|
Herod Archealus - Ethnarch:
4 B.C. - 6 A.D.-
Bronze Prutah 13mm (1.2 grams) struck at the mint of Jerusalem 4 B.C. - 6
A.D.
Reference: Hendin 508 ($100 in 1996 edition!)
Obverse: Anchor with long, slender arms; ΗΡΩΔ (Herod)
Reverse: Double cornucopias adorned with ribbons, caduceus arising between horns; ΕΘΝ around, the N between the horns.
You are bidding on the exact item pictured,
provided with a Certificate of Authenticity and Lifetime Guarantee of
Authenticity.
Herod Archelaus (23 BC – c. 18 AD) was the
ethnarch of
Samaria,
Judea, and
Edom from 4 BC to 6
AD. He was the son of
Herod the Great and
Malthace,
the brother of
Herod
Antipas, and the half-brother of
Herod Philip I.
Archelaus received the kingdom of Judea by the last will of
his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He
was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had
submitted his claims to
Caesar Augustus in
Rome. Before setting out, he quelled with the utmost cruelty a sedition of
the Pharisees,
slaying nearly three thousand of them. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by
many of the Jews, who
feared his cruelty; but in 4 BC Augustus allotted to him the greater part of the
kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch until 6 AD when
Judaea was
brought under direct Roman rule (see
Census of Quirinius).
The first wife of Archelaus is given by Josephus simply as
Mariamne,[1]
perhaps
Mariamne III (Mariamne bint Aristobulus), whom he divorced to marry
Glaphyra.
She was the widow of Archelaus' brother Alexander, though her second husband,
Juba, king of
Mauretania,
was alive. This violation of the
Mosaic law along
with Archelaus' continued cruelty roused the ire of the Jews, who complained to
Augustus. Archelaus was deposed in the year 6 and banished to
Vienne in Gaul;
Samaria, Judea, and Idumea became the
Roman province of
Iudaea.
In the Bible, Archelaus is mentioned in the
Gospel of Matthew. According to
Matthew 2:13-23, Joseph, Mary and Jesus
fled to Egypt to avoid the
Massacre of the Innocents. When Herod the Great died, Joseph was told by an
angel in a dream to return to Israel (presumably to
Bethlehem).
However, upon hearing that Archelaus had succeeded his father as ruler of Judaea
he "was afraid to go thither" (Matthew
2:22), and was again notified in a dream to go to
Galilee. This
is Matthew's explanation of why Jesus was born in
Bethlehem
in Judea but grew
up in Nazareth.
The beginning and conclusion of Christ's
Parable of the minas in the
Gospel of Luke may refer to Archelaus's journey to Rome, in that Jesus'
parables and preaching often made use of events familiar to the people as
examples for bringing his spiritual lessons to life:
"A nobleman went into a far country to receive for
himself a kingdom and then return…But his citizens hated him and sent a
delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.'…
'But as for these enemies of mine,' [said the nobleman] 'who did not want me
to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'" (Luke
19:12,
19:14,
19:27)
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.).
|
