Weights And Measures

VIEW:47 DATA:01-04-2020

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—Since the most important of all ancient Oriental systems of weights and measures, the Babylonian, seems to have been based on a unit of length (the measures of capacity and weight being scientifically derived there from), it is reasonable to deal with the measures of length before proceeding to measures of capacity and weight. At the same time it seems probable that the measures of length in use in Palestine were based on a more primitive, and (so far as we know) unscientific system, which is to be connected with Egypt. The Babylonian system associated with Gudea (c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 3000), on statues of whom a scale, indicating a cubit of 30 digits or 19⅝ inches, has been found engraved, was not adopted by the Hebrews.
I. Measures of Length
The Hebrew unit was a cubit 1/6 of a reed, Eze_40:5), containing 2 spans or 6 palms or 24 finger’s breadths. The early system did not recognize the foot or the fathom. Measurements were taken both by the 6-cubit rod or reed and the line or ‘fillet’ (Eze_40:3, Jer_31:39; Jer_52:21, 1Ki_7:15).
The ancient Hebrew literary authorities for the early Hebrew cubit are as follows. The ‘cubit of a man’ (Deu_3:11) was the unit by which the ‘bedstead’ of Og, king of Bashan, was measured (cf. Rev_21:17). This implies that at the time to which the passage belongs (apparently not long before the time of Ezekiel) the Hebrews were familiar with more than one cubit, of which that in question was the ordinary working cubit. Solomon’s Temple was laid out on the basis of a cubit ‘after the first (or ancient) measure’ (2Ch_3:3). Now Ezekiel (Eze_40:5; Eze_43:13) prophesies the building of a Temple on a unit which he describes as a cubit and a band’s breadth, i.e. 7/5 of the ordinary cubit. As in his vision he is practically reproducing Solomon’s Temple, we may infer that Solomon’s cubit, i.e. the ancient cubit, was also 7/5 of the ordinary cubit of Ezekiel’s time. We thus have an ordinary cubit of 6, and what we may call (by analogy with the Egyptian system) the royal cubit of 7 hand’s breadths. For this double system is curiously parallel to the Egyptian, in which there was a common cubit of 0.450 m. or 17.72 in., which was 6/7 of the royal cubit of 0.525 m. or 20.67 in. (these data are derived from actual measuring rods). A similar distinction between a common and a royal norm existed in the Babylonian weight-system. Its object there was probably to give the government an advantage in the case of taxation; probably also in the case of measures of length the excess of the royal over the common measure had a similar object.
We have at present no means of ascertaining the exact dimensions of the Hebrew ordinary and royal cubits. The balance of evidence is certainly in favour of a fairly close approximation to the Egyptian system. The estimates vary from 16 to 25.2 inches. They are based on: (1) the Siloam inscription, which says: ‘The waters flowed from the outlet to the Pool 1200 cubits,’ or, according to another reading, ‘1000 cubits.’ The length of the canal is estimated at 537.6 m., which yields a cubit of 0.525 to 0.527 m. (20.67 to 20.75 in.) or 0.538 m. (21.18 in.) according to the reading adopted. Further uncertainty is occasioned by the possibility of the number 1200 or 1000 being only a round number. The evidence of the Siloam inscription is thus of a most unsatisfactory kind. (2) The measurements of tombs. Some of these appear to be constructed on the basis of the Egyptian cubit; others seem to yield cubits of 0.575 m. (about 22.6 in.) or 0.641 m. (about 25.2 in.). The last two cubits seem to be improbable. The measurements of another tomb (known as the Tomb of Joshua) seem to confirm the deduction of the cubit of about 0.525 m. (3) The measurement of grains of barley. This has been objected to for more than one reason. But the Rabbinical tradition allowed 144 barley-corns of medium size, laid side by side, to the cubit; and it is remarkable that a recent careful attempt made on these lioes resulted in a cubit of 17.77 in. (0.451 m.), which is the Egyptian common cubit. (4) Recently it has been pointed out that Josephus, when using Jewish measures of capacity, etc., which differ from the Greek or Roman, is usually careful to give an equation explaining the measures to his Greek or Roman readers, while in the case of the cubit he does not do so, but seems to regard the Hebrew and the Roman-Attic as practically the same. The Roman-Attic cubit (11/2 ft.) is fixed at 0.444 m. or 17.57 in., so that we have here a close approximation to the Egyptian common cubit. Probably in Josephus’ time the Hebrew common cubit was, as ascertained by the methods mentioned above, 0.450 m.; and the difference between this and the Attic-Roman was regarded by him as negligible for ordinary purposes. (5) The Mishna. No data of any value for the exact determination of the cubit are to be obtained from this source. Four cubits is given as the length of a loculus in a rock-cut tomb; it has been pointed out that, allowing some 2 inches for the bier, and taking 5 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. 8 in. as the average height of the Jewish body, this gives 4 cubits = 5 ft. 10 in., or 171/2 in. to the cubit. On the cubit in Herod’s Temple, see A. R. S. Kennedy in art. Temple (p. 902b), and in artt. in ExpT [Note: Expository Times.] xx. [1908], p. 24 ff.
The general inference from the above five sources of information is that the Jews had two cubits, a shorter and a longer, corresponding closely to the Egyptian common and royal cubit. The equivalents are expressed in the following table:—

Royal System.
Common System.

Metres.
Inches.
Metres.
Inches.
Finger’s breadth
0.022
0.86
0.019
0.74
Palm = 4 fingers
0.088
3.44
0.075
2.95
Span = 3 palms
0.262
10.33
0.225
8.86
Cubit = 2 spans
0.525
20.67
0.450
17.72
Reed = 6 cubits
3.150
124.02
2.700
106.32
Parts and multiples of the unit.—The ordinary parts of the cubit have already been mentioned. They occur as follows: the finger’s breadth or digit (Jer_52:21, the daktyl of Josephus); the palm or hand’s breadth (1Ki_7:26, Eze_40:5; Eze_40:43; Eze_43:13 etc.); the span (Exo_28:16; Exo_39:9 etc.). A special measure is the gômed, which was the length of the sword of Ehud (Jdg_3:16), and is not mentioned elsewhere. It was explained by the commentators as a short cubit (hence EV [Note: English Version.] ‘cubit’), and it has been suggested that it was the cubit of 5 palms, which is mentioned by Rabbi Judah. The Greeks also had a short cubit, known as the pygôn, of 5 palms, the distance from the elbow to the first joint of the fingers. The reed (= 6 cubits) is the only definite OT multiple of the cubit (Eze_40:5). This is the akaina of the Greek writers. The pace of 2Sa_6:13 is probably not meant to be a definite measure. A ‘little way’ (Gen_35:16; Gen_48:7, 2Ki_5:19) is also indefinite. Syr. and Arab [Note: Arabic.] , translators compared it with the parasang, but it cannot merely for that reason be regarded as fixed. A day’s journey (Num_11:31, 1Ki_19:4, Jon_3:4, Luk_2:44) and its multiples (Gen_30:36, Num_10:33) are of course also variable.
The Sabbath day’s journey (Act_1:12) was usually computed at 2000 cubits. This was the distance by which the ark preceded the host of the Israelites, and it was consequently presumed that this distance might be covered on the Sabbath, since the host must be allowed to attend worship at the ark. The distance was doubled by a legal fiction: on the eve of the Sabbath, food was placed at a spot 2000 cubits on, and this new place thus became the traveler’s place within the meaning of the prescription of Exo_16:29; there were also other means of increasing the distance. The Mt. of Olives was distant a Sabbath day’s journey from Jerusalem, and the same distance is given by Josephus as 5 stadia, thus confirming the 2000 cubits computation. But in the Talmud the Sabbath day’s journey is equated to the mil of 3000 cubits or 71/2 furlongs; and the measure ‘threescore furlongs’ of Luk_24:13, being an exact multiple of this distance, seems to indicate that this may have been one form (the earlier?) of the Sabbath day’s journey.
In later times, a Byzantine writer of uncertain date, Julian of Ascalon, furnishes information as to the measures in use in Palestine (Provincial measures, derived from the work of the architect Julian of Ascalon, from the laws or customs prevailing in Palestine,’ is the title of the table). From this we obtain (omitting doubtful points) the following table:—
1. The finger’s breadth.
2. The palm = 4 finger’s breadths.
3. The cubit = 11/2 feet = 6 palms.
4. The pace = 2 cubits = 3 feet = 12 palms.
5. The fathom = 2 paces = 4 cubits = 6 feet.
6. The reed = 11/2 fathoms = 6 cubits = 9 feet = 36 palms.
7. The plethron = 10 reeds = 15 fathoms = 30 paces = 60 cubits = 90 feet.
8. The stadium or furlong = 6 plethora = 60 reeds = 100 fathoms = 200 paces = 400 cubits = 600 feet.
9. (a) The million or mile, ‘according to Eratosthenes and Strabo’ = 8 1/3 stadia = 8331/3 fathoms.
(b) The million ‘according to the present use’ = 71/2 stadia = 750 fathoms = 1500 paces = 3000 cubits.
10. The present million of 71/2 stadia = 750 ‘geometric’ fathoms = 8331/3 ‘simple’ fathoms; for 9 geometric fathoms = 10 simple fathoms.
We may justifiably assume that the 3000 cubits of 9 (b) are the royal cubits of 0. 525 m. The geometric and simple measures according to Julian thus work out as follows:—

Geometric.
Simple.

Metres.
Inches.
Metres.
Inches.
Finger’s breadth
0.022
0.86
0.020
0.79
Palm
0.088
3.44
0.080
3.11
Cubit
0.525
20.67
0.473
18.62
Fathom
2.100
82.68
1.890
74.49
Measures of area.—For smaller measures of area there seem to have been no special names, the dimensions of the sides of a square being usually stated. For land measures, two methods of computation were in use. (1) The first, as in most countries, was to state area in terms of the amount that a yoke of oxen could plough in a day (cf. the Latin jugerum). Thus in Isa_5:10 (possibly also in the corrupt 1Sa_14:14) we have ‘10 yoke’ (tsemed) of vineyard. Although definite authority is lacking, we may perhaps equate the Hebrew yoke of land to the Egyptian unit of land measure, which was 100 royal cubits square (0.2756 hectares or 0.6810 acre). The Greeks called this measure the aroura. (2) The second measure was the amount of seed required to sow an area. Thus ‘the sowing of a homer of barley’ was computed at the price of 50 shekels of silver (Lev_27:16). The dimensions of the trench which Elijah dug about his altar (1Ki_18:32) have also recently been explained on the same principle; the trench (i.e. the area enclosed by it) is described as being ‘like a house of two seahs of seed’ (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] and RV [Note: Revised Version.] wrongly ‘as great as would contain two measures of seed’). This measure ‘house of two seahs’ is the standard of measurement in the Mishna, and is defined as the area of the court of the Tabernacle, or 100×50 cubits (c. 1648 sq. yds. or 0.1379 hectares). Other measures of capacity were used in the same way, and the system was Babylonian in origin; there are also traces of the same system in the West, under the Roman Empire.
II. Measures of Capacity
The terms ‘handful’ (Lev_2:2) and the like do not represent any part of a system of measures in Hebrew, any more than in English. The Hebrew ‘measure’ par excellence was the seah, Gr. saton. From the Greek version of Isa_5:10 and other sources we know that the ephah contained 3 such measures. Epiphanius describes the seâh or Hebrew modius as a modius of extra size, and as equal to 11/4 Roman modius = 20 sextarii. Josephus, however, equates it with 11/2 Roman modius = 24 sextarii. An anonymous Greek fragment agrees with this, and so also does Jerome in his commentary on Mat_13:33. Epiphanius elsewhere, and other writers, equate it with 22 sextarii (the Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] ephah is computed at 66 sextarii). The seâh was used for both liquid and dry measure.
The ephah (the word is suspected of Egyp. origin) of 3 seâhs was used for dry measure only; the equivalent liquid measure was the bath (Gr. bados, batos, keramion, choinix). They are equated in Eze_45:11, each containing 1/10 of a homer. The ephah corresponds to the Gr. artabe (although in Isa_5:10 six artabai go to a homer) or metrçtes. Josephus equates it to 72 sextarii. The bath was divided into tenths (Eze_45:14), the name of which is unknown; the ephah likewise into tenths, which were called ‘ômer or ‘issaron (distinguish from homer = 10 ephahs). Again the ephah and bath were both divided into sixths (Eze_45:13); the 1/6 bath was the hin, but the name of the 1/6 ephah is unknown.
The homer (Eze_45:11, Hos_3:2) or cor (Eze_45:14, Luk_16:7; Gr. koros) contained 10 ephahs or baths, or 30 seâhs. (The term ‘côr’ is used more especially for liquids.) It corresponded to 10 Attic metrçtai (so Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XV. ix. 2, though he says medimni by a slip). The word côr may be connected with the Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] gur or guru.
The reading lethek which occurs in Hos_3:2, and by Vulgate and EV [Note: English Version.] is rendered by ‘half a homer,’ is doubtful. Epiphanius says the lethek is a large ‘ômer (gomer) of 15 modii.
The hin (Gr. hein) was a liquid measure = 1/2 seâh. In Lev_19:36 the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] renders it chous. But Josephus and Jerome and the Talmud equate it to 2 Attic choes = 12 sextarii. The hin was divided into halves, thirds (= cab), quarters, sixths, and twelfths (= log). In later times there were a ‘sacred hin’ = ¾ of the ordinary hin, and a large hin = 2 sacred hins = 3/2 ordinary hin. The Egyp. hen, of much smaller capacity (0. 455 1.) is to be distinguished.
The ‘omer (Gr gomor) is confined to dry measure. It is 1/10 ephah and is therefore called assaron or ‘issaron (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘tenth deal’). Epiphanius equates it accordingly to 71/5 sextarii, Eusebius less accurately to 7 sextarii. Eusebius also calls it the ‘little gomor’; but there was another ‘little gomor’ of 12 modii, so called in distinction from the ‘large gomor’ of 15 modii (the lethek of Epiphanius). Josephus wrongly equates the gomor to 7 Attic kotylai.
The cab (2Ki_6:25, Gr. kabos) was both a liquid and a dry measure. From Josephus and the Talmud it appears that it was equal to 4 sextarii, or 1/2 hin. In other places it is equated to 6 sextarii, 5 sextarii (‘great cab’ = 1 1/4 cab), and 1/4 modius (Epiphanius, who, according to the meaning he attaches to modius here, may mean 4, 5, 51/2, or 6 sextarii l).
The log (Lev_14:10; Lev_14:12) is a measure of oil; the Talmud equates it to 1/12 hin or 1/24 seâh, i.e. 1/4 cab. Josephus renders the 1/4 cab of 2Ki_6:25 by the Greek xestes or Roman sextarius, and there is other evidence to the same effect.
A measure of doubtful capacity is the nebet of wine (Gr. version of Hos_3:2, instead of lethek of barley). It was 150 sextarii, by which may be meant ordinary sextarii or the larger Syrian sextarii which would make it = 3 baths. The word means ‘wine-skin.’
We thus obtain the following table (showing a mixed decimal and sexagesimal system) of dry and liquid measures. Where the name of the liquid differs from that of the dry measure, the former is added in italics. Where there is no corresponding liquid measure, the dry measure is asterisked.
The older portion of this system seems to have been the sexagesimal, the ‘ômer and 1/10 bath and the lethek (if it ever occurred) being intrusions.
Homer or cor
1












* Lethek
2
1









Ephah, bath
10
5
1










Seâh
30
15
3
1









1/6 ephah, hin
60
30
6
2
1








‘Omer or ‘issaron, 1/10 bath.
100
50
10
31/3
12/3
1







1/2 hin
120
60
12
4
2
11/5
1






Cab
180
90
18
6
3
14/5
11/2
1





1/4 hin
240
120
24
8
4
23/8
2
11/3
1




1/2 cab, 1/8 hin
360
180
36
12
6
33/5
3
2
11/2
1



1/4 cab, log
720
360
72
24
12
71/5
6
4
3
2
1


* 1/8 cab
1440
720
144
48
24
142/5
12
8
6
4
2
1

When we come to investigate the actual contents of the various measures, we are, in the first instance, thrown back on the (apparently only approximate) equations with the Roman sextarius (Gr. xestes) and its multiples already mentioned. The tog would then be the equivalent of the sextarius, the bath of the metrçtes, the cab (of 6 logs) of the Ptolemaic chous. If log and sextarius were exact equivalents, the ephah of 72 logs would = 39.39 litres, = nearly 8 2/3 gallons. This is on the usual assumption that the sextarius was 0.545 1. or 0–96 Imperial pints. But the exact capacity of the sextarius is disputed, and a capacity as high as 0.562 l. or 0.99 imperial pint is given for the sextarius by an actually extant measure. This would give as the capacity of the ephah-bath 40.46 l. or 71.28 pints. But it is highly improbable that the equation of log to sextarius was more than approximate. It is more easy to confound closely resembling measures of capacity than of length, area, or weight.
Name of Measure.
(1) Lôg = 0.505 1.
(2) Ephah = 65 Pints.
(3) Lôg = 0.99 Pint.
Rough Approximation on Basis of (3).

Litres.
Gallons.
Litres.
Gallons.
Litres.
Gallons.

Homer (cor)
363.7
80.053
369.2
81.25
405
89.28
11 bushels
Lethek
181.85
40.026
184.6
40.62
202
44.64
51/2 bushels
Ephah-bath
36.37
8.005
36.92
8.125
40.5
8.928
9 gallons
Seâh
12.120
2.668
12.3
2.708
13.5
2.976
11/2 pecks
Great hin
9.090
2.001
9.18
2.234
10.08
2.232
21/4 gallons
Hin
6.060
1.334
6.12
1.356
6.72
1.488
11/2 gallons
Sacred hin
4.545
1.000
4.59
1.117
5.04
1.116
9 pints
‘Omer
3.657
0.800
3.67
0.813
4.05
8.893
71/5 pints
1/2 hin
3.030
0.667
3.06
0.678
3.36
0.744
6 pints
Cab
2.020
0.445
2.05
0.451
2.25
0.496
4 pints
1/2hin
1.515
0.333
1.53
0.339
1.68
0.372
3 pints
1/2 cab
1.010
0.222
1.02
0.226
1.12
0.248
2 pints
Log
0.505
0.111
0.51
0.113
0.56
0.124
1 pint
1/2 cab
0.252
0.055
0.26
0.056
0.28
0.062
1/2 pint
Other methods of ascertaining the capacity of the ephah are the following. We may assume that it was the same as the Babylonian unit of 0.505 l. (0.89 pint). This would give an ephah of 36.37 l., or nearly 8 gallons or 66.5 sextarii of the usually assumed weight, and more or less squares with Epiphanius’ equation of the seâh or 1/3 ephah with 22 sextarii. Or we may connect it with the Egyptian system, thus: both the ephah-hath and the Egyptian-Ptolemaic artabe are equated to the Attic metrçtes of 72 sextarii. Now, in the case of the artabe this is only an approximation, for it is known from native Egyptian sources (which give the capacity in terms of a volume of water of a certain weight) that the artabe was about 36.45 l., or a little more than 64 pints. Other calculations, as from a passage of Josephus, where the cor is equated to 41 Attic (Græco-Roman) modii (i.e. 656 sextarii), give the same result. In this passage modii is an almost certain emendation of medimni, the confusion between the two being natural in a Greek MS. There are plenty of other vague approximations, ranging from 60 to 72 sextarii. Though the passage of Josephus is not quite certain in its text, we may accept it as having the appearance of precise determination, especially since it gives a result not materially differing from other sources of information.
In the above table, the values of the measures are given according to three estimates, viz. (1) log = Babylonian unit of 0.505 l.; (2) ephah = 65 pints; (3) log = sextarius of 0.99 pint.
Foreign measures of capacity mentioned in NT.—Setting aside words which strictly denote a measure of capacity, but are used loosely to mean simply a vessel (e.g. ‘cup’ in Mar_7:4), the following, among others, have been noted. Bushel (Mat_5:15) is the tr. [Note: translate or translation.] of modius, which represents seâh. Firkin is used (Joh_2:6) to represent the Greek metrçtes, the rough equivalent of the bath. Measure in Rev_6:6 represents the Gr. choinix of about 2 pints.
III. Measures of Weight
The system of weights used in Palestine was derived from Babylonia. Egypt does not seem to have exerted any influence in this respect. The chief denominations in the system were the talent (Gr. talanton, Heb. kikkar meaning, apparently, a round cake-like object), the mina (Gr. mna, Heb. maneh; tr. [Note: translate or translation.] ‘pound’ in 1Ki_10:17 and elsewhere, though ‘pound’ in Joh_12:3; Joh_19:39 means the Roman pound of 327.45 grammes or 5053.3 grstroy), and the shekel (Gr. siklos or siglos, Heb. sheqel, from shâqat, ‘to weigh’). The shekel further was divided into 20 gerahs (gerah apparently = the Babylonian giru, a small weight of silver). [References to shekels or other denominations of precious metal in pre-exilic times must be to uncoined metal, not to coins, which are of later origin.] For ordinary purposes 60 shekels made a mina, and 60 minæ a talent; but for the precious metals a mina of 50 shekels was employed, although the talent contained 60 minæ, as in the other case. There were two systems, the heavy and the light, the former being double of the latter. The evidence of certain extant Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] weights proves that there was a very complex system, involving at least two norms, one of which, the royal, used for purposes of taxation, was higher than the other, the common. For our purposes, we may here confine ourselves to the common norm in the heavy and light systems. It may, however, be mentioned that the ‘king’s weight,’ according to which Absalom’s hair weighed 200 shekels (2Sa_14:26), is probably to be referred to this royal norm. Combining the evidence of the extant Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] weights with the evidence of later coins of various countries of the ancient world, and with the knowledge, derived from a statement in Herodotus, that the ratio of gold to silver was as 131/3 to 1, we obtain the following results:—

Heavy.
Light.

Grains Troy.
Grammes.
Grains Troy.
Grammes.
Talent
757,380
49,077
378,690
24,539
Mina
12,623
818
6,311.5
409
Shekel
252.5
16.36
126.23
8.18
Value of the gold shekel in silver
3,366.6
218.1
1,684.3
109.1
i.e., ten pieces of silver of
336.6
21.81
168.4
10.91
Or fifteen pieces of silver of
224.4
14.54
112.2
7.27
N. B.—One heavy talent = 98.154 lbs. avoirdupois; one heavy mina = 1.636 lb. avoirdupois.
Now the pieces of 1/10 and 1/15 of the value of the gold shekel in silver were the units on which were based systems known as the Babylonian or Persic and the Phœnician respectively; the reason for the names being that these two standards seem to have been associated by the Greeks, the first with Persia, whose coins were struck on this standard, the second with the great Phœnician trading cities, Sidon, Tyre, etc. For convenience’ sake the names ‘Babylonian’ and ‘Phœnician’ may be retained, although it must be remembered that they are conventional. The above table gives the equivalents in weights on the two systems, both for the precious metals (in which the mina weighed 50 shekels) and for trade (in which it weighed 60 shekels).

Babylonian.
Phœnician.

Light.
Heavy.
Light.

Grains.
Grammes.
Grains.
Grammes.
Grains.
Grammes.
Grains.
Grammes.
Shekel
336.6
21.81
168.4
10.91
224.4
14.54
112.2
7.27
Mina of 50 shekels
16,830
1090.5
8,420
545.25
11,220
727
5,610
363.5
Mina of 60 shekels
20,196
1308.68
10,098
654.34
13,464
872.45
6,732
436.23
Talent of 3000 shekels
1,009,800
65,430
504,900
32,715
673,200
43,620
336,600
21,810
Talent of 3600 shekels
1,211,760
78,520.77
605,880
39,260.38
807,840
52,347.18
403,920
26,173.59
The evidence of actual weights found in Palestine is as follows: 1. 2. 3. Three stone weights from Tell Zakarîyâ, inscribed apparently netseph, and weighing—
10.21
grammes =
157.564
grains troy.
9.5
grammes =
146.687
grains troy.
9.0
grammes =
138.891
grains troy.
4. A weight with the same inscription, from near Jerusalem, weighing 8.61 grammes = 134.891 grains troy.
5. A weight from Samaria inscribed apparently 1/4 netseph and 1/2 shekel, weighing 2.54 grammes = 39.2 grains troy; yielding a netseph of 9.16 grammes = 156.8 grains troy. This has been dated in the 8th cent. b.c.; and all the weights are apparently of pre-exilic date. There are other weights from Gezer, which have, without due cause, been connected with the netseph standard; and a second set of weights from Gezer, Jerusalem, Zakarîyâ, and Tell el-Judeideh may be ignored, as they seem to bear Cypriote inscriptions, and represent a standard weight of 93 grammes maximum. Some addition must be allowed to Nos. 2 and 3 of the above-mentioned netseph weights, for fracture, and probably to No. 4, which is pierced. The highest of these weights is some 10 grains or 0.7 grammes less than the light Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] shekel. It probably, therefore, represents an independent standard, or at least a deliberate modification, not an accidental degradation, of the Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] standard. Weights from Naucratis point to a standard of about 80 grains, the double of which would be 160 grains, which is near enough to the actual weight of our specimens (maximum 1571/2 grains). We need not here concern ourselves with the origin of this standard, or with the meaning of netseph; there can be no doubt of the existence of such a standard, and there is much probability that it is connected with the standard which was in use at Naucratis. Three weights from Lachish (Tell el-Hesy) also indicate the existence of the same 80-grain standard in Palestine. The standard in use at the city of Aradus (Arvad) for the coinage is generally identified with the Babylonian; but as the shekel there only exceptionally exceeds 165 grains, it, too, may have been an approximation to the standard we are considering. But in Hebrew territory there can be no doubt that this early standard was displaced after the Exile by a form of the Phœnician shekel of 14.54 grammes, or 224.4 grains. It has, indeed, been thought that this shekel can be derived by a certain process from the shekel of 160 grains; but on the whole the derivation from the gold shekel of 126.23 grains suggested above is preferable.
The evidence as to the actual use of this weight in Palestine is as follows: From Exo_38:25 f. it appears that the Hebrew talent contained 3000 shekels. Now, Josephus equates the mina used for gold to 21/2 Roman pounds, which is 12,633.3 grains troy, or 818.625 grammes; this is only 10 grains heavier than the heavy mina given above. From Josephus also we know that the kikkar or talent contained 100 minæ. The talent for precious metals, as we have seen, contained 3000 shekels; therefore the shekel should be 100×12633/3000 grains = 421 grains. We thus have a heavy shekel of 421 grains, and a light one of 210.5 grains. There is other evidence equating the Hebrew shekel to weights varying from 210.48 to 210.55 grains. This is generally supposed to be the Phœnician shekel of 224.4 grains in a slightly reduced form. Exactly the same kind of reduction took place at Sidon in the course of the 4th cent. b.c., where, probably owing to a fall in the price of gold, the weight of the standard silver shekel fell from about 28.60 grammes (441.36 grains) to 26.30 grammes (405.9 grains). A change in the ratio between gold and silver from 131/3:1 to 121/2:1 would practically, in a country with a coinage, necessitate a change in the weight of the shekel such as seems to have taken place here; and although the Jews had no coinage of their own before the time of the Maccabees, they would naturally be influenced by the weights in use in Phœnicia. The full weight shekel of the old standard probably remained in use as the ‘shekel of the sanctuary,’ for that weight was 20 gerahs (Eze_45:12, Exo_30:13), which is translated in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] by ‘20 obols,’ meaning, presumably, 20 Attic obols of the time; and this works out at 224.2 grains. This shekel was used not only for the silver paid for the ‘ransom of souls,’ but also for gold, copper, and spices (Exo_30:23-24; Exo_38:24 ff.); in fact, the Priests’ Code regarded it as the proper system for all estimations (Lev_27:25). The beka = 1/2 shekel is mentioned in Gen_24:22, Exo_38:26.
Foreign weights in the NT.—The ‘pound’ of spikenard (Joh_12:3) or of myrrh and aloes (19:39) is best explained as the Roman libra (Gr. litra) of 327.45 grammes. The ‘pound’ in Luk_19:13 f. is the money-mina or 1/60 of the Roman-Attic talent (see art. Money, 7 (j)). The ‘talent’ mentioned in Rev_16:21 also probably belongs to the same system.
For further information see esp. A. R. S. Kennedy, art. ‘Weights and Measures’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , with bibliography there given. Recent speculations on the Heb. systems, and publications of weights will be found in PEFSt [Note: Quarterly Statement of the same.] , 1902, p. 80 (three forms of cubit, 18 in., 14.4 in., and 10.8 in.); 1902, p. 175 (Conder on general system of Hebrew weights and measures); 1904, p. 209 (weights from Gezer, etc.); 1906, pp. 182 f., 259 f. (Warren on the ancient system of weights in general); Comptes Rendus de l’Acad. des Inscr. 1906, p. 237 f. (Clermont-Ganneau on the capacity of the hin).
G. F. Hill.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

WEIGHTS: mishkol from "shekel" (the weight in commonest use); eben, a "stone", anciently used as a weight; peles, "scales". Of all Jewish weights the shekel was the most accurate, as a half shekel was ordered by God to be paid by every Israelite as a ransom. From the period of the Exodus there were two shekels, one for ordinary business (Exo_38:29; Jos_7:21; 2Ki_7:1; Amo_8:5), the other, which was larger, for religious uses (Exo_30:13; Lev_5:15; Num_3:47). The silver in the half-shekel was 1 shilling, 3 1/2 pence; it contained 20 gerahs, literally, beans, a name of a weight, as our grain from grain.
The Attic tetradrachma, or Greek stater, was equivalent to the shekel. The didrachma of the Septuagint at Alexandria was equivalent to the Attic tetradrachma. The shekel was about 220 grains weight. In 2Sa_14:26 "shekel after the king's weight" refers to the perfect standard kept by David. Michaelis makes five to three the proportion of the holy shekel to the commercial shekel; for in Eze_45:12 the maneh contains 60 of the holy shekels; in 1Ki_10:17; 2Ch_9:16, each maneh contained 100 commercial shekels, i.e. 100 to (60 or five to three. After the captivity the holy shekel alone was used. The half shekel (Exo_38:26; Mat_17:24) was the beka (meaning "division"): the "quarter shekel", reba; the "20th of the shekel", gerah.
Hussey calculates the shekel at half ounce avoirdupois, and the maneh half pound, 14 oz.; 60 holy shekels were in the maneh, 3,000 in the silver talent, so 50 maneh in the talent: 660,000 grains, or 94 lbs. 5 oz. The gold talent is made by Smith's Bible Dictionary 100 manehs, double the silver talent (50 manehs); by the Imperial Bible Dictionary identical with it. (See SHEKEL; MONEY; TALENT.) A gold maneh contained 100 shekels of gold. The Hebrew talents of silver and copper were exchangeable in the proportion of about one to 80; 50 shekels of silver are thought equal to a talent of copper. "Talent" means a circle or aggregate sum. One talent of gold corresponded to 24 talents of silver.
MEASURES: Those of length are derived from the human body. The Hebrew used the forearm as the "cubit," but not the "foot." The Egyptian terms hin, 'ephah, and 'ammah (cubit) favor the view that the Hebrew derived their measures from Egypt. The similarity of the Hebrew to the Athenian scales for liquids makes it likely that both came from the one origin, namely, Egypt. Piazzi Smyth observes the sacred cubit of the Jews, 25 inches (to which Sir Isaac Newton's calculation closely approximates), is represented in the great pyramid, 2500 B.C.; in contrast to the ordinary standard cubits, from 18 to 21 inches, the Egyptian one which Israel had to use in Egypt. The 25-inch cubit measure is better than any other in its superior earth-axis commensurability. The inch is the real unit of British linear measure: 25 such inches (increased on the present parliamentary inch by one thousandth) was Israel's sacred cubit; 1.00099 of an English inch makes one pyramid inch; the earlier English inch was still closer to the pyramid inch.
Smyth remarks that no pagan device of idolatry, not even the sun and moon, is pourtrayed in the great pyramid, though there are such hieroglyphics in two older pyramids. He says the British grain measure "quarter" is just one fourth of the coffer in the king's chamber, which is the same capacity as the Saxon chaldron or four quarters. The small passage of the pyramid represents a unit day; the grand gallery, seven unit days or a week. The grand gallery is seven times as high as one of the small and similarly inclined passages equalling 350 inches, i.e. seven times 50 inches. The names Shofo and Noushofo (Cheops and Chephren of Herodotus) are marked in the chambers of construction by the stonemasons at the quarry. The Egyptian dislike to those two kings was not because of forced labour, for other pyramids were built so by native princes, but because they overthrew the idolatrous temples.
The year is marked by the entrance step into the great gallery, 90.5 inches, going 366 times into the circumference of the pyramid. The seven overlappings of the courses of polished stones on the eastern and the western sides of the gallery represent two weeks of months of 26 days each so there are 26 holes in the western ramp; on the other ramp 28, in the antechamber two day holes over and above the 26. Four grooves represent four years, three of them hollow and one full, i.e. three years in which only one day is to be added to the 14 x 26 for the year; the fourth full from W. to E., i.e. two days to be added on leap year, 366 days. The full groove not equal in breadth to the hollow one implies that the true length of the year is not quite 365 1/4 days. Job (Job_38:6) speaks of the earth's "sockets" with imagery from the pyramid, which was built by careful measurement on a prepared platform of rock.
French savants A.D. 1800 described sockets in the leveled rock fitted to receive the four corner stones. The fifth corner stone was the topstone completing the whole; the morning stars singing together at the topstone being put to creation answers to the shoutings, Grace unto it, at the topstone being put to redemption (Job_38:7; Zec_4:7); Eph_2:19, "the chief corner stone in which all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy tern. pie." The topstone was "disallowed by the builders" as "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" to them; for the pyramids previously constructed were terrace topped, not topped with the finished pointed cornerstone.
Pyramid is derived from peram "lofty" (Ewald), from puros "wheat" (P. Smyth). The mean density of the earth (5,672) is introduced into the capacity and weight measures of the pyramid (Isa_40:12). The Egyptians disliked the number five, the characteristic of the great pyramid, which has five sides, five angles, five corner stones, and the five sided coffer. Israel's predilection for it appears in their marching five in a rank (Hebrew for "harnessed"), Exo_13:18; according to Manetho, 250,000, i.e. 5 x 50,000; so the shepherd kings at Avaris are described as 250,000; 50 inches is the grand standard of length in the pyramid, five is the number of books in the Pentateuch, 50 is the number of the Jubilee year, 25 inches (5 x 5) the cubit, an integral fraction of the earth's axis of rotation, 50 the number of Pentecost. (See NUMBER.)
The cow sacrifice of Israel was an "abomination to the Egyptians"; and the divinely taught builders of the great pyramid were probably of the chosen race, in the line of, though preceding, Abraham and closer to Noah, introducers into Egypt of the pure worship of Jehovah (such as Melchizedek held) after its apostasy to idols, maintaining the animal sacrifices originally ordained by God (Gen_3:21; Gen_4:4; Gen_4:7; Heb_11:4), but rejected in Egypt; forerunners of the hyksos or shepherd kings who from the Canaan quarter made themselves masters of Egypt. The enormous mass of unoccupied masonry would have been useless as a tomb, but necessary if the pyramid was designed to preserve an equal temperature for unexceptionable scientific observations; 100 ft. deep inside the pyramid would prevent a variation of heat beyond 01 degree of Fahrenheit, but the king's chamber is 180 ft. deep to compensate for the altering of air currents through the passages.
The Hebrew finger, about seven tenths of an inch, was the smaller measure. The palm or handbreadth was four fingers, three or four inches; illustrates the shortness of time (Psa_39:5). The span, the space between the extended extremities of the thumb and little finger, three palms, about seven and a half inches. The old Mosaic or sacred cubit (the length from the elbow to the end of the middle finger, 25 inches) was a handbreadth longer than the civil cubit of the time of the captivity (from the elbow to the wrist, 21 inches): Eze_40:5; Eze_43:13; 2Ch_3:3, "cubits after the first (according to the earlier) measure." The Mosaic cubit (Thenius in Keil on 1Ki_6:2) was two spans, 20 1/2 Dresden inches, 214,512 Parisian lines long.
Og's bedstead, nine cubits long (Deu_3:11) "after the cubit of a man," i.e. according to the ordinary cubit (compare Rev_21:17) as contrasted with any smaller cubit, was of course much longer than the giant himself. In Eze_41:8 (atsilah) Henderson translated for "great" cubits, literally, "to the extremity" of the hand; Fairbairn, "to the joining" between one chamber and another below; Buxtorf, "to the wing" of the house. The measuring reed of Eze_40:5 was six cubits long. Furlong (stadion), one eighth of a Roman mile, or 606 3/4 ft. (Luk_24:13), Luk_24:53 1/2 ft. less than our furlong.
The mile was eight furlongs or 1618 English yards, i.e. 142 yards less than the English statute mile; the milestones still remain in some places. Mat_5:41, "compel," angareusei, means literally, impress you as a post courier, originally a Persian custom, but adopted by the Romans. Sabbath day's journey (See SABBATH.) A little way (Gen_35:16, kibrah) is a definite length: Onkelos, an acre; Syriac, a parasang (30 furlongs). The Jews take it to be a mile, which tradition makes the interval between Rachel's tomb and Ephrath, or Bethlehem (Gen_48:7); Gesenius, a French league. A day's journey was about 20 to 22 miles (Num_11:31; 1Ki_19:4).
DRY MEASURES. A cab (2Ki_6:25), a sixth of a seah; four sextaries or two quarts. Omer, an Egyptian word, only in Exodus and Leviticus (Exo_16:16; Lev_23:10); the tenth of an ephah; Josephus makes it seven Attic cotylae or three and a half pints (Ant. 3:6, section 6), but its proportion to the bath (Eze_45:11; Josephus, Ant. 8:2, section 9) would make the omer seven and a half pints; issaron or a tenth was its later name; an omer of manna was each Israelite's daily allowance; one was kept in the holiest place as a memorial (Exo_16:33-34), but had disappeared before Solomon's reign (1Ki_8:9).
A seah (Gen_18:6), the third of an ephah, and containing six cabs (rabbins), three gallons (Josephus, Ant. 9:4, section 5); the Greek saton (Mat_13:33). 'ephah, from 'if to measure, ten omers, equal to the bath (Eze_45:11); Josephus (Ant. 8:2, section 9) makes it nine gallons; the rabbis make it only half. The half homer was called lethek (Hos_3:2). The homer or cor was originally an donkey load; Gesenius, an heap. A measure for liquids or dry goods; ten ephahs (Eze_45:14), i.e. 90 gallons, if Josephus' (Ant. 8:2, section 9) computation of the bath or ephah as nine gallons is right. The rabbis make it 45 gallons.
LIQUID MEASURES. The log, a cotyle or half pint; related to our lake, a hollow; twelfth of the hin, which was sixth of a bath or 12 pints. The bath was an ephah, the largest Hebrew liquid measure, nine gallons (Josephus), but four and a half (rabbis). The sextary contained nearly a pint, translated "pots" in Mar_7:4-8. The choenix (Rev_6:6) one quart, or else one pint and a half; in scarcity a penny or denarius only bought a choenix, but ordinarily a bushel of wheat. The modius, "bushel," two gallons, found in every household, therefore preceded by the Greek "the" (Mat_5:15). Metretes, "firkin" (Joh_2:6), nearly nine gallons; answering to the Hebrew bath. The koros or cor, "measure" (Luk_16:7) of grain; bath (Luk_16:6), "measure" of oil. Twelve logs to one hin; six bins to one bath. One cab and four-fifths to one omer. Three omers and one third, one seah. Three seahs to one ephah. Ten ephahs to one homer.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Weights And Measure.
A. Weights. ? The general principle of the present inquiry is to give the evidence of the monuments the preference on all doubtful points. All ancient Greek systems of weight were derived, either directly or indirectly, from an eastern source. The older systems of ancient Greece and Persia were the Aeginetan, the Attic, the Babylonian and the Euboic.
1. The Aeginetan talent is stated to have contained 60 minae, 6000 drachme.
2. The Attic talent is the standard weight introduced by Solon.
3. The Babylonian talent may be determined from existing weights found by Mr. Layard at Nineveh. Pollux makes it equal to 7000 Attic drachms.
4. The Euboic talent, though bearing a Greek name, is rightly held to have been originally an eastern system. The proportion of the Euboic talent to the Babylonian talent was probably as 60 to 72. Taking the Babylonian maneh at 7992 grs., we obtain 399,600 for the Euboic talent. The principal if not the only Persian gold coin is the daric, weighing about 129 grs.
The Hebrew talent or talents and divisions. A talent of silver is mentioned in Exodus, which contained 3000 shekels, distinguished as "the holy shekel," or "shekel of the sanctuary." The gold talent contained 100 manehs, 10,000 shekels. The silver talent contained 3000 shekels, 6000 bekas, 60,000 gerahs. The significations of the names of the Hebrew weights must be here stated.
The chief unit was the Shekel (that is, weight), called also the holy shekel or shekel of the sanctuary; subdivided into the beka (that is, half) or half-shekel, and the gerah (that is, a grain or beka).
The chief multiple, or higher unit, was the kikkar (that is, circle or globe, probably for an aggregate sum), translated in our version, after the Septuagint (LXX) Talent; (that is, part, portion or number), a word used in Babylonian and in the Greek hena or mina.
(1) The relations of these weights, as usually: employed for the standard of weighing silver, and their absolute values, determined from the extant silver coins, and confirmed from other sources, were as follows, in grains exactly and in avoirdupois weight approximately:
(2) For gold, a different shekel was used, probably of foreign introduction. Its value has been calculated at from 129 to 132 grains. The former value assimilates it to the Persian daric of the Babylonian standard. The talent of this system was just double that of the silver standard; if was divided into 100 manehs, and each maneh into 100 shekels, as follows:
(3) There appears to have been a third standard for copper, namely, a shekel four times as heavy as the gold shekel (or 528 grains), 1500 of which made up the copper talent of 792,000 grains. It seems to have been subdivided, in the coinage, into halves (of 264 grains), quarters (of 132 grains) and sixths (of 88 grains).
B. Measures. ?
I. Measures of Length. ? In the Hebrew, as in every other system, these measures are of two classes: length, in the ordinary sense, for objects whose size we wish to determine, and distance, or itinerary measures, and the two are connected by some definite relation, more or less simple, between their units.
The measures of the former class (length) have been universally derived, in the first instance, from the parts of the human body; but it is remarkable that, in the Hebrew system, the only part used for this purpose is the hand and fore-arm, to the exclusion of the foot, which was the chief unit of the western nations.
Hence, arises the difficulty of determining the ratio of the foot to the Cubit, (The Hebrew word for the cubit (ammah) appears to have been of Egyptian origin, as some of the measures of capacity (the hin and ephah) certainly were). Which appears as the chief Oriental unit from the very building of Noah's ark. Gen_6:15-16; Gen_7:20.
The Hebrew lesser measures were the finger's breadth, Jer_52:21 only; the palm or handbreadth, Exo_25:25; 1Ki_7:26; 2Ch_4:5, used metaphorically in Psa_39:5, the span, that is, the full stretch between the tips of the thumb and the little finger, Exo_28:16; 1Sa_17:4; Eze_43:13, and figuratively. Isa_40:12.
The data for determining the actual length of the Mosaic cubit involve peculiar difficulties, and absolute certainty seems unattainable. The following, however, seem the most probable conclusions:
First, that three cubits were used in the times of the Hebrew monarchy, namely :
(1) The cubit of a man, Deu_3:11 or the common cubit of Canaan (in contradistinction to the Mosaic cubit) of the Chaldean standard;
(2) The old Mosaic or legal cubit, a handbreadth larger than the first, and agreeing with the smaller Egyptian cubit;
(3) The new cubit, which was still larger, and agreed with the larger Egyptian cubit, of about 20.8 inches, used in the Nilometer.
Second, that the ordinary cubit of the Bible did not come up to the full length of the cubit of other countries. The reed (kaneh), for measuring buildings (like the Roman decempeda), was to 6 cubits. It occurs only in Ezekiel Eze_40:5-8; Eze_41:8; Eze_42:16-29 The values given in the following table are to be accepted with reservation, for want of greater certainty:
Of measures of distance, the smallest is the pace, and the largest is the day's journey.
(a) The pace, 2Sa_6:13, whether it be a single, like our pace, or double, like the Latin passus, is defined by nature within certain limits, its usual length being about 30 inches for the former and 5 feet for the latter. There is some reason to suppose that even before the Roman measurement of the roads of Palestine, the Jews had a mile of 1000 paces, alluded to in Mat_5:41. It is said to have been single or double, according to the length of the pace; and hence the peculiar force of our Lord's saying: "Whosoever shall compel thee [as a courier] to go a mile, go with him twain" ? put the most liberal construction on the demand.
(b) The day's journey was the most usual method of calculating distances in travelling, Gen_30:36; Gen_31:23; Exo_3:18; Exo_5:3; Num_10:33; Num_11:31; Num_33:8; Deu_1:2; 1Ki_19:4; 2Ki_3:9; Jon_3:3 1Ma_5:24; 1Ma_7:45; Tob_6:1, though but one instance of it occurs in the New Testament Luk_2:44.
The ordinary day's journey among the Jews was 30 miles; but when they travelled in companies, only ten miles. Neapolis formed the first stage out of Jerusalem according to the former and Beeroth according to the latter computation,
(c) The Sabbath Day's journey of 2000 cubits, Act_1:12, is peculiar to the New Testament, and arose from a rabbinical restriction. It was founded on a universal, application of the prohibition given by Moses for a special occasion: "Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." Exo_16:29.
An exception was allowed for the purpose of worshipping at the Tabernacle; and, as 2000 cubits was the prescribed space to be kept between the Ark and the people as well as the extent of the suburbs of the Levitical cities on every side, Num_35:5, this was taken for the length of a Sabbath Day's journey measured front the wall of the city in which the traveller lived. Computed from the value given above for the cubit, the Sabbath Day's journey would be just six tenths of a mile.
(d) After the captivity, the relations of the Jews to the Persians, Greeks and Romans caused the use, probably, of the parasang, and certainly of the stadium and the mile. Though the first is not mentioned in the Bible, if is well to exhibit the ratios of the three.
The universal Greek standard, the stadium of 600 Greek feet, which was the length of the race-course at Olympia, occurs first in the Maccabees, and is common in the New Testament. Our version renders it furlong; it being, in fact, the eighth part of the Roman mile, as the furlong is of ours. 2Ma_11:5; 2Ma_12:9; 2Ma_12:17; 2Ma_12:29; Luk_24:13; Joh_6:19; Joh_11:18; Rev_14:20; Rev_21:18.
One measure remains to be mentioned. The fathom, used in sounding by the Alexandrian mariners in a voyage, is the Greek orguia, that is, the full stretch of the two arms from tip to tip of the middle finger, which is about equal to the height, and in a man of full stature is six feet. For estimating area, and especially land, there is no evidence that the Jews used any special system of square measures, but they were content to express by the cubit, the length and breadth of the surface to be measured, Num_35:4,5; Eze_40:27, or by the reed. Eze_41:8; Eze_42:16-19; Rev_21:16.
II. Measures of Capacity. ? The measures of capacity for liquids were:
(a) The log, Lev_14:10. Etc. The name originally signifying basin.
(b) The hin, a name of Egyptian origin, frequently noticed in the Bible. Exo_29:40; Exo_30:24; Num_15:4; Num_15:7-8; Eze_4:11; etc.
(c) The bath, the name meaning "measured", the largest of the liquid measures. 1Ki_7:26; 1Ki_7:38; 2Ch_2:10; Ezr_7:22; Isa_5:10.
The dry measure contained the following denominations:
(a) The cab, mentioned only in 2Ki_6:25, the name meaning literally hollow or concave.
(b) The omer, mentioned only in Exo_16:16-36. The word implies a heap, and secondarily, a sheaf.
(c) The seah, or "measure", this being the etymological meaning of the term and appropriately applied to it, inasmuch as, it was the ordinary measure for household purposes. Gen_18:6; 1Sa_25:18; 2Ki_7:1; 2Ki_7:16. The Greek equivalent occurs in Mat_13:33; Luk_13:21.
(d) The ephah, a word of Egyptian origin and frequent recurrence in the Bible. Exo_16:36; Lev_5:11; Lev_6:20; Num_5:15; Num_28:5; Jdg_6:19; Rth_2:17; 1Sa_1:24; 1Sa_17:17; Eze_45:11; Eze_45:13; Eze_46:5; Eze_46:7; Eze_46:11; Eze_46:14.
(e) The lethec, or "half homer" literally meaning what is poured out; it occurs only in Hos_3:2.
(f) The homer, meaning heap. Lev_27:16; Num_11:32; Isa_5:10; Eze_45:13. It is elsewhere termed cor, from the circular vessel in which it was measured. 1Ki_4:22; 1Ki_5:11; 2Ch_2:10; 2Ch_27:5; Ezr_7:22; Eze_45:14. The Greek equivalent occurs in Luk_16:7 The absolute values of the liquid and the dry measures are stated differently by Josephus and the rabbinists, and as we are unable to decide between them, we give a double estimate to the various denominations.
In the new Testament, we have notices of the following foreign measures:
(a) The metretes, Joh_2:6, Authorized Version, "firkin", for liquids.
(b) The choenix, Rev_6:6, Authorized Version, "measure", for dry goods.
(c) The xestec, applied, however, not to the peculiar measure so named by the Greeks, but to any small vessel, such as a cup. Mar_7:4; Mar_7:8, Authorized Version, "pot".
(d) The modius, similarly applied to describe any vessel of moderate dimensions, Mat_5:15; Mar_4:21; Luk_11:33, Authorized Version, "bushel", though properly meaning a Roman measure, amounting to about a peck.
The value of the Attic metretes was 8.6696 gallons, and consequently the amount of liquid in six stone jars, containing on the average 2 1/2 metretae each, would exceed 110 gallons. Joh_2:6 Very possibly, however, the Greek term represents the Hebrew bath; and if the bath be taken at the lowest estimate assigned to it, the amount would be reduced to about 60 gallons. The choenix was 1-48th of an Attic medimnus, and contained nearly a quart. It represented the amount of corn for a day's food; and, hence, a choenix for a penny (or denarius), which usually purchased a bushel (Cic. Verr. iii 81), indicated a great scarcity. Rev_6:6.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

wāts me?zhur : The system of weights and measures in use among the Hebrews was derived from Babylonia and Egypt, especially from the former. The influence of these countries upon Palestine has long been recognized, but archaeological investigations in recent years have shown that the civilization of Babylonia impressed itself upon Syria and Palestine more profoundly in early times than did that of Egypt. The evidence of this has been most clearly shown by the discovery of the Tell el-Amarna Letters, which reveal the fact that the official correspondence between the Egyptian kings and their vassals in these lands was carried on in the language of Babylonia long after its political influence had been supplanted by that of Egypt. It is natural, then, that we should look to Babylonia for the origin of such important elements of civilization as a system of weights and measures.

1. Linear Measures:
It was quite natural that men should have found a standard for linear measures in the parts of the human body, and we find the cubit, originally the length of the forearm, taken as the standard, and the span, the palm and the digit, or finger-breadth, associated with it in linear measurement. They do not seem to have employed the foot, though it is represented in the two-thirds of the cubit, which was used by the Babylonians in the manufacture of building-brick.
This system, though adequate enough for man in the earliest times, was not so for an advanced stage of civilization, such as the Babylonians reached before the days of Abraham, and we find that they had introduced a far more accurate and scientific system (see CUBIT). They seem to have employed, however, two cubits, of different lengths, one for commercial purposes and one for building. We have no undoubted examples of either, but judging by the dimensions of their square building-bricks, which are regarded as being two-thirds of a cubit on a side, we judge the latter to have been of about 19 or 20 inches. Now we learn from investigations in Egypt that a similar cubit was employed there, being of from 20.6 to 20.77 inches, and it can hardly be doubted that the Hebrews were familiar with this cubit, but that in more common use was certainly shorter. We have no certain means of determining the length of the ordinary cubit among the Hebrews, but there are two ways by which we may approximate its value. The Siloam Inscription states that the tunnel in which it was found was 1,200 cubits long. The actual length has been found to be about 1, 707 feet, which would give a cubit of about 17.1 in. (see PEFS, 1902, 179). Of course the given length may be a round number, but it gives a close approximation.
Again, the Mishna states that the height of a man is 4 cubits, which we may thus regard as the average stature of a Jew in former times. By reference to Jewish tombs we find that they were of a length to give a cubit of something over 17 inches, supposing the stature to be as above, which approximates very closely to the cubit of the Siloam tunnel. The consensus of opinion at the present day inclines toward a cubit of 17.6 inches for commercial purposes and one of about 20 inches for building. This custom of having two standards is illustrated by the practice in Syria today, where the builder's measure, or dra', is about 2 inches longer than the commercial.
Of multiples of the cubit we have the measuring-reed of 6 long cubits, which consisted of a cubit and a hand-breadth each (Eze_40:5), or about 10 feet. Another measure was the Sabbath day's journey, which was reckoned at 2,000 cubits, or about 1,000 yards. The measuring-line was used also, but whether it had a fixed length we do not know. See SABBATH DAY'S JOURNEY; MEASURING LINE.
In the New Testament we have the fathom (ὀργυιά, orguiá), about 6 feet, and the furlong (στάδιον, stádion), 600 Greek feet or 606 3/4 English feet, which is somewhat less than one-eighth of a mile. The mile (μίλιον, mı́lion) was 5,000 Roman feet, or 4, 854 English feet, somewhat less than the English mile.
Linear Measure
Finger or digit (אצבּע, 'ecba‛)

about ? in.
Hand-breadth or palm (טפח, ṭephah)
4 digits
about 3 in.
Span (זרת, zereth)
3 palms
about 9 in.
Cubit (אמּה, 'ammāh)
2 spans
about 17.6 in.
Reed (קנה, ḳāneh)
6 cubits, 6 palms
about 10 ft.
Sabbath day's journey
(σαββάτου ὁδός, sabbátou hodós)
2,000 cubits
about 3,600 ft.

2. Measures of Capacity:
Regarding the absolute value of the measures of capacity among the Hebrews there is rather more uncertainty than there is concerning those of length and weight, since no examples of the former have come down to us; but their relative value is known. Sir Charles Warren considers them to have been derived from the measures of length by cubing the cubit and its divisions, as also in the case of weight. We learn from Eze_45:11 that the bath and ephah were equivalent, and he (Warren) estimates the capacity of these as that of 1/30 of the cubit cubed, or about 2, 333.3 cubic inches, which would correspond to about 9 gallons English measure. Assuming this as the standard, we get the following tables for liquid and dry measure: Ṣe'ah and lethekh, in the above, occur in the Hebrew text, but only in the margin of the English. It will be noticed that the prevailing element in these tables is the duodecimal which corresponds to the sexagesimal of the Babylonian system, but it will be seen that in the case of weights there was a tendency on the part of the Hebrews to employ the decimal system, making the māneh 50 shekels instead of 60, and the talent 3,000 instead of 3,600, of the Babylonian, so here we see the same tendency in making the ‛ōmer the tenth of the'ēphāh and the'ēphāh the tenth of the ḥōmer or kōr.
Liquid Measure
1 log (לג, lōgh, Lev_14:10)
appr. 1 pint
4 logs, 1 kab (קב, ḳabh, 2Ki_6:25)
appr. 2 qts.
12 logs, 3 kabs, 1 hin (הין, hı̄n, Exo_30:24)
appr. 1 ? gals.
72 logs, 18 kabs, 6 hins, 1 bath (בּת, bath, Ezk Eze_45:10)
appr. 9 gals.
720 logs, 180 kabs, 60 hins, 10 baths, 1 homer or kor
(חמר, ḥōmer, כּר, kōr, Ezk Eze_45:14)
appr. 90 gals.
Dry Measure
1 log
appr. 1 pint
4 logs, 1 kab
appr. 2 qts.
7 ? logs, 1 omer
(עמר, ‛ōmer, Exo_16:16)
appr. 3 qts., 1 1/5 pts.
24 logs, 6 kabs, 3 ? omers, 1 seah
(סאה, ṣeāh, 1Ki_18:32)
appr. 1 ? pecks
72 logs, 18 kabs, 10 omers, 3 seahs, 1 ephah
(אפה, 'ēphāh, Exo_16:36)
appr. 4 ? pecks
360 logs, 90 kabs, 50 omers, 15 seahs, 5 ephahs, 1 lethech
(לתך, lethekh, Hos_3:2)
appr. 5 bu., 2 ? pecks
720 logs, 180 kabs, 100 omers, 30 seahs, 10 ephahs, 2 lethechs, 1 homer or kor (Ezk Eze_45:14)
appr. 11 bu., 1 peck

3. Weights:
Weights were probably based by the ancients upon grains of wheat or barley, but the Egyptians and Babylonians early adopted a more scientific method. Sir Charles Warren thinks that they took the cubes of the measures of length and ascertained how many grains of barley corresponded to the quantity of water these cubes would contain. Thus, he infers that the Egyptians fixed the weight of a cubic inch of rain water at 220 grains, and the Babylonians at 222 2/9. Taking the cubic palm at 25, 928 cubic inches, the weight of that quantity of water would be 5, 760 ancient grains. The talent he regards as the weight of 2/3 of a cubit cubed, which would be equal to 101, 6 cubic palms, but assumes that for convenience it was taken at 100, the weight being 576,000 grains, deriving from this the māneh (1/60 of the talent) of 9,600 grains, and a shekel (1/50 of the māneh) 192 grains. But we have evidence that the Hebrew shekel differed from this and that they used different shekels at different periods. The shekel derived from Babylonia had a double standard: the light of 160 grains, or 1/3600 of the talent; and the heavy of just double this, of 320 grains. The former seems to have been used before the captivity and the latter after. The Babylonian system was sexagesimal, i.e. 60 shekels went to the māneh and 60 mānehs to the talent, but the Hebrews reckoned only 50 shekels to the māneh, as appears from Exo_38:25, Exo_38:26, where it is stated that the amount of silver collected from 603, 550 males was 100 talents and 1, 775 shekels, and, as each contributed a half-shekel, the whole amount must have been 301, 775. Deducting the 1, 775 shekels mentioned besides the 100 talents, we have 300,000 or 3,000 to the talent, and, as there were 60 mānehs in the talent, there were 50 shekels to each māneh. When the Hebrews adopted this system we do not know, but it was in vogue at a very early date.
The shekel was divided into gērāhs, 20 to a shekel (Exo_30:13). The gērāh (גּרה, gērāh) is supposed to be some kind of seed, perhaps a bean or some such plant. The shekel of which it formed a part was probably the royal or commercial shekel of 160 grains, derived from Babylon. But the Hebrews certainly had another shekel, called the Phoenician from its being the standard of the Phoenician traders. This would be natural on account of the close connection of the two peoples ever since the days of David and Solomon, but we have certain evidence of it from the extant examples of the monetary shekels of the Jews, which are of this standard, or very nearly so, allowing some loss from abrasion. The Phoenician shekel was about 224 grains, varying somewhat in different localities, and the Jewish shekels now in existence vary from 212 to 220 grains. They were coined after the captivity (see COINS), but whether this standard was in use before we have no means of knowing.
Examples of ancient weights have been discovered in Palestine by archaeological research during recent years, among them one from Samaria, obtained by Dr. Chaplin, bearing the inscription, in Hebrew rebha‛ neceph (נצף רבע). This is interpreted, by the help of the cognate Arabic, as meaning ?quarter-half,? i.e. of a shekel. The actual weight is 39.2 grains, which, allowing a slight loss, would correspond quite closely to a quarter-shekel of the light Babylonian standard of 160 grains, or the quarter of the half of the double standard. Another specimen discovered at Tell Zakariyeh weighs 154 grains, which would seem to belong to the same standard. The weights, of which illustrations are given in the table, are all in the collection of the Syrian Protestant College, at Beirut, and were obtained from Palestine and Phoenicia and are of the Phoenician standard, which was the common commercial standard of Palestine. The largest, of the spindle or barrel type, weighs 1, 350 grains, or 87.46 grams, evidently intended for a 6-shekel weight, and the smaller ones of the same type are fractions of the Phoenician shekel. They were of the same standard, one a shekel and the other a two-shekel weight. They each have 12 faces, and the smaller has a lion stamped on each face save one, reminding us of the lion-weights discovered in Assyria and Babylonia. The spindle weights are of black stone, the others of bronze.
The above is the Phoenician standard. In the Babylonian the shekel would be 160 or 320 grains; the māneh 8,000 or 16,000, and the talent 480,000 or 960,000 grains, according as it was of the light or heavy standard.
Table of Hebrew Weights
Gērāh (Exo_30:13, גּרה, gērāh)
about 11 grains
Beḳa‛ (half-shekel, Exo_38:26, (בּק, beḳa‛)
about 122 grains
Sheḳel (שׁקל, sheḳel)
about 224 or 225 grains
Māneh = 50 shekels (pound, 1Ki_10:17, מנה, māneh)
about 11,200 grains
Talent = 60 mānehs or 3,000 shekels
(Exo_38:25, כּכּר, kikkār)
about 672,000 grains


International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

This is a subject on which our knowledge is by no means complete and satisfactory, as the notices respecting it which the Bible supplies are fragmentary and scattered.
With respect to the coins in use among the Hebrews, it is evident that there prevailed among the Hebrews at an early period a very considerable and much employed metallic medium. Mention is made of talents, shekels, half-shekels, and gerahs. It is impossible to determine with absolute certainty the relative value of these coins, but the following table has been constructed from an examination of the coins of Simon Maccabaeus, and is probably very nearly correct:?
Coin
Paris Grains
Gerah
13.7
Bekah, or common shekel
137
Sacred shekel
274
Maneh
13,700
Talent
822,000
These conclusions find corroboration by being compared with the weights of other Eastern nations, and the whole inquiry authorizes the inference that one general system prevailed in the more civilized nations, being propagated from the East, from an early period of history.
In the New Testament (Mat_17:24) the Temple-tax is a didrachm; from other sources we know that this 'tribute' was half a shekel; and in Mat_17:27 the stater is payment of this tax for two persons. Now the stater?a very common silver Attic coin, the tetradrachm?weighed 328.8 Paris grains; thus not considerably surpassing the sacred shekel (274 Paris grains). And there is reason in the passage of Matthew and in early writers for regarding the stater of the New Testament as the same with the Attic tetradrachm.
Names of measures of length are for the most part taken from members of the human body, which offered themselves, so to say, naturally for the purpose, and have generally been used in all times and places in instances where minute accuracy was not demanded.
At the basis of the Hebrew system of measures of length lies the cubit, the forearm, or the distance from the point of the elbow to the tip of the third finger.
A longer measure, applied in measuring buildings, was the reed, or more properly 'rod' (Eze_41:8; Rev_21:15). Smaller measures of length were,
a span, from a root meaning to expand (the hand).
The breadth of the hand (1Ki_7:26; Exo_25:25).
The finger (Jer_52:21), the denomination of the smallest measure of length.
Thus we have the breadth of the finger, of the hand, of the span?the length from the tip of the little finger to the point of the thumb?and the cubit.
As we have no unit of measure given us in the Scriptures, nor preserved to us in the remains of any Hebrew building, and as neither the Rabbins nor Josephus afford the information we want, we have no resource but to apply for information to the measures of length used in other countries. We go to the Egyptians. The longer Egyptian cubit contained about 234.333 Paris lines, the shorter about 204.8. According to this the Hebrew measures of length were these:?
Measure
Paris Lines
Sacred cubit
234.333
The span
117.166
The palm
39.055
The finger
9.7637
Common cubit
204.8
The span
102.4
The palm
34.133
The finger
8.533
The two sets of measures, one for dry, another for liquid things, rest on the same system, as appears from the equality of the standard for dry-goods, namely the ephah, with that for liquids, namely bath. Mention is made of the homer, cab, bath and ephah?which are the same, hin, and log. The relations of these measures to the homer, the greatest of them, is exhibited in the following table:?
Homer
1
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bath and Ephah
10
1
 
 
 
 
 
Seah
30
3
1
 
 
 
 
Hin
60
6
2
1
 
 
 
Gomer
100
10
3 1/3
1 2/3
1
 
 
Cab
180
18
6
3
1 4/5
1
 
Log
720
72
24
12
7 1/5
4
1
The actual size of these measures, as stated by Josephus, is as follows:?
 
Size
Par. cub. in.
Weight in Water
Par. gr.
Homer
19857.7
7398000
Ephah
1985.77
739800
Seah
661.92
246600
Hin
330.96
123300
Gomer
198.577
73980
Cab
110.32
41100
Log
27.58
10275
B?ckh has proved that it is in Babylon we are to look for the foundations of the metrological systems of the ancient world; for the entire system of measures, both eastern and western, must be referred to the Babylonish foot as to its basis. On Babylon also the ancient world was dependent for its astronomy. Hence Babylon appears as the land which was the teacher of the east and the west in astronomical and mathematical knowledge, standing as it were in the middle of the ancient world, and sending forth rays of light from her two extended hands. Palestine could not be closed against these illuminations, which in their progress westward must have enlightened its inhabitants, who appear to have owed their highest earthly culture to the Babylonians and the Egyptians.




The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores