John Hyrcanus I (Yehohanan) King of Judaea 134-104 B.C.E
. Bronze 'Prutah' 14mm Jerusalem mint 134-104 B.C.E.
Reference: Hendin 463
Obv: Hebrew (Yehohanan the High Priest and Head of the Council of the Jews) surrounded by wreath. Rev: Two Cornucopias , pomegranate between horns, border of dots.

* Numismatic Note: Authentic ancient biblical coin, referred to in the Gospels as the Widow's Mite.

You are bidding on the exact item pictured, provided with a Certificate of Authenticity and Lifetime Guarantee of Authenticity.

The Lesson (or Parable) of the widow's mite is a story present in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:38-44, Luke 20:45-47,21:1-4), in which Jesus is teaching at the Temple in Jerusalem. The Gospel of Mark specifies that a mite was worth less than a quadrans, the smallest Roman coin, implying that Mark's intended audience were more familiar with Roman culture than with Jewish.

In Jesus' times there actually was no coin called a mite. However, there was a mite in the time of the King James translation. The denomination is well known in the Southern Netherlands. Both the duke of Brabant and the count of Flanders issued them and they were sometimes imitated in the North. Originally, the Brabant mijt (maille in French) was 1/76 stuiver, the Flemish mijt 1/48 stuiver. When the two areas were united under the dukes of Burgundy and later under the Habsburgs, the rate of the mijt was set at 1/32 stuiver. More important, they were the very smallest copper coins. By 1611 they were no longer made, but they still circulated.

It was almost a social obligation to give a silver coin at church collections, for there were many framed money galleries and armored safes that needed to be filled. Only the very poor could get away with giving a copper coin and only the desperately poor would give a copper coin as small as a mijt, as their social status could hardly sink any lower. A widow would in principle have to live without any income. The translator probably had a beggar and a contemporary widow in mind. In 1611, all this would have been self-evident to the readers.

Witnessing the donations made by the rich men, Jesus highlights how a poor widow donates only two mites, the least valuable coins available at the time. But, Jesus observes, this sum was everything she had to her name, while the other people give only a small portion of their own wealth.

Taken literally, the widow's donation of one mite could have been by obligation, since she could not have given any less. Following this reasoning, some interpreters note that Jesus sits down in judgment "opposite" (over against, in opposition to) the treasury; the lesson drawn emphasizes that, while people are impressed with the large sums that are put in, they did not notice that the temple took half of what the "poor widow" had to live on. Connected with Mark 13:1-2, "there will not be left one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down", the lesson is then interpreted as promising the overthrow of any worship of God sustained by robbery.

However, since the woman would have been under no obligation to give the second mite, when she gave "all her living" she could not have given any more. Following this reasoning, the tale is typically understood by Christians as a condemnation of the rich as they are described, for their inflated self importance displayed by the ostentatious announcements of their own generosity: which Jesus dwarfs by comparison to the widow's mite. Also, in light of its proximity to the widow's mite story, Mark 13:1-2 may imply that the widow's worship is of greater value than the Temple. Accordingly, the story is typically taken as an admonition to be wholeheartedly devoted to God, rather than concerned with pleasing men.

In earlier times, many Christians, especially the Gnostics Ebionites, Waldensians, and Franciscans, argued that the passage is an encouragement to live in poverty, and not seek riches. In the introduction to the passage, Jesus is portrayed as condemning the Pharisees who feign piety in order to gain the trust of widows, and thereby gain access to their assets; although most interpretations of this read it as criticism of the actions of certain individuals, racist groups have historically argued that the passages in question justify anti-semitism, particularly as the Gospel of Mark argues that severe punishment awaits those who follow such actions (Brown et al.).

John Hyrcanus (Yohanan Girhan) (reigned 134 BCE - 104 BCE, died 104 BCE) was a Hasmonean (Maccabeean) leader of the 2nd century BC. Apparently the name "Hyrcanus" was taken by him as a regnal name upon his accession to power.

He was the son of Simon Maccabaeus and hence the nephew of Judas Maccabaeus, Jonathan Maccabaeus and their siblings, whose story is told in the deuterocanonical books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees, in the Talmud, and in Josephus. John was not present at a banquet at which his father and his two brothers were murdered, purportedly by his brother-in-law Ptolemy. He attained to his father's former offices, that of high priest and king (although some Jews never accepted any of the Hasmoneans as being legitimate kings, as they were not lineal descendants of David).

His taking a Greek regnal name - "Hyrcanus" - was a significant political and cultural step away from the intransigent opposition to and rejection of Hellenistic culture which had characterised the Maccabean revolt against Seleucid rule. It reflected a more pragmatic recognition that Judea, once having attained independence, had to maintain its position among a milieu of small and large states which all shared the Hellenistic culture. All subsequent Hasmonean rulers followed suit and adopted Greek names in their turn.

During the first year of Hyrcanus’ reign, he faced the most serious challenge to independent Judean rule from the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus VII Sidetes marched into Judea, pillaged the countryside and laid a year long siege on Jerusalem. The prolonged siege caused Hyrcanus to remove any Judean from the city who could not assist with the defense effort (Ant.13.240). These refugees were not allowed to pass through Antiochus’ lines. Therefore, these Judeans were literally trapped in the middle of a chaotic siege. With a humanitarian crisis on his hands, Hyrcanus re-admitted his estranged Jerusalemites when the festival of Succoth arrived. Afterwards, due to massive food shortages in Jerusalem, Hyrcanus negotiated a truce with Antiochus.^[1]

The terms of the truce consisted of three thousand talents of silver as payment for Antiochus, breaking down the walls of Jerusalem, Judean participation in the Seleucid war against the Parthians, and once again Judean recognition of Seleucid control (Ant.13.245). These terms were a harsh blow to a young ruler. Furthermore, Hyrcanus needed to loot the tomb of David to pay the 3000 talents (JW 1.61).

The repercussions of the Seleucid siege were initially a difficult set-back for Hyrcanus. Judea faced tough economic times after the countryside was plundered and Jerusalem was under siege. Economic struggles were greatly magnified by taxes to the Seleucids enforced by Antiochus. Furthermore, Hyrcanus was forced to accompany Antiochus on his eastern campaign in 130 BCE. Hyrcanus probably would have functioned as the military commander of a Jewish company in the campaign.^[2] Instead of governing a devastated Judean state, Hyrcanus was in Parthia fighting with Antiochus.

Additionally, the Judean population probably lost support for the inexperienced Hyrcanus.^[3] Judeans in the countryside were especially disillusioned with Hyrcanus after Antiochus’ army plundered their land. The fact that Hyrcanus was fighting alongside Antiochus probably caused serious resentment. Furthermore Hyrcanus driving out the non-military population of Jerusalem during the siege also probably caused resentment for his rule in the city. Finally, the action of looting the Tomb of David violated his obligations as High Priest. This would have offended the religious leadership.^[4]

Therefore, at a very early point in his thirty-one year reign of Judea, Hyrcanus had lost the support of Judeans in various cultural sectors. The Jerusalemites, countryside Judeans and the religious leadership probably doubted the future of Judea under Hyrcanus. However, Hyrcanus was met with fortune in 128 BCE when Antiochus VII was killed in battle against Parthia. What followed was an era of conquest led by Hyrcanus that marked the high point of Judea as the most significant power in Syria.^[5

John Hyrcanus was able to take advantage of unrest in Seleucia to assert Judean independence and conquer new territories. Demetrius III returned from exile to take control of Seleucia. However, transition of power made it difficult for Demetrius to assert control over Judea.^[6] Furthermore, the Seleucid Empire itself fell apart into smaller principalities. The Ituraeans of Lebanon, the Ammonites of the Transjordan, and the Arabian Nabateans represented independent principalities that broke away from Seleucid control.^[7] Hyrcanus was determined to take advantage of the dissipating Seleucid Empire to increase the Judean State.

Hyrcanus also raised a new mercenary army that strongly contrasted with the Judean forces that were defeated by Antiochus VII (Ant.13.257). The Jewish population was probably still recovering from the attack of Antiochus, and therefore could not provide enough able men for a Hyrcanus-led army.^[8] Hyrcanus’ army was able financially to support by the Judean State once again by funds that Hyrcanus removed from the Tomb of David.^[9]

Hyrcanus’ first conquest was an invasion of the Transjordan. Hyrcanus’ mercenary army laid siege to the city of Medeba and took it after a six-month siege. After these victories, Hyrcanus went north towards Schechem and Mount Gerizim. The city of Schechem was reduced to a village and the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim was destroyed. This military action against Schechem has been dated archaeologically around 111-110 BCE.^[10] Destroying the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim helped ameliorate Hyrcanus’ status among religious elite and common Jews who detested any Jewish temple outside of Jerusalem.

Hyrcanus also initiated a military campaign against the Idumeans in Negev near Eilat. During this campaign Hyrcanus conquered Adora, Marisa and other Idumean towns (Ant.13.257). Hyrcanus then instituted forced conversions on the Idumeans.^[11] This was an unprecedented move for a Judean ruler.

Beginning in 113 BCE, Hyrcanus began an extensive military campaign against Samaria. Hyrcanus placed his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus in charge of the siege of Samaria. The Samarians called for help and eventually received 6000 troops from Antiochus Cyzicenus. Although the siege lasted for a long, difficult year, Hyrcanus was unwilling to give up his siege. Ultimately, Samaria was overrun and totally destroyed. Cyzicenus’ mercenary army was defeated and the city of Scythopolis seems to have been occupied by Hyrcanus as well.^[12] The inhabitants of Samaria where then put into slavery. These slaves were not Israelites or worshippers of YHWH. Instead, the Samarians sent into slavery were Macedonians.

At the end of his reign, John Hyrcanus had built a kingdom that rivaled the size of Israel under King Solomon.

Economy, Foreign Relations, and Religion

After the siege of Jerusalem, Hyrcanus faced a serious economic crisis in Judea. We can assume that the economic difficulties subsided after the death of Antiochus VII. Hyrcanus no longer had to pay taxes or tributes to a weaker Seleucia.^[13] The economic situation eventually improved enough for Hyrcanus to issue his own coinage (see below). On top of that, Hyrcanus initiated vital building projects in Judea. Hyrcanus re-built the walls destroyed by Antiochus. He also built a fortress north of the Temple called the Baris and potentially the fortress Hyrcania.^[14]

Moreover, Hyrcanus sought for good relations with the surrounding Gentile powers, especially the growing Roman Empire. Two decrees were passed in the Roman Senate that established a treaty of friendship with Judea.^[15] Although it is difficult to specifically date these resolutions, they represent efforts made between Hyrcanus and Rome to maintain stable relations. Also, an embassy sent by Hyrcanus received Roman confirmation of Hasmonean independence.^[16] Hyrcanus was an excellent case of a ruler backed by Roman support. In addition to Rome, Hyrcanus was able to maintain steady relations with Egypt. This was probably made possible due to various Jews living in Egypt who had connections with the Ptolemaic Court (Ant. 13.284-287). Finally, the cities of Athens and Pergamum even showed honor to Hyrcanus in an effort to appease Rome.^[17]

Furthermore, the minting of coins by Hyrcanus demonstrates Hyrcanus’ willingness to delegate power. Sixty-three coins found near Bethlehem bear the inscription, “Yohanan the High Priest.” The reserve side of the coins contains the phrase, “The Assembly of the Jews.” This seems to suggest that during his reign, Hyrcanus was not an absolute ruler. Instead, Hyrcanus had to submit at times to an assembly of Jews that had a certain amount of minority power.^[18] The coins lack any depictions of animals or humans. This suggests that Hyrcanus strictly followed the Jewish prohibition against graven images. The coins also seem to suggest that Hyrcanus considered himself to be primarily the High Priest of Judea, and his rule of Judea was shared with the Assembly.^[19]

In Judea, religious issues were a core aspect of domestic policy. Josephus only reports one specific conflict between the Pharisees and Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.288-296). Essentially, criticism of Hyrcanus’ roles as High Priest and ethnarch by the Pharisees led to a falling out. ^[20] Thus, this conflict between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees elevated the status of the Sadducees. However, there is good reason to doubt this account by Josephus. First of all, Josephus reports elsewhere that the Pharisees did not grow to power until the reign of Queen Salome (JW.1.110) The coins minted under Hyrcanus suggest that Hyrcanus did not have complete secular authority. Furthermore, this account may represent a piece of Pharisaic apologetics due to Josephus’ pharisaic background.^[21] Therefore, this account might represent a historical creation meant to elevate the status of the Pharisees during the height of the Hasmonean Dynasty. There were probably tensions because of the religious and secular leadership roles held by Hyrcanus. However, it is difficult to assume that this account by Josephus is an accurate re-telling of the relationship between Hyrcanus, the Pharisees and the Sadducees at that time.

Ultimately, one of the final acts of Hyrcanus’ life was an act that solved any kind of dispute over his role as high priest and ethnarch. In the will of Hyrcanus, he provisioned for the division of the high priesthood from secular authority. Hyrcanus’ wife was given control of civil authority after his death, and his son Judas Aristobulus was given the role of High Priest. This action represented Hyrcanus’ willingness to compromise over the issue of secular and religious authority.^[22]