dog-on

If you wrote a story about a religious figure and set it in Jerusalem during the first half of the first century, wouldn't references to the temple be a bit of a no brainer?

spamandham

1 drachm (4.36 g) = 1 denarius (3.85) = 1/2 shekel (4.17 g)

http://www.livius.org/w/weights/weights.html

But regardless of the values of the coinage, the Jewish Temple tax was required to be paid specifically in shekel coinage (not just monies of equivalent value). If John were written when the Jewish temple was still standing, the fish would have provided two 1/2-shekel coins rather than 4 drachma, which would have to be 'money changed' into 1/2-shekel coins.

This is about as close as we can get to 'proof' that Matthew was written in the post-temple period.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vinnie,

I believe that the adaption occurred in the 150's-180's when some John (the Baptist) material was ported over to Jesus. Thus the John birth story gets changed into a Jesus birth story and John's sermon on the Mount was changed into Jesus' sermon on the Mount. As a Jewish prophet, the nationalist Jew John lost his popularity in the second Century. This was because the Jews lost the second Jewish-Roman War, as the Christian movement spread outward and was taken over by Greek and Egyptian gnostics. John was replaced by the more and more by the international Galilean (less Jewish) Jesus character.

The temple tax story is an example of a John story being copied straight from a John text with only the name changed.

The switch between the nationalist John the Christ and the internationalist Jesus the Christ may be compared to the Green Lantern comic book characters Alan Scott and Hal Jordan. The original 1940's Green Lantern, Alan Scott, found a magic ring that turned him into the Green Lantern. By the 1950's magic was out of fashion and science fiction and alien space creatures were hip, so when the Green Lantern superhero/Messiah) character was revived in the 1950's Hal Jordon was turned into the Green Lantern by a ring given to him by space aliens.

Pre-70's material in the gospels, like the Temple apocalypse, reflect John material.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

This is an interesting idea, but what is it based on?

aa5874

The four-drachma fish story does not help to augment the historicity of Jesus at all. The four-drachma fish story appears to be implausible or just a legendary fable.

No where in the NT was it written that Peter did ever catch such a four-drachma fish.

The four-drachma fish story is fiction.

Susan2

Yes, well, Chicken Little is a fable. We have all heard the story of Chicken Little, but that doesn't appear to stop doom sayers.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a fable, but that doesn't stop the hypochondriac either, or the doom sayers?

The USA citizens not only bailed out the automobile and banking industry for mismanagement, the mismangers got golden parachutes, or should I say drachmas, lots of them.

Sons of God, Kings!

Genesis does say subdue/dominate the earth. What's a son to do?

Disobey?

Ask questions?

Think?

Oops, thinking is not allowed, especially for women. Sorry.

God Fearing Atheist

In both AJ and BJ, Josephus reports that the value of the Temple tax was a διδραχμον, the same as found in Matt. A στατηρ was equivalent to two -- one for Pete, one for Jesus.

spamandham

Ok.

In 17:24, the word used is δίδραχμον (a double drachma in English). In 17:27 it is generally translated as a 4 drachma coin, rather than as a shekel.

"And when Moses had gathered the multitude together again, he ordained that they should offer half a shekel for every man, as an oblation to God; which shekel is a piece among the Hebrews, and is equal to four Athenian drachmae." (Antiquities 3.8.2)

Archaeology confirms that the coin actually used to pay the tax was exactly what Jospehus tells us it is, a shekel produced in Tyre (equivocated with 2 drachma). http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1205420740611

Upon reflection, it seems the ancients equivocated the coin used to pay the temple tax, so I suppose I shouldn't expect Matthew to be less vague than Josephus, regardless of when Matthew wrote.

God Fearing Atheist

Right.

Notice, in particular, the passage in Wars (7.6.6 § 218):

φορον δε τοις ο πουδηποτουν ουσιν Ιουδαιοις επεβαλεν δυο δραχμας εκαστον κελευσας ανα παν ετος εις το Καπετωλιον φερειν ωσπερ προτερον εις τον εν Ιεροσολυμοις νεων συνετελουν

Vespasian had them pay the two drachmae post-war tax to the capital "just as before to the Jerusalem Temple," showing an equivalence between the two.

DCHindley

IMHO, this whole discussion is on the wrong track.

Matthew 17:24 When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?" 25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute [LAMBANOUSIN TELH H KHNSON]? From their sons or from others?" 26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. 27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."

The heart of this saying is not that the tax money comes from a fish's mouth, but that "sons" of a kingdom are free from "toll" [TELH = the end result, or bottom line, e.g., tribute taxes] or "tribute" [actually KHNSON = census based taxes, but here the context tells us it specifically refers to the per-capita (head) tax and not the property tax].

25b From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or
from others?"
26a And when he said, "From others,"
26b Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free [of obligation]."

This is clearly a reference to Roman tax practice, in which citizens (at least by the time of the empire) were exempt from the per-capita (poll) tax. Unfortunately, I think the usual translations (I used the RSV above) of TELOS and KHNSOS are reversed from what they should be, and perhaps could be more specific. "From whom do kings of the earth grab tribute or (impose) census-based (taxes)?" ... [Answer:] "From others."

NOW the subject of the type of tax being referenced, the annual temple tax (paid by each eligible individual, i.e., a per-capita tax), becomes relevant. What kind of "earthly king(dom)" is collecting the temple-tax? Is it not the temple hierarchy in the name of the "ethnos" of the Jews? The "ethnos" of the Jews (originally ruled by Archelaus but after 6 CE apparently by the High Priest) was a legal entity officially recognized by the emperors that allowed Diaspora Jews the right to assemble according to their customs, operate their own courts, and send temple-tax and other gift money to Jerusalem unmolested. In Jesus' time the Temple organization served as its operational center.

By PAYING the temple-tax, Jesus was, in effect, saying that he and Peter were NOT sons of that kingdom, that is, they are NOT Jews (as all individual Jews anywhere in the empire were subjects to the "ethnos" of the Jews). This saying then becomes recognizable as one formed (as it exists in Matthew) at a point after Christians stopped thinking of themselves as Jews. The didrachma in the fish's mouth tells us that to the author of Matthew, the Christian movement (symbolized by the fish) has superceded the ethnos of the Jews (symbolized by the coin). The fish has grasped hold of the coin, subjugating it to itself.

It has been suggested that mention of a didrachm would only make sense after 70 when the temple tax was paid directly to the Roman government, so that the king of the earth who imposed the temple tax would be the Roman government. This would mean that the author of Matthew was effectively repudiating Roman governance over Jews.

To interpret the king as referring to God, would mean Jesus is repudiating God's kingdom, which doesn't make sense, unless one gave it a Gnostic twist (e.g., the God of the Jews is different that Jesus' God). As far as I know, Matthew otherwise does not lend itself well to Gnostic interpretations, although the "others" referred to above is really "foreigners," a term often used by later Gnostics.

In either of these latter two cases, the significance of the part of the story about the coin in the mouth of the fish is hard to explain.

DCH