Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T02:25:20.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“A Treasure for the Poor”: The Contents of the Temple Treasures according to 2 Macc 3:10 in Light of the Biblical and Ancient Jewish and Christian Traditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2020

Francisco Martins
Francisco Martins*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; francisc.martins1@mail.huji.ac.il
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The attack of Heliodorus on the temple in 2 Macc 3 is the first of a series of events occupying the narrative core of the book. In the first act of the story, a dispute arises over the actual contents of the temple treasury, with the high priest Onias claiming that they are “deposits of widows and orphans” (3:10). This essay focuses on this detail and shows that it entails an as yet unnoticed connection with a core of biblically ingrained traditions that gain momentum in the Second Temple period and come to the fore afterwards in the works of ancient Jewish and Christian authors: traditions that equate God’s money with money intended for the poor. In order to substantiate my claim, I survey texts in Deuteronomy, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah in search of hints of this process of “pauperization” of God’s property, and proceed to investigate the history of reception of 2 Macc 3:10 in the Latin translations, among the church fathers, and in the post-Talmudic work Josippon. The aim is to demonstrate that 2 Macc 3:10 became a productive link in the rhetorical formulation of a topos which bore long-lasting literary, theological, and practical fruits.

Keywords

2 Maccabeestemple treasurypoorcharityhistory of receptionearly Christianityancient Judaism
Type
Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 113 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 210 - 229
Copyright
© President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2020

Introduction

The topic of almsgiving and care for the poor in the sources of the Second Temple period and ancient Judaism and Christianity has not suffered neglect as of late. The recent and stimulating bibliography, where the works by Richard Finn, Peter Brown, Gary Anderson, Yael Wilfand, and Gregg Gardner figure most prominently, proves the point beyond any reasonable doubt.Footnote 1 In this essay, however, I would like to highlight a text that is seldom brought to the discussion, 2 Macc 3, and to read it as yet another link in a chain of texts and traditions that equate God’s money or sacred property with money or property given or intended for the poor.

In this group of traditions, the main stream insists on the vertical dimension of the acts of charity, namely, almsgiving: by acting generously toward the poor, the faithful are simultaneously making a loan to God and establishing a “treasure in heaven,” from which they (and their offspring!) may “withdraw credit” in a time of need. This idea has biblical roots and would have a long and fruitful history of reception in both Judaism and Christianity.Footnote 2 Another stream, secondary in nature, and upon which I would like to elaborate here, applies the same thematic equation, but this time in order to characterize “God’s earthly treasures,” the treasures of the temple, and, in the case of Christianity, the treasures of the church, as property of the poor, provision for the needy.

2 Macc 3:10: The “Deposits of Widows and Orphans”

2 Maccabees 3 tells the story of the averted inspection of the temple treasury by Heliodorus, the official of King Seleucus IV Philopator (second century BCE). In its present context, the story of this “attack” on the temple is the first of the series of events that occupy the narrative core of 2 Maccabees (3:1–15:36). This piece, which may have had an independent existence before being inserted in the book,Footnote 3 parallels other accounts written in praise of a god or goddess who prevents his or her temple from being sacked or destroyed by a foreign invader. We have examples both in the ancient Near East (see the so-called Kedorlaomer Texts of Nippur) and in the Greek literature (see Herodotus, Hist. 8.35–39; the Lindos Chronicle).Footnote 4 Among all these different accounts, lines of comparison can be drawn, and the conventional character of our story has been emphasized often, even if a historical core is discernible and should be maintained.Footnote 5 In any case, the objective of the present essay is to highlight the peculiarity of 2 Macc 3, or a peculiarity within it, and to insist on its literary and theological links with other biblical and, especially, postbiblical texts.

My focus is on the question of the actual contents of the temple treasury, an issue that divides the protagonists in the first act of the story: 2 Macc 3:1–11. The text employs the word γαζοφυλάκιον (2 Macc 3:6, 24, 28, 40), which Bickerman qualifies as a “technical term for a room where money is kept,”Footnote 6 to designate this storage facility about which there seems to be no consensus. In fact, the text opposes two voices: that of the “impious Simon,”Footnote 7 who has convinced the Seleucid authorities that the money given by the king was being unlawfully kept and used for other purposes than the cultFootnote 8 and that of Onias, the high priest, who contends:

there were some deposits belonging to widows and orphans (παρακαταθήκας ɛἶναι χηρῶν τɛ καὶ ὀρφανῶν), and also some money of Hyrcanus son of Tobias, a man of very prominent position (τινὰ δὲ καὶ Ὑρκανοῦ τοῦ τωβιοɛ σφόδρα ἀνδρὸς ἐν ὑπɛροχη), and that it totaled in all 400 talents of silver and 200 of gold. To such an extent the impious Simon had misrepresented the facts. (2 Macc 3:10–11 NETS)

This puzzling assertion by the most qualified and unambiguously endorsed character of the story, the pious Onias, is at the center of my inquiry. The most common interpretation of these words insists, on the one hand, on the fact that the temple had become, by the late Second Temple period, a place where private individuals could lay their riches for safekeeping,Footnote 9 and, on the other hand, on the fact that the widows had profited from the changes in the laws of inheritance and, in some cases, as suggested in the book of Judith, disposed of large fortunes.Footnote 10 Coupling these two statements, the commentators and translators take both the first genitives (χηρῶν, ὀρφανῶν) and the second (Ὑρκανοῦ) as possessive or/and subjective genitives and recognize in the high priest’s words an assertion about the effects of the new social and economic circumstances over the temple’s economy and administration.Footnote 11

I would like to join my voice to that of a (current) minority of commentators and translators and challenge this interpretation of the words of Onias, especially in what concerns the deposits of widows and orphans.Footnote 12 With them, I contend that there are historical, and especially, literary reasons to read an objective genitive, at least in these first two cases: deposits for—or on behalf of—widows and orphans, instead of deposits of—in other words, the possessions of—(rich) widows and orphans.Footnote 13

Historically speaking, the scenario classically invoked is a plausible one; yet, precisely one of the extra-Jewish sources that is frequently quoted to justify it—a passage from Titus Livy’s De urbe condita—points to an alternative understanding of the provenance and purpose of these deposits. In a dramatic situation of lack of funds in the state treasury, the text seems to suggest that money or property of widows and orphans to be laid up for safekeeping can indeed be provided by others and intended only for the relief of these two groups of people.Footnote 14 So, properly speaking, they are deposits on behalf of the poor, rather than deposits of (rich) widows and orphans.

If this alternative scenario is not historically impossible, the literary and theological overtones of the hendiadys “widows and orphans” in the biblical and parabiblical literature seem to reinforce the direction of interpretation suggested here. A quick look at the evidence, like the recent one of Schellenberg, shows that in the ancient Near East in general and in the biblical world in particular, widows and orphans were personae miserae par excellence, the personification of poverty and want, those in need of assistance and protection against the social “law of the jungle.”Footnote 15 Reading the declaration of the high priest against this background, it is almost inevitable to take it as a kind of pious note: the money stored in the temple serves the purpose of bringing relief to those who are proverbially nonproprietors.

Building upon this lead, I would like to go a step further and claim that 2 Macc 3:10 is the result of more than just a circumstantial outburst of piety. In a subtle, yet concrete way, the text participates in a tendency to “pauperize” sacred property, to understand “God’s earthly riches” as first and foremost “money of mercy,” property of the destitute, aurum utile (useful gold), to use the terms of Ambrose of Milan.

The “Pauperization” of God’s Property: Deuteronomy, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah

The biblical origins of the motif can be traced back to the book of Deuteronomy. As Gary Anderson noted, the legislation concerning the “tithe of the poor” (Deut 14:22–29 and 26:12–15) already suggests the commencement of the process. The most striking feature of these texts is that the tithe given to the resident alien, the orphans, and the widows remains a “sacred portion” (הַקֹּדֶשׁ) in the liturgical declaration of the Israelite:

When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year … giving it to the Levites, the aliens, the orphans, and the widows, so that they may eat their fill within your towns, then you shall say before the LORD your God: “I have removed the sacred portion (הַקֹּדֶשׁ) from the house and I have given it to the Levites, the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows, in accordance with your entire commandment that you commanded me.” (Deut 26:12–13a NRSV)

In Anderson’s interpretation, we have here what he calls “the beginnings of the sacralization of gifts to the poor.”Footnote 16 In my opinion, it is also legitimate to claim the precise opposite: the Deuteronomy law code constitutes the first movement of a process of “pauperization” of sacred property: the tithe that lawfully belongs to God but is now put to the service of the poor as a material concretization, with practical effects, of the deity’s promise to take care of the destitute and the weak.Footnote 17

As noted by the commentators, the produce in question never comes to the temple, never ends up deposited there, even if its sacral status is fully affirmed: it is to be stored “within your towns” (Deut 14:28). Curiously, this clause may have been revoked by the late Second Temple period, at least literarily. When Tobit describes his dedication to the temple in Jerusalem in the first chapter of the eponymous book (see Tob 1:4–8), the practice of consecrating the tithe, also the “tithe of the poor,” is given a prominent place. Yet, if an argument ex silentio is permissible in this case, no reference is made to storage within the towns of origin. On the contrary, the text seems to suggest precisely the opposite: everything was brought to Jerusalem to be distributed there.

And only I alone often went to Jerusalem to the festivals just as it had been written for all Israel as an everlasting decree. I was accustomed to hurry off to Jerusalem, taking the first fruits and the firstlings and a tenth of the cattle and the first shearing of the sheep…. And I was accustomed to give these to the orphans and widows and proselytes who attached themselves to the children of Israel. I used to bring it and give it to them in the third year. (Tob 1:6.8a [Codex Sinaiticus])Footnote 18

If it is correct, at least on a literary level, that part of “God’s portion” that had been turned into “property of the poor” is now brought and given in Jerusalem, probably in the temple, the possibility is then opened of conceiving of the latter as a kind of “relief center,” where God appears as “father of the orphans and judge of the widows in his dwelling [italics added],” as stated in Ps 68:6.Footnote 19

This same motif can be read, as if in a negative image, in a text more or less contemporaneous with both Tobit and 2 Maccabees, the Epistle of Jeremiah. This radical criticism of the idols and idolatry denounces the inability of the former to “take pity (ἐλɛήσωσιν) on a widow [and] treat an orphan well” (Ep Jer 37), suggesting that the care for these personae miserae is a quality of the only true God, the God of Israel.Footnote 20 Furthermore, just beforehand, the text censures the misconduct of the idolatrous priests and their wives, who appropriate for themselves the goods consecrated to the idols (“sacred property”) and deny the poor and the helpless a share in it (see Ep Jer 27). Again, by way of contrast, the application of the property turned sacred (“sacrifices”) to the relief of those without appears as a sign of the true cult and priesthood.Footnote 21

This text is particularly important because it can illuminate yet further the episode related in 2 Macc 3. If, as stated, one of the signs of the true deity is his ability to take care and protect orphans and widows, by asserting his authority over his temple and, more precisely, over “his treasury,” where money of or for widows and orphans is kept, the God of Israel is enacting a theological statement about his unmistakable identity and power. Furthermore, his action has also a somewhat pedagogical purpose. The care of widows and orphans was simultaneously a divine and a kingly prerogative and responsibility.Footnote 22 By preventing the confiscation of the money deposited for the sake of the widows and orphans (see 2 Macc 3:13), God is also, through his high priest, reasserting the ethical framework that should characterize not only his but also the king’s action and somehow “educating” the Seleucid authorities to behave accordingly.Footnote 23

Summarizing my argument so far, I believe the sources just explored (Deuteronomy, Tobit, and the Epistle of Jeremiah) offer the possibility of recognizing in 2 Macc 3:10 a hint of the tradition conceiving of “God’s earthly treasures” as “deposits” for the relief of the poor. What remains in this text and in the biblical and Second Temple period sources only a literary trace, an emerging feature, comes to the fore in ancient Christian and Jewish times, turning 2 Macc 3—appropriately, I contend—into a productive link in the rhetorical formulation of a topos that bore long-lasting literary, theological, and even practical fruits.

The History of Reception of 2 Macc 3:10: Ancient Christianity

As expected, the history of the reception of 2 Maccabees is more significant among the Christian authors than among their Jewish counterparts. Yet, as we shall see, a late text gives testimony to a shared interpretative dynamic.

In the Christian sphere, and more specifically in Latin-speaking Christianity, a good point of departure is the ancient Latin translations of 2 Maccabees.Footnote 24 The late date of the manuscripts and the use of the term “Vulgate” can be misleading in this case. As asserted by the editor, the texts of the Lyon (L) and Madrid (X) manuscripts reflect translations, or a translation and its revision, that can be dated to the third or fourth century CE, with a certain degree of certitude. Concerning the text of the so-called Vulgate of 2 Maccabees (V), it is important to know that it is not a translation by Jerome, but the question remains if it is a pre- or post-Jeromian text.Footnote 25 For my purposes, it is sufficient to assert that we are dealing here with ancient, most probably pre-fifth-century, translations of the Greek text of Maccabees.

L: “Then the high priest declared that these were deposits of the widows and the orphans (deposita esse uiduarum et pupillorum), some of which belonged to an orphan, son of Tobias, a man of great dignity (orfani tobiae uiri ualde eminentis).”

X: “Then the high priest declared that it was a deposit, provision for the subsistence of the widows and the orphans (depositum esse uictum uiduarum et pupillorum), some of which belonged to an orphan, son of Tobias, a man of great dignity (orfani tobie, uiri ualde eminentissimi).”

V: “Then the high priest declared that these were deposits and provisions for the subsistence of the widows and the orphans (deposita esse haec et uictalia uiduarum ac pupillorum)” (translation mine).

Two aspects of the Latin rendering of the high priest’s declaration in 2 Macc 3:10–11a are noteworthy. First, the adding of the term victum or victualia in texts X and V. In the case of the former, the word victum, translated here as “provision” (“that which sustains life”), qualifies the depositum, picturing a scenario where the contents of the treasury of the temple serve as that which allows the poor to continue to live, and not as spare money of rich widows and lucky orphans. The Vulgate text follows a similar path but makes a distinction: next to the deposits (plural), there were victualia for widows and orphans kept in the treasury. More than “nourishment,” I think it is advisable to translate the term victualia according to its consequential meaning—“subsistence”—in which case at least part of the money kept in the treasury was intended as a provision for the poor. The second aspect, equally revealing, pertains to the changing identity of the son of Tobias, Hyrcanus in the Greek text. Already in L, probably the most ancient text, the son of Tobias is now the “orphan of Tobias” (orfani tobiae), a change that aligns that mention of an individual with the general declaration about the contents of the gazophylacium: it all pertains exclusively to widows and orphans. This tendency is also visible in X. It reflects a desire for coherence that seems to stem from a “providentialistic” understanding of the function of the temple treasury: it serves only widows and orphans, so this son of Tobias has to be characterized as an orphan, even if in this case it is doubtful whether he counts as just another beneficiary. Be that as it may, this preoccupation with declaring the son of Tobias an orphan seems to result from the same process of “pauperization” of the sacred property that puts a finger on the “provisioning” character of the deposita, making explicit what in the Greek text remained only a hint.

The Wirkungsgeschichte (history of effects) of 2 Macc 3:10 can also be recognized, although in an indirect manner, in the way the ancient Christian authors, both Latin and Greek, understand the reality behind the term γαζοφυλάκιον/gazophylacium. It must be said that the Greek lexeme appears twenty-five times in the Septuagint, of which four instances are in 2 Macc 3 and another two are in the same book (2 Macc 4:42; 5:18). It also features in the LXX of Kings (4 Kgdms 23:11), 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Nehemiah, Esther, 1 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees.Footnote 26 It is very important to note that in none of these texts is this “treasury” associated with money or property pertaining to widows and orphans or used in a context where the care for the poor is invoked. Second Maccabees 3 stands out as the only place in the LXX where the γαζοφυλάκιον appears directly linked with the destiny of these two groups of people.

The term under scrutiny occurs five times in the New Testament, most notably in the episode of the widow who puts two mites in the treasury of the temple, a story recorded in both Mark and Luke (Mk 12:41, 43; Lk 21:1), and in a passage in John as a locative complement (see John 8:20: “Jesus spoke these words in the treasury” [italics added]).Footnote 27 Both the Greek and the Latin church fathers felt the urge to inform their interlocutors about the reality of the temple treasury when commenting on these texts, especially the episode of the generous widow. It is interesting to notice how they assume prima facie that the γαζοφυλάκιον, the temple treasury, stored money/goods intended for the relief of the poor. While exploring the anagogical meaning of the temple structure and cult in his Commentary on John, Origen starts by explaining the plain, “historical,” function of the γαζοφυλάκιον: “It is a place of coins contributed for the honor of God and a dispensation of relief to the poor (ὅπɛρ ἐστὶν τόπος νομισμάτων ɛἰς τιμὴν θɛοῦ καὶ οἰκονομίαν ἀναπαύσɛως πɛνήτων προσφɛρομένων).”Footnote 28 The editor of the treatise in the Sources Chrétiennes declares in a note that the OT is silent on the topic and suggests that Origen may have obtained this information from the rabbis with whom he was in contact.Footnote 29 In my opinion, the alleged silence is only apparent and, building on the literary phenomenon observed in the ancient Latin translations, it is possible to postulate 2 Macc 3 as the source or one of the sources of the idea, even if Origen does not state it openly.Footnote 30 The same holds true for the comments by Cyprian of Carthage and John Chrysostom (or a text attributed to him). In fact, in both cases, the assumed connection with the tradition underlining the formulation in 2 Macc 3:10 is even stronger, with the use of the motif “widows and orphans” to characterize the beneficiaries of the money stored in the treasury. Cyprian, praising the poor widow of the gospel, says: “And, although everything that is given is conferred upon widows and orphans, she gives, whom it befitted to receive (cumque uniuersa quae dantur pupillis et uiduis conferantur, dat illa quam oportebat accipere).”Footnote 31 John Chrysostom, for his part, calls the same widow “a poor lover of the poor (τὴν πτωχὴν φιλόπτωχον)” and refers to the γαζοφυλάκιον as “the treasury of widows and orphans (τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον τῶν χηρῶν καὶ ὀρφανῶν).”Footnote 32

At this point, some caution, or at least some nuancing, is in order. As Lampe implied in his Patristic Lexicon, the Greek lexeme under scrutiny was also used to designate an offertory box that presumably existed in some churches.Footnote 33 It is then tempting to explain the appearance of the motif under study as an anachronistic projection of a later historical practice onto Jesus’s times. However, as Richard Finn noted, at least in the case of Origen, the term is used only to refer to the treasury of the Jerusalem temple, never to an institution of his own times.Footnote 34 Furthermore, even if we admit the existence of such alms boxes or funds in the churches of the fourth and fifth centuries, it is the conceptual contours that occupy us here, and it is only reasonable to assume that the biblical heritage molded not only the hermeneutic expectations of the Christian authors but also the rhetoric (if not the onomastic!) surrounding the church institutions.Footnote 35 I claim that 2 Macc 3 played an active role in this process, being the only biblical pericope where the γαζοφυλάκιον features as a place of coins where widows and orphans, the proverbial poor, can have a share.

Last, and still within the Christian world, let us turn to Ambrose of Milan and his De Officiis (On Duties). There, we find a detailed paraphrase of the story of the “attack” on the temple. This author is important for my argument not only because he uses 2 Macc 3 as textual proof but also because he is a key actor in the patristic elaboration of the idea that the riches of the church are patrimonia pauperum (patrimony of the poor) and ought to be used for the purpose of bringing rescue to the destitute and all those in dire straits.

Ambrose wrote his De Officiis in the late 380s, using as a literary model the homonymic work by Cicero. Dedicated to his filii (sons), the Milanese clerical body, the treatise was designed to reach a much wider readership and was most probably intended as a Christian replacement for the Ciceronian classic and the pagan moral perspective expressed in it.Footnote 36

In book 2, between nos. 136 and 151, Ambrose discusses a series of episodes, old and recent, that turn around the use and conservation of the riches belonging or entrusted to the church. The section begins with an answer to the Milanese Homoeans who criticize him for having broken up and sold church vessels to ransom some of the captives taken by the Goths. The bishop defends himself by arguing that the gold of the church should be at the service of the poor and needy, accomplishing that which the blood of Christ also accomplished (see no. 138).Footnote 37 In this context, Ambrose reminds his interlocutors of the story of Lawrence, a third-century deacon of the city of Rome, who, contrary to king Jehoiachin of Judah (see 2 Kgs 24), preferred to give the money of the church to those to whom it legitimately belonged, the poor, rather than to hand it over to the persecutor, in this case the Roman emperor Valerian, receiving as reward “the sacred crown of martyrdom” (no. 141). Next, Ambrose engages in a paraphrase of 2 Macc 3 and, finally, evokes a recent episode that took place at Pavia, where a bishop was called to protect property entrusted to the church by a widow, whose creditors had obtained an imperial rescript authorizing them to take it as payment for debts (see nos. 150–151).

As emerges from this short outline, a distinction between the first two exempla, Ambrose’s and Lawrence’s actions, and the last two is in order: the author of the De Officiis and the brave deacon dispose of the riches of the church; the high priest in 2 Macc 3 and the bishop of Pavia protect property, deposits entrusted to the church. Still, such a caution does not preclude recognizing in the text the process of “pauperization” of the sacred treasur(i)es. Ambrose creates a literary continuum between the selling of sacred vessels in order to liberate captives and the heroic resistance to the imperial authority for the sake of property belonging to a widow in distress: in all four cases, the treasures or the money kept by the church are to be used or preserved for the sake of the destitute or those in a position of weakness.Footnote 38 Actually, the paraphrase of 2 Macc 3 starts with a revealing introductory comment in this regard. Ambrose explains that the property entrusted to the temple was saved solely “because it was registered there only in the interest of widows (solo viduarum nomine)” (no. 144), offering the angle from which to look at the miraculous intervention of God and to grasp its rationale. Furthermore, his paraphrase of the story seems to share the hermeneutic bias we found in the ancient Latin translations: the deposits are “viduarum victualia et pupillorum” (provisions [for the subsistence] of widows and orphans) (no. 146).Footnote 39 This view, just as in the case of Origen, Cyprian, and John Chrysostom, receives additional confirmation via Ambrose’s explanation of the reality of the gazophylacium, while commenting on a gospel passage in the letter to Irenaeus, written around the time of the redaction of the De Officiis: “What is the treasury? It is the collection of the faithful, the expenditure on the poor, the refuge of the needy (Quid est gazophylacium? Collatio fidelium, sumptus pauperum, requies egenorum).”Footnote 40

Decisive for my purposes is the fact that Ambrose chose 2 Macc 3 as the biblical exemplum in the context of his apology, in order to illustrate how the treasur(i)es of the church should be used and administrated by its ministers. It shows that, at the time when the bishops need to justify their growing authority over the growing riches of the church, especially in the West, 2 Macc 3 emerged as a key text in what I have been calling the “pauperization” of sacred property—a process in which the bishop of Milan was a major player, alongside Augustine of Hippo, Julianus Pomerius, and the Councils of Gaul in the fourth to fifth century, just to name some of the main protagonists for the period of late antiquity in the Latin West.Footnote 41

2 Macc 3:10 and the Jewish Tradition

To conclude and, in a sense, to “close the circle,” a word about the topic in the rabbinic and other ancient Jewish sources. Second Maccabees remained secondary in the development of this religious tradition, and only a late text, the Josippon, allows us an insight into the ongoing exegetical dynamics.Footnote 42 Yet, I would like to address here briefly two other earlier sources, where the motif or conceptual framework under scrutiny finds an echo.

The first one is a text from the Mishnah Šeqalim, where we find a description of the so-called chamber of secrets:

There were two chambers in the Temple: one, the chamber of secrets (לשכת חשאים), and one, the chamber of vessels. Those who feared sin would deposit within [the chamber of secrets] in secret, and poor people of good background (עניים בני טובים) would be supported from there in secret (בחשאי). Anyone who donated a vessel, that vessel would be thrown into the chamber of vessels. Every thirty days, the treasurer would open it. Every vessel they found that was useful for maintaining the Temple, they would leave it. The rest were sold, and their proceeds fell to the chamber for Temple maintenance. (m. Šeqal. 5:6)Footnote 43

As Wilfand recently stated, the information concerning this institution is rather elusive. In contrast to the קופה (quppah: the communal fund) and the תמחוי (tamḥuy: the communal soup kitchen), this chamber is mentioned only here and in the Tosefta, where it is affirmed that it was present “in every town” (t. Šeq. 2:16). Its existence is then very doubtful.Footnote 44 Two details deserve to be highlighted. First, the construction in parallel. The upkeep of the temple by way of donations of vessels is paralleled with the sustenance of the poor from good families (formerly wealthy poor) by way of gifts deposited in secret. The Mishnah builds on the common, biblically rooted, idea that almsgiving and devotion to the temple went hand in hand and were comparable and complementary virtuous deeds. Second, and more relevant here, a temple chamber appears as a kind of a “relief center” for the poor of good background, protecting them from embarrassment and public shame.Footnote 45 This elegant, and probably only literary, solution seems to betray a mindset comparable to that which we found in 2 Macc 3:10. Property kept in the Jerusalem sanctuary, fruit of the generosity of pious patrons, was intended for those in need, and the latter could live off the proceeds.

This “providentialistic” picture of God’s earthly abode leads us to a second text, from Tanḥuma (or Yelammedenu), where a midrashic twist offers still another angle to the motif:

[Deut 14:29:] “Then the Levite, because he has no share or inheritance … shall come.” R. Judah b. R. Simon said: The Holy One said: As for you, you have four children in the house, and I have four grandchildren. [Deut 16:14:] “And you shall rejoice during your festival, you, and your son, and your daughter, your bond servant, and your bondmaid.” [These are] yours. [ibid., cont.:] “the Levite and the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow.” [These are] mine. So they all are in a single verse. If you give joy to mine during the festival days that I have given you, I will give joy to yours in the house of your choosing [the temple]. It is so stated [in Isa 56:7]: I will bring them unto my holy hill and give them joy in my house of prayer. (Tanḥ. [ed. Buber], Re’eh 17.4)Footnote 46

In this Midrash, the verse on Deut 14:29 concerning the praxis of the “tithe of the poor” is linked with the verse on Deut 16:14 on the shared joy of both a man’s household and all those Levites, resident aliens, orphans, and widows living within his gates, during the festival of Sukkot. In itself, the linkage is not unexpected, but the rabbinic exegesis it arouses is. It allows “cutting” the list of Deut 16:14 into two and creating a parallel between the Israelite and God: just as his son, his daughter, his male and his female servants constitute his household, so the Levites, the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows are God’s extended family, upon whom he bestows what is generously given to him. The process of “pauperization” of God’s property that we recognize in the Deuteronomic law code receives here a confirmation and is enhanced with a new metaphor, that of the care of a paterfamilias for his household, who rejoices with his provider, thanks to the generosity of the people.Footnote 47

These two examples serve only to illustrate how the conceptual framework under investigation finds an echo in rabbinic Judaism. The text of Josippon, on the other hand, reintroduces 2 Macc 3 into the post-Talmudic stream of the tradition. This late text, probably from the tenth century,Footnote 48 used as the source for its paraphrase of the episode a Christian text (most probably the Latin version of the Bible).Footnote 49 It reflects, however, an interpretative turn that goes a step further in asserting the “usefulness” of the gold kept in the treasury:

The priest replied: There is no other gold in the treasury (באוצר) except the gold that the king Seleucus and other kings gave to the treasury of our God for the sustenance of orphans and widows (למחית יתומים ואלמנות), on which we pray to our God for the life of the king and his sons (על אשר אנחנו נתפלל אל אלהינו לחיי המלך ולבניו). (Josippon 11.17–19)Footnote 50

The formulation represents a point of culmination. In the Greek/Latin texts of 2 Macc 3, the money given by the Seleucid monarch was intended for the sacrificial cult (see 2 Macc 3:3), the raison d’être of ancient temples. Here, on the contrary, the royal gifts are put exclusively, as seemed to be implied in the words of Onias, to the service of orphans and widows, as if this was the sole purpose for the existence of the temple treasury and, perhaps, the temple itself. Furthermore, it is (solely) on the basis of his generous endowment of the now “charity-metamorphized” institution that the king and his sons become the object of the prayers raised up to God, a practice classically bound up with the royal funding of the sacrifices. The equation of God’s (stored) money and money for the poor is now boldly expressed, with even the sacrificial dynamics acquiring a definite “providentialistic” face.Footnote 51

Conclusion

With this brief survey of a number of biblical and ancient Jewish and Christian sources, I hope to have been able to demonstrate at least two things. First, the process of “pauperization” of the sacred property, as I chose to call it in the essay, started long before the Latin formulation that perpetuated the idea (“res ecclesiae sunt patrimonia pauperum”: “the goods of the church are patrimony of the poor”) and, like the tradition about the theological rationale of almsgiving, is rooted in the biblical heritage and its reception in the texts of the Second Temple period. Second, and more importantly, 2 Macc 3 is, very frequently, a missing link in this story. In an elusive, but artful manner, the declaration of Onias, the high priest, builds upon an emerging charity-oriented refiguration of God’s earthly riches, itself part of a bigger picture, and will stimulate the further development of the tradition within the Christian and Jewish worlds.

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Professors Gary Anderson and Ronnie Goldstein for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this essay. I also wish to acknowledge the Portuguese research funding institution Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) for supporting my research (PhD fellowship reference: SFRH/BD/128525/2017).

References

1 See Richard Finn, Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire: Christian Promotion and Practice 313–450 (OCM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Peter Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire (The Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures; Hanover: University Press of New England, 2002); idem, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012); Gary A. Anderson, Charity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013); Yael Wilfand, The Wheel That Overtakes Everyone: Poverty and Charity in the Eyes of Sages in the Land of Israel (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2017) [Hebrew]; Gregg Gardner, The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).

2 For an excellent survey of the main biblical and postbiblical sources and their reception in Judaism and Christianity, see Anderson, Charity.

3 This is the position of Daniel Schwartz. According to him, 2 Macc 3:1–40 did not belong to the work of Jason of Cyrene abridged by the epitomist (see 2 Macc 2:23). He believes that it forms a unit closed within itself and therefore that the story derives from “a special source” (see Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees [CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008] 4–6). Schwartz does not say whether he is thinking of a source like the one Jonathan Goldstein suggested: the memoirs of Onias IV (see Jonathan Goldstein, “The Tales of the Tobiads,” in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty [ed. Jacob Neusner; 4 vols.; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975] 3:85–123). For a skeptical assessment of this last hypothesis, see Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (CBQMS 12; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981) 17–18.

4 On this topic, see Niels Stokholm, “Zür Überlieferung von Heliodor (2 Makk. 3), Kturnaḥḥunte, und anderen missglückten Tempelräubern,” ST 22 (1968) 1–28. For a new assessment of the date of composition of the so-called Kedorlaomer Texts, now believed to betray a historiographical style that developed only during the late Persian or early Hellenistic period (late 4th or 3rd century BCE), see Geert de Breucker, “Heroes and Sinners: Babylonian Kings in Cuneiform Historiography of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods,” in Political Memory in and After the Persian Empire (ed. Jason M. Silverman and Caroline Waerzeggers; ANEM 13; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015) 75–94; Michael Jursa, “A Babylonian Priestly Martyr, a King-like Priest, and the Nature of Late Babylonian Priestly Literature,” WZKM 107 (2017) 77–98.

5 The recent publication of a stele that was discovered in Maresha (Idumea) has brought new data to the issue of the historicity of the episode related in 2 Macc 3. The stele contains a decree by Seleucus IV concerning the reorganization of the administration of the temples in Coele-Syria and Phoenike, dated from 178 BCE. In the three letters that form the corpus of the stele, and by which the decree quoted in the third is to be enforced, appear both the Seleucid king recalled in 2 Macc 3 and his chief minister, Heliodorus. This “happy coincidence” allowed the researchers to propose new understandings for the controversy between Onias and the Seleucid authorities, who had decided to name someone to take care of the temples. The original publication: Hannah M. Cotton and Michael Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros: A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel,” ZPE 159 (2007) 191–205. For a recent attempt to read the episode of Heliodorus in the light of the epigraphic evidence, see Uriel Rappaport, “Did Heliodoros Try to Rob the Treasures of the Jerusalem Temple? Date and Probability of the Story of II Maccabees, 3,” REJ 170 (2011) 3–19.

6 Elias J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (ed. Amram Tropper; 2 vols.; 3rd ed.; AGJU 68/1; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 1:436. According to him, this term should not be confounded with θησαυρός, a room where all other sorts of goods could also be stored. Yet, as he also recognizes, the evidence derived from the LXX seems to suggest that the Jewish translators and authors may have used the term without full awareness of its more precise meaning: see 4 Kgdms 23:11; Neh 10:38–39, 13:4–9; 1 Esd 5:44; etc.

7 There is a dispute about the status of Simon as προστάτης τοῦ ἱɛροῦ (overseer of the temple). Bickerman maintains that the use of καθίστημι (to appoint) suggests an official designation by the Seleucid authorities: he worked as a kind of royal representative (see Studies, 1:432; see also Gerassimos G. Aperghis, The Seleukid Royal Economy: The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004] 287; Rappaport, “Did Heliodoros Try to Rob,” 12). Tcherikover questioned this assumption and identified this title with the נְגִד בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים (chief of the House of God) mentioned in Neh 11:11, assuming he was a member of the temple’s local administration (see Victor A. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews [trans. Shimon Applebaum; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959] 464–65; see also Cotton and Wörrle, “Seleukos IV to Heliodoros,” 202). The issue must remain unsolved on the absence of other evidence concerning a similar officialdom (can it be assimilated to the strategos of the temple of the later sources?), even if the prompt answer of the Seleucid authorities seems to favor the existence of some institutional link between Simon and the foreign power.

8 Simon refers to the money as τὸ πλῆθος τῶν διαφόρων ἀναρίθμητον (2 Macc 3:6). This expression has been differently interpreted. Bickerman believes that, in this case, the Greek word διάφορον is employed in the sense of “discrepancies” or “surplus” and points to the “difference” between what the Seleucid king gave to the temple to be spent in sacrifices (see 2 Macc 3:3: “Seleucus, king of Asia, defrayed from his own revenues all the expenses of the sacrificial liturgy”) and what was really expended (see Studies, 1:436–37). Goldstein objects to this explanation. In his opinion, the Seleucid officials would know that those funds were inviolable and so irrecoverable: it is the private deposits that Simon (and the Seleucid administration) had in mind, and so the term means simply “money” (see, for example, 2 Macc 1:35; 4:28; see Jonathan Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 41A; New York: Doubleday, 1983] 204–5). As Schwartz noted, Goldstein’s argument presupposes an anticipation of the story line, since the deposits are only mentioned in 3:10. It is then natural to link the use of the term διάφορον with the money that, in the words of Simon, was kept (and probably used) for purposes other than those assigned to it by the Seleucid rule, namely, the “account of the sacrifices.” That being the case, according to this “first narrative voice,” the apparently symbiotic situation described in 2 Macc 3:1–3 hides, in fact, a mischief perpetuated under the authority of the high priest. The Seleucid officials and the king, trusting in Simon’s words, seem to rally behind this perception of the treasury’s content or, at least, be prepared to act on it (see 3:7: “he [the king] chose Heliodorus, who was in charge of his affairs, and sent him with commands to effect the removal of the aforementioned money”; see Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 191–92).

9 For the difference between a “bank” sensu stricto (an institution that uses the deposits by individuals to make loans to third parties) and a simple “financial intermediary” (who just keeps them and only lends its own property), see Marty E. Stevens, Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006) 137. On the topic of the Temple as a “financial intermediary,” with references to the ancient sources, both Jewish (Philo, Josephus, etc.) and pagan, see Neill Q. Hamilton, “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank,” JBL 83 (1964) 365–72.

10 See Bickerman, Studies, 1:442–43: “According to the biblical law, a Jewish woman was incapable of inheriting from her husband, and she was entitled to inherit from her parents only if there was no direct male heir…. In the Hellenistic period, however, the evolution of customary law opened up a loophole to escape from the rigidity of the Mosaic rules. We may recall Judith, the pious and faithful widow to whom her husband bequeathed his entire fortune in gold and silver, livestock, slaves, and land.” For a nuanced perspective on the biblical evidence, see Richard H. Hiers, “Transfer of Property by Inheritance and Bequest in Biblical Law and Tradition,” Journal of Law and Religion 10 (1993) 121–55, at 130–34; Naomi Steinberg, “Romancing the Widow: The Economic Distinctions between the ’almānâ, the ’iššâ-’almānâ and the ’ēšet-hammēt,” in God’s Word for Our World: Theological and Cultural Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries (ed. Rolf P. Knierim et al.; 2 vols.; LHBOTS 388; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 1:327–46.

11 Among the commentators, Christian Habicht (see 2. Makkabäerbuch [JSHRZ 1/3; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976] 211), Goldstein (see II Maccabees, 207), and Schwartz (see 2 Maccabees, 194) follow Bickerman’s lead explicitly, while others, such as Thomas Fischer (“Heliodor im Tempel zu Jerusalem. Ein ‘hellenistischer’ Aspekt der ‘frommen Legende,’” in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel. Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag [ed. Siegfried Herrmann, Rüdiger Liwak, and Siegfried Wagner; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991] 122–33, at 122) and Jan N. Bremmer (“Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Heliodorus in the Temple and Paul on the Road to Damascus,” in “Empsychoi Logoi”: Religious Innovations in Antiquity; Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van Der Horst [ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert Jong, and Magda Misset-Van De Weg; AJEC 73; Leiden: Brill, 2008] 367–84, at 370), simply assume the possessive genitive, without further explanation. Among the recent English translations, for example, both the RSV and the NRSV, as well as the NETS, translate “deposits belonging to widows and orphans,” reading a possessive/subjective genitive (see also the English translation of Tedesche, in Zeitlin’s edition of 2 Maccabees: “deposits entrusted to his care, but that they belonged to widows and orphans”: Solomon Zeitlin, The Second Book of Maccabees [JAL 4; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954] 121). See also 4 Macc 4:3: πολλὰς ἰδιωτικῶν χρημάτων μυριάδας (many tens of thousands of private funds [NETS]).

12 The reference to the deposit of Hyrcanus, the son of Tobias (2 Macc 3:11a), is difficult to evaluate, first of all, because there is no consensus regarding his historical identity. Traditionally, the commentators read 2 Macc 3 in light of Josephus’s account of the Tobiads’ saga (Josephus, Ant. 12.154–236) and believe that this Hyrcanus is actually the son of Joseph Tobias (see, for example, Bickerman, Studies, 1:442; on the relations between Oniads and Tobiads, see Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period [2 vols.; London: SCM, 1974] 1:267–77). Recently, however, Doran has questioned this connection. In his opinion, both Hyrcanus and Tobias are fairly common as names, and it would be rather counterintuitive to put a reference to a pro-Ptolemaic rebel on the lips of Onias when he is trying to convince the Seleucid official of the legitimacy of his conduct (see Robert Doran, 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012] 83). Second, evaluation is difficult because the purpose of the mention is not clear: other than asserting that Hyrcanus of Tobias enjoyed the favor of the high priest Onias, the choice to name this presumed depositor remains indeterminate, and it cannot be excluded that it constitutes a gloss (or part of a secondary layer: see Bickerman, Studies, 1:445–61). Be that as it may, either historically accurate or merely ideologically relevant, the mention of what seems to be a deposit by a rich member of the Jerusalem elite does not preclude the possibility of distinguishing between the first two genitives and this third, putting in parallel the temple function as relief center for the poor and its service as a “bank.”

13 Among the commentators, the “older” ones, such as Gutberlet, Bévenot, and Abel, tended to assume, at least as the best explanation, that this money was intended for widows and orphans, not their possession sensu stricto. So, Constantin Gutberlet (1927): “Die Schätze des Temples werden Deposita der Witwen und Waisen gennant, weil sie für diese bestimmt waren, sozusagen ihr Eigentum, gerade so unantastbar wie wirkliche Deposita” (Das zweite Buch der Machabäer [ATA 10/3–4; Münster: Aschendorff, 1927] 48). Hugh Bévenot (1931) follows the same line: “Zudem bestand die Summe teilweise aus einer Stiftung zum Unterhalt von ‘Witwen und Waisen,’ teilweise aus Geldern des hochangesehenen Hyrkanus” (Die beiden Makkabäerbücher [HSAT 4/4; Bonn: Hanstein, 1931] 182). Félix-Marie Abel (1949) is somehow more prudent but still favors the “providentialistic” view: “Ces dépôts étaient, suivant quelques anciens, des offrandes qui se faisaient au Temple pour l’entretien des veuves et des orphelins, conformément à Dt. 14,25 et 29. On explique aussi ce terme par l’usage que les gens sans défense avaient de placer leurs biens sous la protection du sanctuaire” (Les livres des Maccabées [EBib 38; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1949] 320). See also Werner Dommershausen, 1 Makkabäer. 2 Makkabäer (NEchtB 12; Würzburg: Echter, 1985) 119. The more recent commentators tend to follow Bickerman’s lead, but Doran does not close the door to such an interpretation and actually seems to give preference to it: “Since widows and orphans are frequently portrayed as the neediest in society and most in need of protection, it is surprising that they have deposits in the temple large enough to be noticed. There are at least three possible interpretations. If the genitive is objective, these are deposits on behalf of widows and orphans that the temple authorities can dispense when needed. If the genitive is subjective, this could be either a rhetorical ploy to suggest how heinous taking the money would be and that it will be avenged (Exod 22:22–24; Deut 10:18; Ps 68:5) or evidence of widows inheriting their husband’s wealth as, for example, Judith, who had been left gold and silver, male and female slaves, livestock, and fields (Jdt 8:7; Sir 22:4)” (2 Maccabees, 82). Among the translations, Brenton’s LXX, NEB, NAB, and NJB read an objective genitive. Takamitsu Muraoka, in his Lexicon of the LXX, shares the same understanding: “for widows and orphans” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint [Leuven: Peeters, 2009] 528).

14 See Titus Livius, De urbe condita, 24.18.13–14: “cum haec inclinatio animorum plebis ad sustinendam inopiam aerarii fieret, pecuniae quoque pupillares primo, deinde uiduarum coeptae conferri, nusquam eas tutius sanctiusque deponere credentibus qui deferebant quam in publica fide; inde si quid emptum paratumque pupillis ac uiduis foret, a quaestore perscribebatur” (While the plebeians were thus showing their readiness to meet the difficulties of an empty treasury, the money of orphans first and then of widows began to be deposited, those who brought the money believing that their deposits would not be safer or more scrupulously protected anywhere than when they were under the guarantee of the state. Whatever was bought or provided for the orphans and widows was written down by the quaestor. [I have made minor modifications to the translation found in Livy, History of Rome, Books 23–35 (trans. Frank G. Moore; LCL 355; 1940; repr., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984) 232–33]).

15 See Annette Schellenberg, “Hilfe für Witwen und Waisen. Ein gemein-altorientalisches Motiv in wechselnden alttestamentlichen Diskussionszusammenhängen,” ZAW 124 (2012) 180–200, with earlier bibliography and quotation of the most relevant biblical and ancient Near Eastern sources. On the stereotype of the widow in the ancient Near East, see Karel van der Toorn, “Torn between Vice and Virtue: Stereotypes of the Widow in Israel and Mesopotamia,” in Female Stereotypes in Religious Traditions (ed. Ria Kloppenborg and Wouter J. Hanegraaff; SHR 66; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 1–13 (especially p. 6: “Lack of financial means, then, does not belong to the definition of the widow. Yet it is so commonly associated with her that it was apparently felt to be a redundancy to speak of the ‘poor widow.’ Despite the occurrence of well-to-do widows, the public cherished an image of the widow as a woman in need”).

16 Anderson, Charity, 28. On the tithe in ancient Near Eastern sources and in the Bible, see Weinfeld’s excellent synthesis in the Encyclopedia Judaica: Moshe Weinfeld, “Tithe,” EncJud 19:736–39.

17 God’s commitment to the poor is deeply rooted in Israelite thought and shapes even the oldest legal material found in the Hebrew Bible, the Covenant Code (Exod 21:1–23:33). As Bartor observed, in this legal corpus, the literary technique of combining the “objective” position and style of the lawgiver and the “personal” point of view of another speaker (“combined discourse”) is used solely in the law concerning the lending of money to the poor (see Exod 22:24–26), with the divine lawgiver lending his voice to the poor man’s complaint. This unique feature seems to betray a very specific understanding of God’s character: his proximity to, and solidarity with, the destitute are so embedded in his nature that he cannot help expressing them even when assuming the “objective” stance of the lawgiver (see Assnat Bartor, “The Representation of Speech in the Casuistic Laws of the Pentateuch: The Phenomenon of Combined Discourse,” JBL 126 [2007] 231–49, at 236–38; see also Bradley C. Gregory, Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach [DCLS 2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010] 174–75).

18 The translation is by Robert Littman, in Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus (Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 163. The substitution of “resident aliens” by “proselytes” may be explained by the transformation of גר (resident alien) from a sociopolitical to a cultic term in the late Second Temple period. On this issue, see Karl G. Kuhn, “Προσήλυτος,” TDNT 6:728–42; also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003) 110–11.

19 See Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (London: SCM, 1969) 130. In an article soon to be published, Stephen Long highlights the correspondence between the three-fold structure of the gifts (first-fruits; tithe of the produce and the “third tithe”) and the recipients (priests; Levites; widows, orphans, and proselytes) and the three mentions of Jerusalem in Tob 1:6–8, qualifying the latter as the proper locale of distribution (see also 1 Macc 3:49–50, 10:31; Josephus, Ant. 4.240; Philo, Spec. 1.152–161; y. Soṭah 9:11, 44b–45a). Also noteworthy is the choice to give prominence to the tithe: it is now (re)conceptualized as a form of sacrifice (in light of Lev 27:30 and Deut 26:12–15), without losing its charity-oriented flavor (in Deuteronomy, it serves mainly as a support for [unemployed] Levites and for the poor: see Deut 14:22–23, 28–29). The tithe is then to be brought to the central sanctuary, where the faithful Israelite should not “appear empty-handed” (see Exod 23:14–17; Deut 16:16–17), eventually recasting the temple as a depository or a “relief center” for the needy and (re)asserting God as their true benefactor (see Stephen Long, “‘Because of Commandment’: The Hermeneutical ‘Pressure’ of Deuteronomy on the Configurations of Sacrifice and Generosity in Tobit and Ben Sira” [unpublished paper] 1–28, at 2–18). On the initial stages of this process of “full cultic recentralization” of the tithing (all the tithe!) in the Second Temple period, see Mal 3:10; Neh 10:38–39, 12:44, 13:5, 12; 2 Chr 31:5–7; and 1 Kgdms 1:21 (see Gedalia Alon, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud [trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977] 89–102).

20 See above, n. 17. A counterpart to this text would be the biblical passages that say or imply that the God of Israel does not care for widows and orphans. In Job 24, the protagonist complains about the chaotic situation of the world and names the oppression of widows and orphans among the signs of God’s failure to establish justice. Psalm 82, another plea for justice, also names the orphan among those who wait for divine intervention. Schellenberg concludes: “Die Pointe hier ist, dass es sich bei אלהים um die Götter handelt, denen Gott vorwirft, in ihrer Aufgabe als Götter zu versagen” (“Hilfe für Witwen und Waisen,” 192).

21 In this context, it is worth mentioning the criticism dressed against the “wicked priest” in the Pesher Habakkuk. Being a “robber” of the אביונים (“poor”) is another sign of the defiled nature of his priesthood: “And as for what he says: [Hab 2:17] ‘Owing to the blood of the city and the violence (done to) the country.’ Its interpretation: the city is Jerusalem in which the /Wicked/ Priest performed repulsive acts and defiled the Sanctuary of God. The violence (done to) the country are the cities of Judah which he plundered of the possessions of the poor” (ואשר אמר מדמי קריה וחמס ארץ פשרו הקריה היא ירושלים אשר פעל בה הכוהן הרשע מעשי תועבות ויטמא את מקדש אל וחמס ארץ המה ערי יהודה אשר גזל הון אביונים [1QpHab XII, 6b–10a]; translation drawn from The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Translations) [ed. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997] 1:21). For the technical use of the vocabulary of poverty in Qumran, see Wilfand, The Wheel That Overtakes Everyone, 44–46.

22 See Schellenberg, “Hilfe für Witwen und Waisen,” 185–87.

23 On the contrast between the “pedagogical,” “diplomatic” perspective of 2 Maccabees (an attitude that favors détente and cooperation, reading the missteps of the Seleucids as a result of misunderstanding) and the “rebellious” pro-activity of 1 Maccabees, see the illuminating discussion in Steven Weitzman, Surviving Sacrilege: Cultural Persistence in Jewish Antiquity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005) 41–46. Another aspect that is also interesting to consider, even if we step here into more speculative terrain, pertains to the name of the main villain, the Seleucid official, Heliodorus. It means “gift of the Sun.” In a telling coincidence, the two ancient Near Eastern divinities to whom the care of widows and orphans is particularly assigned are Shamash in the Semitic world and Amun in the Egyptian pantheon, a god that was the object of a process of “solarization” in the period of the New Kingdom, by its fusion with Ra (“Amun-Ra”). It is tempting to read the victory of the God of Israel over the Seleucid official as a revindication of the true protector of the poor or even as a parody against these two solar or “solarized” deities. This is a hypothesis that would win further weight if, as Goldstein suggested, the story was composed by the Oniads after their settlement in Egypt in the nomus of Heliopolis (see “Tales of the Tobiads”).

24 I use the edition prepared by Donatien de Bruyne: Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées (Denée: Abbaye de Maredsous, 1932).

25 De Bruyne believes that it depends on both the text of L and its revision as reflected in X and cannot be earlier than the 5th century (see ibid., xxxi–xxxii). Bickerman, on the contrary, insists that Ambrose, in his Enarrationes in Psalmos, written between 387 and 397, knows the “Vulgate” text of 2 Macc 3:25 (V is the only text that mentions the horseman’s attack here) and concludes that this translation should be dated to the second half of the 4th century at the latest (see Studies, 1:446 n. 97).

26 1 Esd 5:44, 8:18, 44; 2 Esd 10:6; Neh 3:30, 10:38, 39; 12:44, 13:4, 5, 7, 8, 9; Esth 3:9, 28; 1 Macc 3:28, 14:49; 4 Macc 4:3, 6.

27 For a recent survey of the history of the modern interpretation of the gesture of the “generous widow,” with some authors claiming that it is a criticism against the temple for being an instrument of oppression of the poor, see Markus Lau, “Die Witwe, das γαζοφυλάκιον und der Tempel. Beobachtungen zur mk Erzählung vom ‘Scherflein der Witwe’ (Mk 12,41–44),” ZNW 107 (2016) 186–205.

28 Origen, Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Tome IV: Livres XIX–XX (trans. and ed. Cécile Blanc; SC 290; Paris: Cerf, 1982) 72–75. The English translation is mine.

29 See ibid., 74 n. 1.

30 On the quotations, some only implicit, of 1–2 Maccabees in Origen, see Gilles Dorival, “Origène, lecteur du premier et deuxième livres des Maccabées,” in La mémoire des persécutions. Autour des livres des Maccabées (ed. Marie-Françoise Baslez and Olivier Munnich; Collection de la Revue des études juives 56; Leuven: Peeters, 2014) 371–83.

31 For the Latin text, see Cyprian of Carthage, De opere et eleemosynis 15, in idem, La bienfaisance et les aumônes (trans. and ed. Michel Poirier; SC 440; Paris: Cerf, 1999) 120. The translation is drawn from Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise VIII: On Works and Alms (ANF [ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 10 vols.; 1885‒1887; repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990] 5:480). I updated the translation.

32 For the Greek text, see Chrysostom, Eleem. (PG 60; 747). The translation is mine.

33 See Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (1969; repr., Oxford: Clarendon, 2010) 306.

34 See Finn, Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire, 45.

35 See ibid., 42: “Such evidence as there is for the third century onwards points towards a collection in many places at the weekly synaxis. To this end there was an alms-box in the church variously named the ‘corban’ … ‘gazum’, ‘gazophylacium’, and at least on one occasion the ‘chariot’ or ‘quadriga’. Yet certainty is often precluded by the degree to which almsgiving is couched in biblical terms deriving both from the episode of the widow’s mite thrown into the Temple treasury (Luke 21:1–4 and Mark 12:41–4) and the call of Christ to store up treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:19–20, Luke 12:33–4) [italics added].”

36 On the question of the date, the addressees, and the purpose of Ambrose’s De Officiis, see the introductory chapter of Davidson’s edition: Ambrose of Milan, De Officiis (trans. and ed. Ivor J. Davidson; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 2:1–95. Unless stated otherwise, the quotations of the Latin text and the English translations follow this edition.

37 As asserted recently by McLynn, this highly dramatic gesture by the bishop of Milan could have been motivated by a less “charitable” purpose. Most probably, most of the items had been supplied by his predecessor Auxentius, a member of the Homoean party, and by Emperor Constantius II, so, by destroying them, he was “purifying” his church of this unwanted legacy (see Neil B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital [Transformation of the Classical Heritage 22; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994] 56; see also the note to no. 136 in Ambrose of Milan, De Officiis, 2:789–91). On the selling of sacred vessels, with both examples and the legislation issued by the ancient Church on the topic, see Thomas Sternberg, “‘Aurum Utile’. Zu einem Topos vom Vorrang der Caritas über Kirchenschätze seit Ambrosius,” JAC 39 (1996) 128–48.

38 Peter Brown reads this process of “pauperization” of the Church property in parallel with what he deems to be the main preoccupation of Ambrose: to build a sense of cohesion and solidarity within the Christian community, by turning them into a populus. In order to achieve this, Ambrose also works hard to elevate the image of the poor, claiming their right to justice and urging the other Christians to treat them like brothers, not “social outsiders.” This shared identity (in Christ) requires a shared participation of the goods, with the Church treasur(i)es also at the service of this all-encompassing purpose (see Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, 120–34).

39 The translation is mine.

40 For the Latin text, see Ambrose of Milan, Epistola XXVI in Ambrosius, Epistulae et acta, epistularum libri I–VI (ed. Otto Faller; CSEL 82/1; Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1968) 170. The translation is mine.

41 The main sources can be found already in Louis Thomassin, Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina circa Beneficia et Beneficiarios (3 vols.; Paris: Joannem Anisson, 1691) 3:554–61 (Liber III, Caput XXVI–XXVII). Sternberg offers a helpful summary of the evidence, analyzing, in particular, the texts from Gaul, in Thomas Sternberg, Orientalium more secutus. Räume und Institionen der Caritas des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts in Gallien (JAC Ergänzungsband 16; Münster: Aschendorff, 1991) 33–36. Brown has written extensively on the topic and the conglomerate of notions surrounding it in recent years: see Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Curti Lecture Series; Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992) 71–117; idem, Poverty and Leadership (esp. 1–73); idem, Through the Eye of a Needle (esp. 79–92, 481–502). For a similar phenomenon within rabbinic Judaism (increasing rabbinic involvement in communal institutions of support of the poor as a way of enhancing their prestige and authority), see Michael L. Satlow, “‘Fruit and the Fruit of Fruit’: Charity and Piety among Jews in Late Antique Palestine,” JQR 100 (2010) 244–77, at 270–74.

42 See Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 90: “Rabbinic literature and medieval Jewish literature … show next to no interest in our book [2 Maccabees] (as most of the apocryphal literature)…. Josippon, a tenth-century Jewish version of Josephus which quite obviously used some version of 2 Maccabees, is a striking exception.” For the memory of the Maccabees in the rabbinic sources, see Günter Stemberger, “The Maccabees in Rabbinic Tradition,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. Florentino García Martínez, A. Hilhorst, and C. J. Labuschagne; VTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 193–203. For the medieval Jewish interest in the Maccabees, see David Flusser, “The Memory of the Maccabees among Medieval Jews,” Cathedra 75 (1995) 36–54 (Hebrew).

43 The translation is adapted from the one by Jacob Neusner in The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988) 259–60. See also m. Šeq. 2:5 and the discussion about the destiny of the different “surplus” (מוֹתַר) of money collected at the temple: money was also collected for use of the needy (לָעֲנִיִּים) and other charitable activities, such as redeeming captives and burying the dead.

44 See Wilfand, The Wheel That Overtakes Everyone, 180–81. Gardner contends that the practices surrounding the קופה (originally destined for the poor of good background) may have decisively influenced the understanding of the “chamber of secrets” of the temple manifested by the editors/redactors of the Mishnah (see Origins of Organized Charity, 16–17).

45 On the concept of poor בני טובים and the preoccupation with their dignity reflected in the rabbinic sources from the land of Israel, see Wilfand, The Wheel That Overtakes Everyone, 127–65. See also the traditions in y. Šeq. 5:6, 49a–b, within the discussion of the “chamber of secrets,” praising the practice of giving alms in secret, citing Prov 21:14: (מַתָּן בַּסֵּתֶר יִכְפֶּה־אָף [NRSV: “A gift in secret averts anger”]); and b. B. Bat. 9b; b. Ḥag 5a.

46 The translation is drawn from Numbers and Deuteronomy (trans. and ed. John T. Townsend; vol. 3 of Midrash Tanḥuma; New York: Ktav, 2003) 319–20. On the style and late date (probably 10th century) of the (final) edition of the Tanḥuma, see Mira Balberg, Gateway to Rabbinic Literature (Raanana, Israel: Open University of Israel, 2013) 254 (Hebrew). Nevertheless, the collection is composed by midrashim from very different periods, some earlier (Amoraic period?) and others rather late. In the midrash under analysis, and even though such is not a definitive argument, the sage evoked, R. Judah b. R. Simon, is a famous Amora Eretz Yisraeli from the third or fourth generation (late 3rd–early 4th century). For the arguments in favor of dating the homiletic material compiled in the Tanḥuma to an early period, see Hermann L. Strack and Günter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. Markus Bockmuehl; 2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996) 302–6 (basing themselves on the work of Marc Bregman).

47 See also Exod. Rab. 31.5: “So it is said, If thou lend money to any of my people. When Israel asked God: ‘Who is your people?’ The reply was: ‘The poor,’ for it is said: For the Lord has comforted his people, and will have compassion on his poor [Isa 49:13]. It is human nature that when a man has poor relations, he does not own them if he is wealthy … but the Holy One, blessed be He, is not so, for it is said, Both riches and honor come from You [1 Chr 29:12], yet He protects the poor, as it is said, The Lord has founded Zion, and the poor among his people will take refuge in her” (the translation is drawn from Midrash Rabbah (trans. Harry Freedman; 10 vols.; Hindhead, Surrey, UK: Soncino, 1983) 3:383 [slightly altered; italics in original]).

48 The date of the Josippon is still an object of controversy. Until the 1950s, some authors, following the medieval tradition, dated the book to the first centuries of the common era. Flusser, in his study, claimed that the book was produced in the 10th century, more precisely in 953, in Southern Italia. He used the colophon of one of the manuscripts as proof for his assertion. Recently, Flusser’s dating has been disputed. The book is quoted by Saadia Gaon, who died in 942, and a reference to the dwelling of the Hungarians in the Danube in the first chapter seems to point to a 9th-century date, at least of this part of the text (see Steven Bowman, “Dates in Sepher Yosippon,” in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday [ed. John C. Reeves and John Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994] 349–59).

49 Flusser assumes prima facie that the author of Josippon used the Latin version of the Bible (the “Vulgate”) as his source or as the source for his Hebrew translation of both books of the Maccabees upon which he based his paraphrase (see David Flusser, The “Josippon” [Josephus Gorionides] [2 vols.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1980] 2:132–33 [Hebrew]). Recently, Dönitz adopted a more prudent stance: in her opinion, “the redactor of Sefer Yosippon used the Greek or the Latin Bible as his source, not a Hebrew ‘original’ of these books [italics added]” (Saskia Dönitz, “Sefer Yosippon and the Greek Bible,” in Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions [ed. Nicolas de Lange, Julia G. Krivoruchko, and Cameron Boyd-Taylor; Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009] 223–34, at 223 n. 2).

50 I use the Hebrew text from Flusser’s eclectic edition (see Flusser, The “Josippon,” 1:61–62). The translation is mine. For a helpful summary of the complex textual history of the Josippon, see Dagmar Börner-Klein and Beat Zuber, Josippon. Jüdische Geschichte vom Anfang der Welt bis zum Ende des ersten Aufstands gegen Rom (Wiesbaden: Marixverlag, 2010) 5–10.

51 I did not include in this survey the so-called 5 Maccabees, a Jewish work preserved in Arabic and included in both the Paris Polyglot Bible (1645, Le Jay) and the London Polyglot Bible (1657, Walton). A critical edition of its text is still lacking and there is no consensus about its date and provenance, with some authors contending that it is a medieval epitome (Graf) or partial translation (Sela) of Josippon, while others point to a much earlier date (Reilly). On the topic, see Søren L. Sørensen, “5 Maccabees 13 and the Missing Ambassador,” EJJS 9 (2015) 121–33, at 124–27. Be that as it may, in its paraphrase of 2 Macc 3, 5 Maccabees betrays an understanding comparable to that expressed in Josippon: at the beginning of the episode (and not as a declaration of the high priest!), it is stated that: “It was ordained by the kings of the Greek Gentiles that large sums of money should be sent to the holy city every year, and should be delivered to the priests, that they might add it to the treasury of the house of God, as money for the receivers of alms and for widows” (5 Macc 1:1); “And the kings added more to the money which they ordered to be given to the priests, that it might be spent on the orphans and widows; also to that which was to be spent on the sacrifices” (5 Macc 1:20). I reproduce here the translation of the Latin version by Henry Cotton: see The Five Books of Maccabees in English with Notes and Illustrations (trans. Henry Cotton; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1832) 278–79, 281.