair, too! - I don't quite have that much :-)

Reading carefully

A couple of days ago, I was reading about Mary & Martha. A story I know well. Martha invites Jesus & his disciples for dinner and then gets in a stooshie over Mary not helping  with the cooking.

But that's not what it says. It doesn't say she invited them for dinner; it says she 'opened her home to him'. In context, Jesus and his disciples are on tour. Previously in the chapter, he sent out 72 of them, in an advertising campaign to the towns he was planning to visit. They were to stay with people in those towns.

Now 'Jesus and his disciples were on their way'. The tour has begun. They don't just need a nice dinner; like the 72 they need a place to put up for the night (or several nights). So Martha doesn't just need to cook one dinner for 13 extra people*  She needs to cook for several meals, buy the extra food, fetch extra water, make beds, perhaps rearrange rooms, dust... As Jesus said, 'you are worried and upset by many things'.

Available soon...

Then I was preparing a Sunday School Lesson about crossing the river Jordan. Another story I know well. After they cross, they are told to take 12 stones from the river and pile them up, so that people would remember what God had done. Sunday School lessons state this. This is what the Visual Aids I have used always show, as has every illustration I myself have drawn.

But that's not what it says. It says 'put them down at the place where you stay tonight', and 'Joshua set up the twelve stones'. No mention of a pile. They might have been stacked in a tall pillar, if they were flat enough. Or arranged in a row. Or a circle.

In fact, having just done some Googling, and looking at the Blue Letter Bible, it turns out that:

• 'Gilgal' means 'circle' or 'wheel'. This is explained in Joshua 5v8-9 as referring to God 'rolling away the reproach of Egypt' when they were circumcised. But it could easily be God making a pun. He frequently does.
• The word 'Gilgal' is certainly used in Hebrew for a stone circle, such as the (very different, very large) stone circle called Gilgal Refaim.
• There are also small stone circles in Israel like the kind I'm imagining at Gilgal.

Next time I illustrate this, I will draw a stone circle.

Do either of these things matter? No, they don't (except insofar as the truth  matters).

But it does show that you need to read very carefully. Because some things really do matter, and you don't want to read them wrong.

---

*Or however many, but I'm assuming the whole 72 were not there! But maybe more than 12? What about the women who followed Jesus? Of course, the disciples might also have split up between different houses. Who knows? It was a hassle, anyway.