"GOLD AND SILVER" IN THE BIBLE

One thing sometimes frustrating to those with scientific training such as myself is that we like to pin down the meanings of everything in the Bible. I realize that there will always be controversies regarding theological concepts in Scripture, but I expect more precision regarding the identification of specific types of animals, plants, and inorganic matter listed there. However, these technical terms, in Hebrew especially, are precisely the ones that scholars seem to have the hardest times defining. Concerning the specific example of words for “gold” in the OT, Wakely says, “A precise definition of the various synonyms is difficult, but evidence suggests that these terms were used for stylistic reasons and not because of any technical distinctions. Thus it is not surprising that the poetry sections of the Bible have the widest variety of synonyms referring to the same basic item.

In the OT, there is only one term used for “silver” and that is kesep, which can also be understood as “money” in general. In marked contrast to this one word which has two meanings, there are multiple Hebrew and Aramaic words for “gold” which may all refer to one and the same thing. Nevertheless, translators attempt to distinguish them from one another. As examples:

sagur – gold (RSV, NRSV), solid gold (JB), finest gold (NIV), red gold (NEB), refined gold (Young)

paz – pure gold (JB), fine gold (TEV), finest gold (NIV)

kethem – finest gold (RSV, NRSV, AB, NEB)

charuts – green gold (NRSV), yellow gold (KJV), choice gold (RSV), gold (Living Bible), finest gold (TEV), pure gold (NEB, JB), fine gold (NIV), choicest gold (AB)

bezer may stand for “precious metal” instead of gold specifically, but other scholars feel it means gold ore or nuggets. (A.E. Hill)

harus – This designation for gold may derive from its yellow color. (Wakely)

zehab, or its Aramaic equivalent dehab – the most usual designation for gold in the OT, with its name deriving from its shining appearance

madhebah – gold ore (Young)

In addition, Wakely enumerates various adjectives used in conjunction with some of the above words to further describe the quality of the gold involved, much as we would designate it today with descriptors such as 18-carat or 24-carat gold:

tahor – pure

tob – good

parwayim – finest

Another important descriptive word associated with gold is translated as “of Ophir,” which was known for its supply of the rare metal. Most feel that it was a location somewhere in Arabia. In Job 22:24, “Ophir” is even used by itself to stand for the gold found there.

The interchangeability of these various terms is demonstrated in the fact that various pairs of these words are often used in poetic parallelism with one another. Also witness the fact that four of these synonyms for gold appear in Job 28 alone, and the Book of Proverbs employs five different words for gold.

Reasons for Gold's Value

The desirability of gold in biblical times has changed little from then to now. It is valued for its rarity, its pleasing appearance, its malleability which allows it to be readily shaped or pounded into gold leaf, and its chemical inertness. Concerning this last property, gold is one of the very few naturally occurring metals that will not react with anything else in the environment. So, unlike silver which will tarnish, it never degrades in any way. That does not mean that it will not form alloys with other metals such as copper, silver, platinum, etc. But it will not undergo chemical reactions except under highly specified laboratory conditions.

But the above fact brings up a Scripture passage that used to bother me as a chemist until I investigated it further. That troubling statement came from the Book of James where he says (KJV) regarding the fate of the rich: “Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you.” (5:2-3a) The problem, of course, is that gold cannot be corrupted or form rust (i.e. an oxide).

Actually, the Greek word for “rust” can have the meaning of becoming poisoned or useless. Several modern translations use the general terms “tarnished” or “corroded,” and the Living Bible paraphrase makes its point by saying that “the value of your gold and silver is dropping fast,” just as it does sometimes in today's stock exchange. The irony is that the rich thought it was treasure being stored up, but it was really evidence to be used against them. I think of Imelda Marcos' extensive shoe collection and President Nixon's secret tapes.

Other explanations have been offered by commentators as to how gold can “rust.”

    Davids notes that in the Jewish intertestamental literature “the rust or tarnish of precious metals was proverbial...and the proverbial sense indicated not only temporality, but also uselessness.” In other words, wealth will not last for forever and will eventually do you absolutely no good.

    Morris: “There is a problem in that gold and silver do not rust, but James is speaking metaphorically and expressing the view that the treasure of the rich are tarnished and tainted and tainting.”

    Reicke treats the word “rust” as a general term for being destroyed.

    Kistemaker: “Of course, precious metals do not rust. Therefore we need to explain the verb to corrode not literally but figuratively. The hoarding of silver and gold simply for the sake of hoarding does not serve any meaningful purpose. In a sense, these metals are as useless as if they were thoroughly corroded.” Tasker and Carson offer much the same explanation.

    Adamson: “...the corruption of gold, etc., is supernatural in a supernatural calamity.” In other words, God is certainly a better chemist than I am.

In addition to the above figurative and supernatural solutions to the problem, there are other more literal ways to understand “rust.”

    Blue states that gold and silver do darken with time and lose their luster. However, (1) the absolute loss implied by James is much more far-reaching than just a surface coating that can easily be buffed off and (2) the only reason gold may darken in time is due to trace metals with which it is alloyed.

    I think that McKnight offers a more attractive literal explanation. He states that base metals masquerading as noble metals and mere gold- and silver-plated items will eventually oxidize to disclose the false riches in which they have been trusting.

Silver and gold as a pair

The final issue I would like to discuss is the fact that these two metal occur together in the same passage some 95 times in the Bible, and scholars have speculated as to why the order is sometimes “gold and silver” and at other times “silver and gold.” Meyers and Meyers offer a scenario which they feel fits the biblical data. First of all, they admit that gold was always more desirable as a metal because of its decorative value and freedom from corrosion. This, they explain, is why gold is usually listed before silver when discussing the trappings of the tabernacle and temple. However, in terms of scarcity, until the Persian Era it was silver that was the rarer metal of the two and was thus more valued as a medium of exchange. They feel this is why the pre-Persian texts almost always list silver first due to its scarcity (unless discussing the decorations in the house of God) while during the fifth century BC and later, the opposite order is found.

There is some confirmation in the first assumption above in that Baldwin states, “Silver had been known as early as gold, but it was less plentiful in ancient Babylon and Egypt.” Similarly, Meyers and Meyers are correct in noting that most, but by no means all, of the pre-Persian mentions of both metals list silver first unless it is in a cultic context. For example, in the Book of Deuteronomy the pair appears four times, always in the predicted order. And in the later Book of Daniel, the predicted order “gold and silver” appears at least two out of the three times the metals are listed together. But the story is not nearly as neat as that.

For one thing, as we turn to the much later world of the New Testament, we would expect that gold would always be listed before silver due to both its greater desirability and rarity. That is the case in I Corinthians 3:12, but not elsewhere. For example, the two metals are paired in twice in the Book of Acts (3:6 and 20:33) and only once in I Peter (1:18), and in all these cases the order is “silver and gold,” not the reverse as predicted by the Meyers' theory.

Secondly, in many Old Testament books there is a mixture of both orders present within the same book. And their theory does not explain why there isn't more consistency. Thus:

    Isaiah: 7x silver and gold; 3x gold and silver

    Job: 1x silver and gold; 2x gold and silver

    Proverbs: 5x silver and gold; 3x gold and silver

    Daniel: 1x silver and gold; 2x gold and silver

In the third place, consider the offerings that Joram presents to King David in II Samuel 8:10-11. Twice in this passage, the order is given “silver and gold.” When one goes to the later (post-Persian?) parallel in I Chronicles 18:10-11, the author has changed the order of the first pair to “gold and silver,” as Meyers and Meyers point out. What they conveniently neglect to mention, however, is that the Chronicler has for some unexplained reason left the order of the second pair intact. Similarly, a comparison of the parallel passages II Kings 23:33 and II Chronicles 36:3 shows that the Chronicler has left the original order “silver and gold” as is.

The last pair of references is also instructive in another sense. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “The relative merits of silver and gold emerge from the levy imposed on Judah by Neco, king of Egypt: a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold.” Thus, it is not the particular order of the two metals that is of importance here, but rather the relative amounts of each. Gold is obviously the much rarer and more desirable of the two. We can get the same conclusion from I Kings 10:24-25 in which the various offerings given to Solomon by neighboring nations are listed from the most important to the least. Thus, the list begins with gold and ends with mules. Silver is given after gold in this catalog.

There are other unusual features of the last-cited passage (I Kings 10) concerning the fact that “silver was not considered to be worth anything in those days.” (v. 21)   Similarly, in v. 27 we have “The king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stones.” These statements could, of course, be taken in one of two ways: “even silver, as rare as it was everywhere else, was common in Jerusalem” or “silver was never considered as desirable as gold, but now it was practically worthless.” Interestingly, the Chronicler amends this statement to read “silver and gold” instead (II Chronicles 1:15). This could reflect a later post-Persian perspective during which saying that even gold was worthless would be more meaningful. However, the Chronicler (in II Chronicles 9:14) also took the description of offerings of the nations to Solomon found in I Kings 10:14-15 which originally only mentioned gold and changed it to “gold and silver.” If silver was not considered very valuable after the Persian era, why would he have bothered mentioning it at all?

Another disruption in the Meyers' theory actually comes from the very books on which they have written major commentaries: Haggai and Zechariah. The prophetic books Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi have been closely associated in the minds of many biblical scholars not only due to their proximity in the canon but also because of their common concerns and history. See my post entitled “Unity of Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi” for more details.

The words “gold” and “silver,” separately or as a pair, occur in exactly twelve places within these three books. As Petersen has noted, these words often occur in apocalyptic passages. There are also two peculiarities to these appearances: (a) when the pair of words is present, silver is often, but not always, listed first and (b) in Zechariah 9:3, a different Hebrew word for gold is utilized than used elsewhere. As described above, the first observation has been explained as due to the relative abundance of the two metals during the time of the writings while the second fact has been attributed to a possible technical difference in the quality or source of the metal (as discussed at the start of this post). However, an alternative explanation for both phenomena is that, if Zechariah 9:3 is excluded, the order of the word pairs create an elaborate interlocking literary pattern that ties together all four prophetic books:

Haggai                                     silver and gold (2:8)

Zechariah I (chs. 1-8)                     gold (4:2) gold (2x) (4:12)

                                                silver and gold (6:11)

Zechariah IIa (chs. 9-11)               silver (9:3) silver (2x) (11:12-13)

Zechariah IIb (chs. 12-14)     silver and gold (13:9)

                                                                    gold and silver (14:14)

Malachi                                                               silver (3:3a)

                                                                    gold and silver (3:3b)

Note the contradiction to the Meyers' contention that the switch in abundance of the two metals came about during the middle of the Persian period (i.e. between the writing of Haggai and “Zechariah I” and the later books of "Zechariah II" and Malachi). Since Meyers and Meyers, as well as many conservative scholars, propose that Zechariah II was written much later than Haggai-Zechariah I, their theory would have predicted the opposite order for the pair than actually exists in Zechariah 13:9.

Consideration of the post-exilic books of Ezra and Nehemiah complicates the picture even more. The two metals under consideration appear together in three different contexts:

    1. As money for relief of the poor in Jerusalem – The order “silver and gold” occurs twice (Ezra 1:4,6) in this particular context. Meyers and Meyers feel that silver was the more valuable item of currency only until the Persians discovered other sources of this metal. Thus, the only possible explanation that the Meyers' theory could offer is that this particular passage must have referred to a time before those sources of ore had been located.

    2. Vessels recovered from the House of God that had been taken by the Babylonians – As predicted, “gold and silver” is the order given for these (Ezra 5:14; 6:5)

    3. Offerings given for the temple treasury or to help rebuild the temple – Since these are monetary offerings, one would expect according to the theory we are testing, that the order would be either “silver and gold” or “gold and silver” according to the precise time frame in which silver became more plentiful. On the other hand, one could argue that since this money was to go for the use of the temple, “gold and silver” would be the more appropriate designation at any time period. The data reveals the following: the order is “gold and silver” in Ezra 1-2 (4x), “silver and gold” in Ezra 7-8 (8x), and back to “gold and silver” in Nehemiah 7 (2x). I will leave it to a more knowledgeable person than myself to make this fit the Meyers' proposition.

In conclusion to this overly lengthy discussion, I would like to quote a saying which was popular among scientists when I was going to school: “You can always draw a straight line through two points.” That may sound a little obscure to most of you, but the gist of it is that you shouldn't formulate a theory based on limited data.