You are bidding on a lot of 92 authentic ancient
coins known as Widow's Mites from ancient Jerusalem
from circa 103 B.C. - 35 A.D. They measure circa 8-12 millimeters.
Some of the coins date back to
Alexander Jannaeus (Yehonatan) -
Jewish King of the Hosmonean Kingdom 103-76 B.C.E. -
Alexander Jannaeus (also known as Alexander Jannai/Yannai), king
of Judea from
(103 BCE to 76 BCE), son of
John
Hyrcanus, inherited the throne from his brother
Aristobulus, and appears to have married his brother's widow, Shlomtzion
or "Shelomit", also known as
Salome Alexandra, according to the Biblical law of Yibum ("levirate
marriage"), although
Josephus is
inexplicit on that point.
Others are of rulers of Judaea in
between. These coins were struck in ancient
Jerusalem and were circulating during the time of
Jesus Christ.
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.). |