Originally Posted by spamandham

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

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by Susan2

If we go with the simplist explanation, the texts are very clear. Why confuse what is written? It is what it is.

He was being smart enough to avoid a Ruby Ridge, i.e., "so that we don't offend them". Why draw the IRS down on you? Especially, when your group is just forming.

As a tax collector Matthew certainly doesn't give a hoot where Jesus gets his money, but as their numbers grow, Matthew, and Jesus would know that they have to pay taxes.

Jesus has intention, big intentions, not piddly intentions.

The founding fathers did it here in America through slavery.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The idea is covered in a couple of chapters of my book "Evolution of Christ and Christianities,". I did a study of the long speeches of Jesus and the speeches of John (the Baptist). I came to the conclusion that they had all been originally a single speech from John.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to reproduce the arguments for it. I hope to one day prove it in a separate article/thread. Although, I would be glad if someone beat me to the punch, and proved it on their own.