HELIODORUS IN THE

1. The mission of Heliodorus

Even those who have never heard of the Seleucid dynasty know the name of Heliodorus, the minister of Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175 B.C.E.), because a very famous fresco by Raphael in one of the Vatican stanze shows a heavenly intervention preventing Heliodorus from rob- bing the temple in Jerusalem of its treasure. Pope Julius II commissioned Raphael to paint this subject, which is taken from , in 1512.1 An anachronism in this picture, heavy with symbolism, depicts the pope returning in triumph to the temple while the heavenly horseman hurls Heliodorus to the ground: according to the tropological interpretation, the punishment of the sac- rilegious minister of Seleucus IV prefi gured the triumph of the church over its secular despoilers.2 Lodiamo i calci ch’ebbe Eliodoro.3 Following this traditional exegesis, all the historians and modern com- mentators see the actions of Heliodorus as an attempt to get hold of the treasure of Zion. 2 Maccabees itself, however, suggests a different interpretation of his mission.4

I

According to 2 Macc. 3:1ff., the sanctuary of Jerusalem was universally venerated under the pontifi cate of Onias, “so that even Seleucus, the king of Asia, defrayed from his own revenues all the expenses connected with the service of the sacrifi ces.”5

1 L. von Pastor, Geschichte der Päpste III/2 (5th to 7th edns.), pp. 1018 and 1035. 2 Rabanus Maurus, PL 109, 1227. The Glossa Generalis on the Books of Maccabees reproduces the commentary of Rabanus. 3 Dante, Purgatorio 20.113. 4 I quote the Septuagint from the edition of A. Rahlfs and the Latin version from D. de Bruyne and B. Sodar, Les anciennes traductions latines des Machabées, 1932. For the variant readings in 2 Macc. 3, I have used the edition by W. Kappler. It may be use- ful to recall that 2 Maccabees is transmitted in three principal recensions, viz. Codex Alexandrinus, the Lucianic manuscripts (L), and the group q (cf. W. Kappler, De memoria alterius libri Maccab., dissertation, Göttingen 1929), while Cod. Venetianus and the ancient Latin version have conserved a number of independent readings. 5 2 Macc 3:2f.: συνέβαινεν καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς βασιλεῖς τιμᾶν τὸν τόπον καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν

Bickerman_f17_432-464.indd 432 5/9/2007 2:07:30 PM heliodorus in the temple in jerusalem 433

This introductory remark allows us to place the episode of Heliodorus in its historical setting. While other great sanctuaries possessed a fortune in property, or special fi nancial resources given to them by the state (e.g. certain taxes in Ptolemaic Egypt),6 the economic needs of the temple in Jerusalem were met directly by the royal exchequer.7 Originally, the sanctuary on Zion was the chapel of the royal palace, and its upkeep was naturally incumbent on the sovereign:8 although the law of Moses provides numerous sources of income for the priests, it forgets to endow the temple. After the Babylonian exile, the Achemenids restored the temple in Jerusalem and, following in the footsteps of the national kings, charged their own treasury with the expenses incurred by the cult.9 The Macedonian kings continued this traditional policy, and after he had taken Jerusalem from the Ptolemies, Antiochus III promised in 200 B.C.E. to meet the expenses of the sanctuary.10 His son, Seleucus IV, followed the example of his predecessor. These subsidies put the sanctuary under the fi nancial control of the government. When a village is granted to Zeus of Baitokaikê in order that the revenues may cover “the expenses of the sacrifi ces and of other things advantageous to the sanctuary,”11 the Seleucid king who makes this donation leaves it to the priests to administer it; but in Ptolemaic Egypt, where the maintenance of the cult was the responsibility of the

ἀποστολαῖς ταῖς κρατίσταις δοξάζειν ὥστε καὶ Σέλευκον τὸν τῆς ’Ασίας βασιλέα χορηγεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων προσόδων πάντα τὰ πρὸς τὰς λειτουργίας τῶν θυσιῶν ἐπιβάλλοντα δαπανήματα. 6 Cf. P. Columbia Zenon II, 1940, pp. 162ff. When they made tax concessions to the temples, the Lagids were following Greek praxis. Cf. R. Schlaifer, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 1940, p. 233. On the fi nances of the temples, cf. SEHHW, 1940, Index s.v. Temples. 7 Demetrius I promised to grant to the temple an annual allocation of 15,000 shekels from his own income, as well as the revenues from the city of Ptolemais: 1 Macc. 10:39f. 8 G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, 1908, I, p. 351, and II, p. 109. Cf. W.F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1942, p. 139; R. de Vaux, Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament II, 1966, p. 274. 9 Ezra 7:22 (in 459 B.C.E.). Cf. R. de Vaux, RB, 1937, p. 51. We should note that the Achemenids contributed only in kind: it was not until the fi fth century B.C.E. that Greek merchants introduced the monetary economy into Palestine. Cf. SEHHW I, p. 88. On the coins minted in Judea in the fourth century B.C.E., cf. B. Kanael, Jahrbuch für Numismatik XVII, 167, nr. 129–150; Y. Meshorer, Jewish Coins, 1967, pp. 35–41. 10 Josephus, Ant. 12.140. Cf. my essay on “The Seleucid charter for Jerusalem,” above. 2 Macc 9:16 attributes the following promise to Antiochus IV Epiphanes: τῆς δὲ ἐπιβαλλούσας πρὸς τὰς θυσίας συντάξεως ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων προσόδων χορηγήσειν. A fi nancial subsidy is bestowed on the temple in an inauthentic decree of Cyrus: Josephus, Ant. 11.16. 11 Welles, nr. 70, 10–11.

Bickerman_f17_432-464.indd 433 5/9/2007 2:07:32 PM