138 CHAPTER FOURlater, another coin with a “Jewish” reverse (or at any rate a reverse common
on earlier Jewish coins though also in other contexts, namely, an anchor) was
issued, followed ten years later by a coin with a four-columned temple, with
Zeus seatedwithin portrayed onits reverse.^27 The remaining reversetypes, on
coins issued down to the reign of Elagabalus (218–222), depict more Tychai
on boats, a winged Nike bearing a wreath and a pal mbranch, Poseidon hold-
ingatrident,alsoonaboat,andAsclepiusandHygieia,againholdingsnakes.^28
But in 119–120, the year in which Zeus first appeared seated in his temple,
Tiberias also issued a coin with a galley but no human or divine figure on its
reverse.^29
The coinage of Sepphoris is similar, except that its Trajanic coinage—
unique among Roman city coins in acknowledging the fact that the emperor
himself had granted the city permission to mint—is more uniformly “Jewish”
inits reversetypes.^30 But latercoinsshow thecity’sTyche, aswellas Zeusand
possibly Athena, all in tetrastyle temples, Hera holding an incense shovel,
and the Capitoline Triad (Zeus/Jupiter, Hera/Juno, Athena/Minerva) also in
atemple.^31 SomeoftheSeverancoinsofthecitycontainontheirreverseonly
the city’s pompous titulature, presumably a reward for having supported the
winner in the civil war of 193.^32 That this aniconis mwas not due to Jewish
religious scruples (and,paceMeshorer, whose views on the matter have been
widely accepted by Jewish historians, if not Roman numismatists, certainly
has nothing to do with the activities of Rabbi Judah Hanasi) is demonstrated
by the fact that the city simultaneously continued minting pagan coins.^33 The
others are aniconic because Sepphoris’s titulature left no roo mfor an i mage.
Anyway,theyareonlyrelativelyaniconic: theobversestillfeaturestheemper-
or’s portrait.
Of other coins of “Jewish” cities, Flavia Neapolis (formerly Shechem, in
factSamaritanratherthanJewish)beganitscoinageundertheFlavianemper-
(^27) Rosenberger, nos. 9–11. Needless to say, even the “Jewish”-style coins are problematic from
the point of view of Jewish law because of the emperor’s bust on the obverse. The Hasmoneans,
Herod, and even the Roman procurators of Judaea, it is worth remembering, never put human
images on their coins.
(^28) Rosenberger, nos. 12–21; the figure identified as Asclepius by Meshorer,CityCoinsno. 86,
is left unidentified by Rosenberger.
(^29) Rosenberger no. 15.
(^30) Rosenberger, 3: 60–63; the Trajanic coins are nos. 3–6.
(^31) Rosenberger, nos. 7–18; the Capitoline Triad coin is in Meshorer,CityCoins, no. 93.
(^32) Onthesecoins,seeC.Kraay,“JewishFriendsandAlliesofRome,”ANSMN25(1980):53–
- For additional arguments against Meshorer’s interpretation, see H. Lapin,Early Rabbinic
Civil Law and the Social History of Roman Galilee: A Study of Mishnah Tractate Bava Mesi’a’
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), p. 12 n. 28.
(^33) Contrast, for example, Z. Weiss and E. Netzer,Zippori(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Soci-
ety, 1994), p. 8. Meshorer’s presentation of this material inCity Coinsis tendentious, creating
the impression that the “aniconic” coins were the last the city minted.