This is only a TEST WIKI! The live FINA Website and Wiki can be found here: https://fina.oeaw.ac.at

Roger Gale - William Stukeley - 1730-07-11

From Fina Wiki


Roger Gale, London

Roger Gale - William Stukeley - 1730-07-11
FINA IDUnique ID of the page  15438
InstitutionName of Institution.
InventoryInventory number.
AuthorAuthor of the document. Roger Gale
RecipientRecipient of the correspondence. William Stukeley
Correspondence dateDate when the correspondence was written: day - month - year . July 11, 1730
PlacePlace of publication of the book, composition of the document or institution. London 51° 29' 21.60" N, 0° 8' 38.60" W
Associated personsNames of Persons who are mentioned in the annotation. Ezechiel Spanheim, John Selden
LiteratureReference to literature. Selden 1640Selden 1640, Lukis 1882-1887, vol. 1, p. 456Lukis 1882-1887, Burnett 2020b, p. 398Burnett 2020b
KeywordNumismatic Keywords  Hebrew , Jewish
LanguageLanguage of the correspondence English
External LinkLink to external information, e.g. Wikpedia 
Map
Loading map...
You can move or zoom the map to explore other correspondence!
Grand documentOriginal passage from the "Grand document".

'I am obliged to you for the draught of the Hebrew coin you sent me. Selden takes notice of it. Lib. ii. de Jure Naturali Gentium secundum Hebraeos., cap vi. Both he & Spanheim think it to be inferioris oevi; the former that it has been even the work of a Christian, from a crosse, as he takes it to be, at the end of the word Mosheh, which yours exhibits as an A upon the collar of the head. In my mind it cannot be read Messiah unctus, that word terminating in h, not a. The interpretation of the reverse is Non erunt tibi Dii alieni coram me. The Jews, after their return from Babylon, were so prodigiously afraid of idolatry that they would not suffer the least representation of any human figure, as is plain from Josephus, & were cautious in that respect, even to ridiculousness ; so that I cannot think this was coined under the Asmonean kings — perhaps Herod might strike it, who was not so scrupulous as his predecessor.' (Lukis 1882-1887, vol. 1, p. 456; Burnett 2020b, p. 398)