Was Zeezrom A Collector Of Money Having Numismatic Value?

[prismsplay]

The Book of Mormon, Alma 11:21-25:

 

Now Zeezrom was a man who was expert in the devices of the devil, that he might destroy that which was good; therefore he said unto Amulek, Will ye answer the questions which I shall put unto you?
 
And Amulek said unto him, Yea, I will if it be according to the Spirit of the Lord which is in me; for I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord.

 

And Zeezrom said unto him, Behold here are six onties of silver, and all these will I give thee if thou wilt deny the existence of a supreme being.

 

Now Amulek said, O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations? Believest thou that there is no God? I say unto you, Nay; thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest that lucre more than him. And now thou hast lied before God unto me. Thou saidst unto me, Behold these six onties which are of great worth, I will give unto thee, when thou had it in thy heart to retain them from me; and it was only thy desire that I should deny the true and living God, that thou mightest have cause to destroy me. And now behold, for this great evil thou shalt have thy reward.

 

A judge received for his wages "a senine of gold for a day, or a senum of silver, which is equal to a senine of gold" (Alma 11:3). Since an onti of silver was as great as seven senums (Alma 11:11-13), six onties was the amount of money earned by a judge for 42 days of service. A mere 42 senums of silver may not have been much of a temptation to Amulek, who said of himself, "I have also acquired much riches by the hand of my industry" (Alma 10:4).

 

Although we don't know the weight or capacity of the measure of barley that senines and senums were equal in value to, a statement by Alma suggested that senines and senums were not of great value: "And notwithstanding the many labors which I have performed in the church, I have never received so much as even one senine for my labor" (Alma 30:33). Also, in Jesus's teachings to the people of Nephi, senines were mentioned in a way suggesting that they were not of great value: "Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee, and thou shalt be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, until thou hastpaid the uttermost senine. And while ye are in prison, can ye pay even one senine? Verily, verily I say unto you, Nay" (3 Nephi 12:25-26).

 

Amulek had promised to "say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord". Therefore, Amulek's misquotation of Zeezrom's offer, in which Amulek added the phrase "which are of great worth" to Zeezrom's offer of six onties, may indicate that Amulek had visually seen that the six onties were historical pieces of money that both Zeezrom and Amulek knew had great numismatic value. Notice that Zeezrom did not just offer six onties. His words, "Behold here are six onties" implies that Zeezrom was holding them up for Amulek to see. "And all these will I give thee" implies that these specific onties would be given, and not just any six onties.

[Calm]

Couldn't the "which are of great worth" been sarcastic?  As in Zeezrom was not only disrespecting Alma's love of God by offering him money, but trivialized it by offering so little.

[Kenngo1969]

As the son and grandson of numismatists, respectively, I think that's an interesting theory.  I wonder if anyone has ever pontificated on it on an academic level (e.g., Numismatism in the Ancient World).  (I know: Dictionary.com says "numismatism" isn't a word, but since "numismatist" is the word used to refer to people who practice coin collecting, there has to be a corresponding word for what they practice ... even if I did make it up.  So sue me! )

[Kenngo1969]

Couldn't the "which are of great worth" been sarcastic?  As in Zeezrom was not only disrespecting Alma's love of God by offering him money, but trivialized it by offering so little.

I wonder how much Zeezrom made as a lawyer compared to how much Amulek made as, perhaps, an itinerant preacher.  "Great worth" sometimes is relative.   (As an aside [and to illustrate], I had an on-line conversation some weeks back with another poster who belittled me for suggesting that former Miss Riverton [utah], Kendra McKenzie Gill, who was charged along with three male associates with several felonies for throwing tinfoil-and-toiletbowl-cleaner explosive devices [her defenders objected to characterizing them as "bombs"] at several homes in the Riverton area, I was ridiculed for suggesting that, in addition to relinquishing her crown, she also ought to surrender the accompanying $2,000 scholarship (the implication being that $2,000 is mere "chump change" [my phrase]).  My response was that, for me, $2,000 is a little less than seven months' worth of student loan payments, a little more than 4 months' rent, or about nine  car payments.)

Edited September 16, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[strappinglad]

Wouldn't  it take a reasonably long explanation as to why a coin would have some special value, and a knowledgeable person to recognize the truth of that explanation ?

[Calm]

 (As an aside [and to illustrate], I had an on-line conversation some weeks back with another poster who belittled me for suggesting that former Miss Riverton [utah], Kendra McKenzie Gill, who was charged along with three male associates with several felonies for throwing tinfoil-and-toiletbowl-cleaner explosive devices [her defenders objected to characterizing them as "bombs"] at several homes in the Riverton area, I was ridiculed for suggesting that, in addition to relinquishing her crown, she also ought to surrender the accompanying $2,000 scholarship (the implication being that $2,000 is mere "chump change" [my phrase]).  My response was that, for me, $2,000 is a little less than seven months' worth of student loan payments, a little more than 4 months' rent, or about nine  car payments.)

All the more reason to surrender it if it was "chump change".

[Calm]

 the six onties were historical pieces of money 

 

Are you suggesting the onties were actual coins or something else?

[Kenngo1969]

All the more reason to surrender it if it was "chump change".

Yup.

[Kenngo1969]

Wouldn't  it take a reasonably long explanation as to why a coin would have some special value, and a knowledgeable person to recognize the truth of that explanation ?

Perhaps, yet, if I recall correctly, much of an entire chapter is devoted to explaining the Nephite monetary system, seemingly simply to provide context for this relatively brief interaction between Amulek and Zeezrom.

[prismsplay]

Wouldn't  it take a reasonably long explanation as to why a coin would have some special value, and a knowledgeable person to recognize the truth of that explanation ?

 

That is a good point, and I had considered the possibility that Amulek, as a rich man (Alma 10:4) might have been a collector himself, in which case, Amulek may have seen without explanation that those specific onties had numismatic value. But we have no evidence that he himself was a collector, and we don't know what the onties looked like, nor whether or not one could distinguish numismatic value just by looking at what Zeezrom was holding up: "Behold here [in my hand implied] are six onties."

 

But since the offer was characterized as a temptation, there had to be something more than the face value of 42 senines to make the offer potentially tempting to an already rich Amulek. That is why I studied this out and came up with a theory to suggest a possible explanation for the incident, which otherwise is difficult for me to understand.

[prismsplay]

Are you suggesting the onties were actual coins or something else?

 

"Historical pieces of money" was simply a guess. We don't know whether or not onties existed prior to the reckoning and measures established by king Mosiah (Alma 11:4). If onties existed prior to that establishment, and if Zeezrom was holding up onties that could be seen to be pre-Mosiah, perhaps they were known to be of great value to collectors.

[Calm]

I wonder if the obsession with antiquities is perhaps a more modern hobby.  Do you have evidence that the ancients collected the really ancient stuff as valuable due to age?  I know there were some aspects of culture that would indicate this at least for some cultures (such as those that venerated ancestors), but is there direct evidence of such behaviour?

[MormonMason]

That isn't how I've read the passage.  Firstly, these were weights, not coins.  Secondly, remember that an onti was "as great as them all," meaning all the values mentioned.  I see this value as being the value of all the previous silver weights combined.

 

All that we do know about the senine is that it is the smallest gold monetary unit mentioned in Alma 11.  It does not have the same miniscule value and likely is not the exact representation of the small farthing of Matthew 5:26 (Greek kodrantes or Latin quadrans; a bronze coin worth 1/4 of an assarion, an assarion being itself worth 1/16 of a denarius, which itself was a silver coin that the KJV translates pretty consistently as "penny") in the New Testament.  Senine was just used because it is a smallish amount of monetary value for the Nephites and there was no exact equivalent to the New Testament period farthing.

 

Given that these are weights of certain values and not minted coins, these likely were a good amount of silver by weight, by way of comparison to gold.  I think six of these onties would have had some degree of value, especially considering judges only got a senine a day for their work.  It was a great symbol of pride.

[Robert F. Smith]

I wonder if the obsession with antiquities is perhaps a more modern hobby.  Do you have evidence that the ancients collected the really ancient stuff as valuable due to age?  I know there were some aspects of culture that would indicate this at least for some cultures (such as those that venerated ancestors), but is there direct evidence of such behaviour?

Of course, there were people in antiquity who established museums and libraries, just as we do.  You'll find an interesting account of Leonard Woolley finding one at Ur in 1925 at http://io9.com/5805358/the-story-behind-the-worlds-oldest-museum-built-by-a-babylonian-princess-2500-years-ago .  Human behavior hasn't changed in the last 10,000 or so years, and people living in Ur at the time of Nabonidus thought that they were living in modern times, with all the latest conveniences.  They collected antiquities for the same reasons we do. Such concepts are all relative.

[Calm]

Cool.  I thought it was likely.

[Robert F. Smith]

That isn't how I've read the passage.  Firstly, these were weights, not coins.  Secondly, remember that an onti was "as great as them all," meaning all the values mentioned.  I see this value as being the value of all the previous silver weights combined.

 

All that we do know about the senine is that it is the smallest gold monetary unit mentioned in Alma 11.  It does not have the same miniscule value and likely is not the exact representation of the small farthing of Matthew 5:26 (Greek kodrantes or Latin quadrans; a bronze coin worth 1/4 of an assarion, an assarion being itself worth 1/16 of a denarius, which itself was a silver coin that the KJV translates pretty consistently as "penny") in the New Testament.  Senine was just used because it is a smallish amount of monetary value for the Nephites and there was no exact equivalent to the New Testament period farthing.

 

Given that these are weights of certain values and not minted coins, these likely were a good amount of silver by weight, by way of comparison to gold.  I think six of these onties would have had some degree of value, especially considering judges only got a senine a day for their work.  It was a great symbol of pride.

True enough.

the Egypto-Hebrew weights & measures system is only briefly hinted at in Alma 11, and only then because it served a literary purpose in explaining the word-play of the gold antion in the name of Antionah ("Goldman, gold-guy") and silver ezrum with  Zeezrum ("Silverman, that-silver-guy") as metonyms.

 

However, it is just enough of a hint that we can see that modern research shows that the Israelite, Judahite, and Nephite weights had the same proportions and even some names as did the ancient Egyptian system from which they borrowed.  The Bible doesn't explain or hint at any of that, but modern archeology has demonstrated conclusively that the Israelites borrowed their system (including hieratic markings) from the Egyptians.  See my chart at the close in  http://www.idumea.org/etudes/Ecritures/LM/Poids_mesures.htm (the English JBMS chart is not nearly as good; but please ignore my gram weight suggestions)..

 

See also William Dever in Paul Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary, Society for Biblical Literature (N.Y.: HarperCollins/ HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 1128-1129, and Tables B & C; Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah (Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); S. Wimmer, Palästinisches Hieratisch: Die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in der althebräischen Schrift (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008); R. B. Y. Scott, AThe Shekel Sign on Stone Weights," BASOR, 153 (Feb 1959), 32-35; Scott, "Weights and Measures of the Bible," Biblical Archeologist, 22/2 (May 1959), 22-40; Shmuel Yeivin, "A Hieratic Ostracon from Tel Arad," IEJ, 16/3 (1966), 153-159; Yeivin, "An Ostracon from Tel Arad Exhibiting a Combination of Two Scripts," JEA, 55 (Aug 1969), 98-102.

[MormonMason]

True enough.

the Egypto-Hebrew weights & measures system is only briefly hinted at in Alma 11, and only then because it served a literary purpose in explaining the word-play of the gold antion in the name of Antionah ("Goldman, gold-guy") and silver ezrum with  Zeezrum ("Silverman, that-silver-guy") as metonyms.

 

However, it is just enough of a hint that we can see that modern research shows that the Israelite, Judahite, and Nephite weights had the same proportions and even some names as did the ancient Egyptian system from which they borrowed.  The Bible doesn't explain or hint at any of that, but modern archeology has demonstrated conclusively that the Israelites borrowed their system (including hieratic markings) from the Egyptians.  See my chart at the close in  http://www.idumea.org/etudes/Ecritures/LM/Poids_mesures.htm (the English JBMS chart is not nearly as good; but please ignore my gram weight suggestions)..

 

See also William Dever in Paul Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary, Society for Biblical Literature (N.Y.: HarperCollins/ HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 1128-1129, and Tables B & C; Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah (Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); S. Wimmer, Palästinisches Hieratisch: Die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in der althebräischen Schrift (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008); R. B. Y. Scott, AThe Shekel Sign on Stone Weights," BASOR, 153 (Feb 1959), 32-35; Scott, "Weights and Measures of the Bible," Biblical Archeologist, 22/2 (May 1959), 22-40; Shmuel Yeivin, "A Hieratic Ostracon from Tel Arad," IEJ, 16/3 (1966), 153-159; Yeivin, "An Ostracon from Tel Arad Exhibiting a Combination of Two Scripts," JEA, 55 (Aug 1969), 98-102.

I'll have to take a look at those.  Interestingly enough, as you might already know, the Ze- phoneme (like its variant Se-) is actually an Egyptian root phoneme that occurs as parts of Egyptian names, such as Si-Osiris, Si-Ptah, and so forth.  It is interesting that such creolization of Egyptian and Hebrew naming conventions took place among the Nephites.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'll have to take a look at those.  Interestingly enough, as you might already know, the Ze- phoneme (like its variant Se-) is actually an Egyptian root phoneme that occurs as parts of Egyptian names, such as Si-Osiris, Si-Ptah, and so forth.  It is interesting that such creolization of Egyptian and Hebrew naming conventions took place among the Nephites.

You might want to take a look at the Willes Center Book of Mormon Onomasticon Project at http://onoma.lib.byu.edu , when it is working (seems to be down at the moment).  We discuss several possibilities there, including the relative or gentilic particle Hebrew ze "the one of," as in ze-Sinai "The One of Sinai (God)," as in Judges 5:5, Psalm 68:8.  This is the same structure as Du Shara “The One of the Shara Mountains (Qos, the primary deity of the Nabateans)."

 

As to Si-Ptah, this actually means "Son of Ptah," while Si-Amun would be "Son of Amun."  The standard spelling is Z3-Ptḥ "Son of Ptah," while Z3(t)-Ptḥ "Daughter of Ptah" (with silent -t-, is the source of Book of Abraham variant of the female name Egyptus / Zeptah).

[prismsplay]

That isn't how I've read the passage.  Firstly, these were weights, not coins.  Secondly, remember that an onti was "as great as them all," meaning all the values mentioned.  I see this value as being the value of all the previous silver weights combined.

 

All that we do know about the senine is that it is the smallest gold monetary unit mentioned in Alma 11.  It does not have the same miniscule value and likely is not the exact representation of the small farthing of Matthew 5:26 (Greek kodrantes or Latin quadrans; a bronze coin worth 1/4 of an assarion, an assarion being itself worth 1/16 of a denarius, which itself was a silver coin that the KJV translates pretty consistently as "penny") in the New Testament.  Senine was just used because it is a smallish amount of monetary value for the Nephites and there was no exact equivalent to the New Testament period farthing.

 

Given that these are weights of certain values and not minted coins, these likely were a good amount of silver by weight, by way of comparison to gold.  I think six of these onties would have had some degree of value, especially considering judges only got a senine a day for their work.  It was a great symbol of pride.

 

I still think that 6 onties was equal to 42 senums:

 

The Book of Mormon - Restored Covenant Edition (1999) Alma 8:53-63

The Book of Mormon - The Earliest Text (2009) Alma 11:4-19

 

Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold and of their

silver, according to their value; and the names are given by the Nephites, for

they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews which were at Jerusalem;

neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews, but they altered their

reckoning and their measure according to the minds and the circumstances

of the people in every generation until the reign of the judges, they having

been established by King Mosiah. Now, the reckoning is thus: a senine of

gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold and a limnah of gold; a senum of silver,

an amnor of silver, an ezrum of silver and an onti of silver; a senum of

silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley and

also for a measure of every kind of grain. Now the amount of a seon of gold

was twice the value of a senine; and a shum of gold was twice the value of a

seon; and a limnah of gold was the value of them all; and an amnor of silver

was as great as two senums; and an ezrum of silver was as great as four

senums; and an onti was as great as them all. Now this is the value of the

lesser numbers of their reckoning: a shiblon is half of a senum, therefore a

shiblon for half a measure of barley; and a shilum is half of a shiblon and

a leah is half of a shilum. Now an antion of gold is equal to three shiblons.

Now this is their number according to their reckoning.

 

Misrepresenting the Printer's Manuscript, the 1830 edition had "ezrom" for "ezrum" and "shiblum"

for "shilum". If "the different pieces of their gold and of their silver" applied to all of the pieces named,

the "shiblon", "shilum", and "leah" would have been of silver, in contrast to the "antion of gold". Otherwise,

these "lesser numbers of their reckoning" were of other material.

Edited September 16, 2013 by prismsplay

[rameumptom]

Most LDS scholars see the senine and others as weights rather than a denomination of money. There would have been no numismatic value of any kind.

 

It may well be that there was a shortage of gold and silver in the area, which would make any amount of great value to the people in the area.  The same held true in the 19th century America.  There was a shortage of gold coinage in some areas of the country, and so some presidential candidates actually ran on a platform of adding silver as legal tender on the same level as gold.

[cinepro]

Most LDS scholars see the senine and others as weights rather than a denomination of money. There would have been no numismatic value of any kind.

 

It may well be that there was a shortage of gold and silver in the area, which would make any amount of great value to the people in the area.  The same held true in the 19th century America.  There was a shortage of gold coinage in some areas of the country, and so some presidential candidates actually ran on a platform of adding silver as legal tender on the same level as gold.

 

Unless the Nephites had gone off the gold and silver standard (and Alma 11 seems pretty clear that they hadn't), standardized weights of gold or silver are coins.  The reason people make coins is to make the standardized "weights" easy to identify for exchange.  It's only when a money is "debased" that the design or name of the coin itself is supposed to carry value.  As long as the coin itself is made from a valuable metal (or other material) in that society, it doesn't matter what you call it.  It's the metal that gives it value, not the design or name.

[cinepro]

And while we're on the subject, if you were to ask me for a chapter in the Book of Mormon that seems most "made up" (i.e a fictional creation of an author instead of a recounting of a dialogue that actually happened between two real people), it would be Alma 11.

 

For example, here we have Zeezrom, who is "expert in the devices of the devil" when it comes to debate and trickery, debating Amulek on the biggest question in the history of the universe: The Existence of God. This is the big debate to end all debates between the devil's chosen advocate and Amulek, representing God.

So Zeezrom says, as the opening shot in the debate: "Will ye answer the questions which I shall put unto you?"

To which Amulek replies, "Yea".

So Zeezrom, who I remind you is expert in the devices of the devil, uses what spectacular tool in his arsenal of debate?

"I will pay you if you deny the existence of God".

 

Imagine if Elder Oaks or Elder Holland consented to a debate over the existence of God with Richard Dawkins or some other prominent atheist in the Tabernacle.  The building is packed, and everyone is on the edge of their seats to see how the exchange plays out.  Silence fills the room as Dawkins leads off with the most cunning debate tactic known to man or the Devil:

 

Dawkins: "Elder Holland, I'll pay you $1,000 to deny the existence of God"

 

Elder Holland: "No."

 

Dawkins: "Dang it.  That's the best I've got."

 

Only someone who had never actually talked to an atheist (let alone one that was skilled in any form of debate) could write something like that.

Edited September 16, 2013 by cinepro

[volgadon]

Unless the Nephites had gone off the gold and silver standard (and Alma 11 seems pretty clear that they hadn't), standardized weights of gold or silver are coins.

 

 

You mean that some coins are "standardized weights of gold or silver."

[mfbukowski]

Most LDS scholars see the senine and others as weights rather than a denomination of money. There would have been no numismatic value of any kind.

 

It may well be that there was a shortage of gold and silver in the area, which would make any amount of great value to the people in the area.  The same held true in the 19th century America.  There was a shortage of gold coinage in some areas of the country, and so some presidential candidates actually ran on a platform of adding silver as legal tender on the same level as gold.

This is the key

 

No he was not a coin collector.  No coins have ever been recovered in the Americas.  In fact the anti's love to make a big deal about the BOM shpposedly metioning coins and yet none have been found.

 

That's because those were units of weight/volume rather than coins

[CV75]

Only someone who had never actually talked to an atheist (let alone one that was skilled in any form of debate) could write something like that.

LOL--but Zeezrom wasn't really an atheist (v. 24). And v. 22 seems more like Zeezrom's wager to Almulek, and not a bribe. It was the pre-debate strategy to begin to undermine Amulek's credibility by engaging him in a bet, but Amulek wouldn't have it (v. 23, the temptation being to yield to pride through betting and winning a debate). I think Zeerom's intended line of questioning got disrupted with Amulek's responses, but this was a function of the Spirit overcoming the devices of the devil (whch were never fully revealed since there was no opportunity to show them all off), not superior debating skills. Plus, Zeezrom's whole purpose for the debate was not to win it (he would have retained the prize money anyaway) but to make money by creating disturbances at Amulek's expense--if the Gospel messengers were discredited, people would continue to act in such a way as to continue to give Zeezrom employ (v. 20). A mere debate would have been too honest a way to go!