http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4KuDlCaWPA
I had just finished watching a YouTube commentary on inflation and the fall of the Roman Empire, and it started me thinking about how Rome managed to monopolize currency within it's own borders in the first place, before the Roman State debased the coinage and destroyed 95% of the wealth of the known world.
Before Rome had a firm grip on the coinage of its territories, there were many different kinds of money from many different lands traded in the market places of the known world. In order to monopolize the coinage, with which Rome might more easily pay its armies and thus have a firmer grip on its growing territory, they first had to engage in some free market competition.
Julius Caesar and later Augustus did not, so far as I can find, issue any kind of legal tender laws, at least not outside of Italy. Even if they had, it would have done them no good, since Rome rarely if ever interfered with private business, except in times of grave national crisis. Also, Roman territory was too vast and too diverse to enforce such laws. So long as taxes were collected in great enough quantity as to pay for the needs of the Roman state, which amounted to approximately one day's wages per year, there was never any need to. But to get Roman coinage accepted all over the known world, Roman money first had to be superior in both quality and quantity. Rome did not make it's money the "world's reserve currency" by issuing intrusive, largely unenforceable laws; it did it by making its money better.
The Roman 'denarius', first issued by Julius Caesar, contained about 95% silver. This amount was certified and consistent throughout his financial reign, and that of several emperors who came after him. This made Roman money preferable to other money as a medium of exchange, and the idea quickly took hold everywhere in Roman-controlled teritory. There was counterfeiting and "shaving" of the national coinage, but never on a grand scale, as these offenses always carried a death sentence (Ah, for the good old days!)
Always, though, there are exceptions. Rome's stand on business was so laizze-faire (at least in the times discussed here), that it often overlooked instances where it should have stepped in for it's own interests. Few men, and no bureaucrat anywhere, can diagnose a danger to the money supply itself. I have met those who believe that a knowledge of microeconomics can actually make one a better person, and these people have no idea how right they are. In Jerusalem, there were the infamous money changers, busily ripping off both God and Caesar. When Jews came to pay their Temple tax (a blasphemous idea in itself), they could only do so with a silver coin known as the "half-shekel of the Sanctuary". This was the only coin that was a certified ½ ounce of pure silver, without the Emperor's image upon it. The money changers had a Temple-sanctioned monopoly on the supply of these coins, and raised the exchange rate to whatever the faithful could pay. Thus (for example, since I have no ready figures) a single half-ounce of silver might command ten or more denarii. I have always thought that any event that would make Jesus Christ fly into a rage and start beating people's heads in should merit more scholarship, but even clergy I have talked to have been baffled as to what the "money changers" (hint!) were actually doing. In short, because of greedy Temple priests and narrow-minded Roman bureaucrats, an innocent man gets crucified, Caesar loses some serious potential tax money, and nobody in future ages bothers to remember what the event was really all about. If you've ever wondered why a man's life would be worth only 30 pieces of silver, keep in mind that Judas was almost certainly paid in Temple coins.
Getting back to happier events, Roman policies of sound money, free markets, and minimal taxation led to the much-discussed Pax Romana. It bears repeating that only one day's wages from each resident of the Empire (all those that could be taxed) maintained the entire Roman state. Large building projects were usually paid for with state lotteries. Though there were a few bloody conflicts resulting from religious and cultural differences (read Josephus to see little times have changed!), the primary complaint from the best trained and equipped army in the world was that there were too few wars to fight.
Compare this to the later policies of continually debased currency, with more and more intrusive laws and taxes during the late 2nd to early 3rd centuries and beyond. Rome's armies increased in number from about 250,000 to over 600,000, while the legendary quality of training, equipment, and recruiting standards quickly became a distant memory. Threat of foreign encroachment also increased, as small groups of previously inconsequential barbarians became bolder and more powerful, and it is not mere coincidence that they understood only a gold standard. Business was taxed more and more in raw goods because gold and silver became a commodity only for the very wealthy. Machiavelli, who I've normally found to be a very astute in the ways of economics, fails to make the connection between Rome's long fall and it's bad economic policies when describing the true legacy of Caesar. Even fewer scholars seem to notice that such a mighty superpower ended with a whimper instead of a bang. It would seem that just as sound economics can make a nation master of the world in near-perfect security, bad economics can turn that world into Hell on earth.
While it's true that the debasement of money in the 3rd Century resulted in chaos, I think you're overstating the freedom of the Roman economy. Taxation was only relatively light in Italy - in the other parts of the Empire there was a poll-tax and 100% inheritance tax on top of the citizen taxes. Mines etc. were the preserve of government-granted monopolies, and vast tracts of the Empire were leased out to farmers (with an extra rent tax). Many private individuals took large estates from this land, and, renting them in turn, forced others into serfdom. The city of Rome and other urban centres were home to large populations of poor who were dependent on government funded grain (which had a price ceiling on it) and whatever work they could get serving wealthier citizens (which bordered on slavery). Oh, and there was quite a lot of actual slavery too. You correctly note that the Roman state had well-respected coinage - largely because they could plunder the requisite precious metals from their subjects/enemies and monopolise its mining. Interest rates had a ceiling, bureaucracy and corruption abounded. Still, the Roman economy was a lot more free than that of say, Ptolemaic Egypt.
'If the Roman law provided a paradise of liberty, how account for the crushing taxation, the periodic inflation and currency debasement, the repressive network of controls and "welfare" measures, the unlimited imperial authority, of the Roman Empire?' - Murray Rothbard
When Jews came to pay their Temple tax (a blasphemous idea in itself), they could only do so with a silver coin known as the "half-shekel of the Sanctuary". This was the only coin that was a certified ½ ounce of pure silver, without the Emperor's image upon it. The money changers had a Temple-sanctioned monopoly on the supply of these coins, and raised the exchange rate to whatever the faithful could pay.
Source? Evidence? Something?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Keep in mind that the period discussed is the late Republic and very early Roman Empire, when the idea of national currency first took hold. The high taxation started in the second century, as did the increase in the size of the army (to enforce said taxation). The entire point was to compare the prosperity at the beginning of the Empire to conditions during it's long and painful decline. The inflation mentioned by Rothbard is most certainly a characteristic of the later Roman Empire, but was well controlled during the time of the early Caesars.
Rothbard is correct again in that it was not Roman law that gave Rome her liberty. The "Twelve Tables of Law", Rome's nearest thing to a Constitution, is an absolute mess. In fact, drafting the Twelve Tables, based on the laws of Solon (a HUGE mistake) not only made Rome less free once completed, but nearly led to a permanent tyranny of the "Decamvirs", whose charge it was to draft those laws. Rome was made free (in the days of the Republic) by the wise and virtuous citizens who presided in the Senate and fought Rome's wars. Once the ilk of Julius Caesar started to outnumber that of Cincinnatus and Scipio, and legislative power was centralized instead of widely dispersed, Roman liberty sharply declined.
The nationalization of the grain market was a most unfortunate mistake Rome made early on that would plague her throughout her exitence. First started as a strictly emergency measure (much like Britain's National Health Service), it became rooted in Roman culture long after the danger to the grain supply had passed. In fact, Rome's domination of much of the world was largely a side effect of this; conquest become the only option to ensure a grain supply, since no free market will touch a nationalized one. From beginning to end, Rome could not find a way to shake the burden of a nationalized supply of grain. It became a way for politicians to buy votes and keep the masses dependent on them. The few private grain merchants in business were forced to look for markets outside of Italy, but as Roman citizenship expanded (for purposes of taxation!), so did it's welfare state.
Corruption indeed abounded at every stage of Roman history. That's why the founders of the Republic found it prudent to limit executive power to just one year. Rome elected two Consuls (or, in a few cases, Military Tribunes, who could be either Patricians or Plebeians), for one year, and they could not run for consecutive terms. More often than not, the two Consuls would spend more time fighting each other in the Senate or plotting each other's deaths than drafting new laws to confiscate wealth and oppress the people, and when one did gain the upper hand, his term of office was over before he could do any real damage. For four hundred years, it worked very well. Anyone entering public life in Rome would likely have their career ended by either violent death or suicide. I have always thought that fee a civilization is best preserved by controlled savagery.
What fallacy is this?
Interesting. Do you have any more info about Jesus and the temple money changers? I've always been really curious about that.
David Sherin: Interesting. Do you have any more info about Jesus and the temple money changers? I've always been really curious about that.
Dave, forgive Fleet Centurion, for he knows not of what he speaks. You can get better info about Jesus and the temple money changers from watching Star Trek. [No info beats wrong info]
When Jews came to pay their Temple tax (a blasphemous idea in itself), they could only do so with a silver coin known as the "half-shekel of the Sanctuary". This was the only coin that was a certified ½ ounce of pure silver, without the Emperor's image upon it.
When Jesus said give Caesar what is Caesar's. He first asked for a coin. That denarii had Caesar's image on it. Could it be that he was advocating paying Caesar only with the coins that he was currently debasing?
It could have definitely indicated some foresight on his part. Though Augustus was not debasing the coinage at the time, the danger was, of course, always present. It also shows the hypocrisy of later emperors, who would demand taxes paid in gold and silver, instead of the money they themselves issued.
Refusal to pay taxes to Rome was, for those residents of Judea who had taxable wealth, a purely symbolic gesture. Taxes in the time of the early Caesars were not considered excessive. It was the idea of paying taxes to a foreign power that people had a problem with.
Money which was God's was being traded for Caesar's money at a grossly unfair exchange rate, making the money changers and the Temple rich at the expense of the faithful. People were, in effect, still using Caesar's money to pay God, and being overcharged to do so. Most people were not paid in silver, Temple-issued coins. I honestly think that it was the disruption of this enterprise that led to Jesus' crucifiction more than any other event. Related to that could be that he advocated "paying" God using prayer and good deeds instead of hard cash. Though he had a good reputation as a holy man and a wise judge, the fact is that most people in Judea, before or after his death, had never heard of him. He was not the only 'messiah' in town.
I am assuming you know all this from introspection into a previous lifetime, because it has no historical basis.
I have asked you before for sources, links, anything, but you remain evasive.
*Sigh*
If you doubt my scholarship, check out some of the following links, which I found using Google, in less than a minute:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Bankers.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#docid=6076118677860424204
(The opinion is noteably slanted here, but the history is factual.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
This, therefore, is the what is meant by the term, "money changer". The language is a bit vague in the New teestament only because their function was so obvious to writers of that time.
... that should read, "Testament." Sorry for my haste and lack of a SpellCheck.
I don't think there's a need for 'sighing'. It's not that we *doubt* everything you put up, but if you do put up something that is at least more contentious than cogito ergo sum or that the earth revolves around the sun, then I think you're obligated to provide some sources or references.
That's how scholarship works.
1. Wikipedia: "...who changed the standard Greek and Roman money for Jewish and Tyrian money, which were the only coinage that could be used in Temple ceremonies."
A gross error right there. No coins were used in Temple ceremonies. What does the guy think, that they juggled the coins or something?
Also, Wikipedi criticises the article as being poorly [to put it mildly sourced]. To quote: "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
So when asked for a source, you quote an article that is criticized on the very page for being unsourced. Way to go.
2. http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Bankers.htm indeed states word for word all the you wrote that I dispute. I apologize for thinking it is a product of your introspection. However, it seems you have been duped, my son.
Let's look at a few quotes from this distinguished author's other writings [BTW the link is prominently displayed on the top of the article you brought to my attention:
A. The Rothschilds have been in control of the world for a very long time...
B. The Rothschilds claim that they are Jewish, when in fact they are Khazars...You will find that approximately 90% of people in the world today who call themselves Jews are actually Khazars. The author goes on to explain that the Book of Revelations refers to these 90% as "the synagogue of Satan".
C. Moses Amschel Bauer places a red sign above the entrance door to his counting house. This sign is a red hexagram (which geometrically and numerically translates into the number 666)
D. 1770: Mayer Amschel Rothschild draws up plans for the creation of the Illuminati and entrusts Ashkenazi Jew, Adam Weishaupt, a Crypto-Jew who was outwardly Roman Catholic, with its organization and development. The Illuminati is to be based upon the teachings of the Talmud, which is in turn, the teachings of Rabbinical Jews. It was to be called the Illuminati as this is a Luciferian term which means, keepers of the light...
The purpose of the Illuminati is to divide the goyim (all non-Jews) through political, economic, social, and religious means. The opposing sides were to be armed and incidents were to be provided in order for them to: fight amongst themselves; destroy national governments; destroy religious institutions; and eventually destroy each other.
So the Talmud says to do all this, according to the distinguished author. This is very revealing. It shows he knows nothing about the Talmud. Which explains how he could ake the absurd statement you quoted in your earlier posts, all flatly contradicted by ancient Jewish sources. I mean, they should know how they ran their own Temple, no?
E. Weishaupt soon infiltrates the Continental Order of Freemasons with this Illuminati doctrine and establishes lodges of the Grand Orient to be their secret headquarters. This was all under the orders and finance of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and the concept has spread and is followed within Masonic Lodges worldwide to the present day.
So every Masonic lodge, as we speak, is plotting to destroy religious institutions and national govts. OK.
I didn't bother looking for other gems in this very long article.
If you agree with him about any of the above, good luck to you. If you disagree and find it amusing in a ghastly kind of way, it should lead you to questioning him as a source of info about anything.
3. A "money as debt" video doesn't strike me as a scholarly reference. I mean, that so called source needs a source. I notice that the video uses the very words of the Rothchild conspiracy guy, the ones you used in your OP.
4. I agree with you that the role of the money changers was obvious to writers of that time. It is all spelled out in the Mishnah, a work predating Jesus in part. Read it, particularly the part called Shekalim, and you will find the many inaccuracies in your earlier posts.
Firstly, coins were not used in the Temple at all. They were used to buy what was needed for running the Temple, such as buying wine and bread and animals for sacrifice, making repairs, fixing leaks, and the like. All the priests in the Temple recieved no salaries, and but for the High Priest, were there only two weeks a year. They had families to support.
Second, a yearly donation was required of all Jews [with no agency to enforce this, all purely voluntary] to fund the Temple. If we accept the evaluation of your source, this was about $13 a year. A dollar a month. 3 cents a day. I think you pay more for your internet connection, or for a meal for two at McDonalds. I'm not sure how much a Christian Church member is expected to donate nowadays, so I did not use that as a basis for comparison.
This contribution had to be a coin that was worth half of the standard coin [say a half dollar as opposed to a dollar]. The Temple money changers charged a fee of 2%, or about 25 cents, for giving someone two halfs for his whole, if he didn't have a half coin to donate. This fee also was given to the Temple and spent on its day to day running. No private individual profited from it.
Third, this annual contribution could be of any coin in the world. It did not have to be some fictitous official Temple coin [and I do mean fictitous, there was no such coin], or even a coin in common use in Israel at the time. Coins with pictures of the Emperor on it are perfectly acceptable for all transactions, including the annual donation to the Temple, as is clear from the ancient sources.
Fourth, the money changers Jesus railed on about were not the official Temple money changers, who as explained, made no profits and were not thieves. He was instead whipping people who had set themselves up as bankers of a sort, to provide local coins for those who had foreign ones. Israel was at the center of the economic universe at the time, with coins and ships and people from all over the ancient world passing through. A convenient place to set up shop was near, not in, the Temple, as Wikipedia points out. Apparently some of them were taking advantage of the tourists.
Excuse me, but did I not already state the biased opinions of the sources quoted? The point was to explain what the "money changers" were and what they were doing, which seemed to be your arguement.
You also seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder and a penchant for stalking my posts. Judging by the sheer number of your own posts in so short a time, you must have little else in your life.
There was such a Temple coin, as the Shekalim more than hints at, and common coinage in Judea at the time (aside from denarii) was also called a shekel. Just as it is today, strangely enough...
I could also go into how practices and customs in modern times differ from those in ancient times. I will assume you already know this, however, unless you have sacrificed a goat lately.
You also state many points which sound very scholarly, yet the Shekalim fails to cover-- especially in your third and fourth points (I will not bother picking apart ancient exchange rates). I know this, because I have read it.
I made my case and will end the discusson here. If the Masons come after you for exposing them, I'll admit you were right. Lock your doors.
Well, you made no case and your sources were entirely unsupported; the very thing you accused me of doing. The sources I Googled were for a brief explanation and nothing more. If you wish to think I believe every piece of conspiracist drivel I find on the internet, I don't suppose I can disuade you. Now, I'd love to chat on forums all night, but I have a job.
They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, "The Roman emperor's people demand taxes from us."
He said to them, "Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine."
Gospel of Thomas, verse 100
I cite the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas because the quote is incomplete from the other versions. Is he really talking about taxes and money, or is there a subtle message about something else?