andrewcriddle

In the light of the recent thread about whether or not Christianity started before 70 CE, I've been thinking about Gospel pericopes that seem to originate before 70 CE.

Matthew 17:20-27 may be a good candidate http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew17.htmAfter 70 CE and the temples' destruction the temple tax was converted by the Romans to a levy on the Jewish population. The original form of this story presumably dates from an earlier period when it was a live issue for Christians whether or not they should contribute to the temple upkeep.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Sorry, magical story about getting money from a fish in a story that refers to the Temple a lot gets a detail about temple tax right?

And is this not testable further - what is this about subjects not paying the temple tax? Kings always taxed their own people!

Now a discussion of taxes and money and tax collection and censuses in the gospels may be very interesting!

aa5874

This story has no bearing whatsoever on the time it was written. Any one, today, can make up stories about people and events in Galilee or Judaea by reading the works of Flavius Josephus.

DCHindley

There was a discussion on Crosstalk2 about this some years ago (2003), where I stated:

The author, through an enthymeme, has established a paradox.

The author of Matthew has Jesus make a point through Simon: Earthly kingdoms impose tribute and head taxes on foreigners (those conquered), not on their own citizens. The only glaring example of a kingdom doing this in that period was the case of the Romans and Roman citizens, so this is probably what he wanted the reader/hearer to think of.

On the other hand, in the period in which the author of Matthew sets the story, the temple-tax was "imposed" (it was actually voluntary) by the temple hierarchy, in the name of the God of the Jews, on all Jews regardless of where they lived, that is, on Jewish "citizens" exclusively.

The author of Matthew had Jesus muse about the tax in such a way as to suggest that Jews who pay the temple tax are not really sons of the "king" that imposed the tax.

The imposer must be either God (as in the kingdom of God), the temple hierarchy as God's earthly representatives, or the post 70 Romans:

1) If God imposes the temple tax, then Jews are not actually part of God's kingdom. This would then be a case of "replacement theology."

2) If the temple authority imposes the temple tax in the name of God, then Jesus is being made to oppose the temple hierarchy as legitimate representatives of God and his kingdom.

3) If the Romans are imposing the temple-tax (after 70), then Jesus is being made to oppose the Romans.

I was implying that the author of Matthew was portraying Jesus as making either point [1 or 2].

Yet there is also the story associated with this paradox in which the temple-tax is paid by means of a miraculous find of a stater in the mouth of a fish. I doubt that anyone ever *actually* caught a fish with a coin in its mouth (although J. Allegro seems to have found some parallels from this general period about odd things being where they shouldn't). So, the fish likely symbolizes something as does the coin, and the coin being in the fishes mouth symbolizes something as well.

To me, the link between the two stories appears to be in the words LAMBANOUSI (take, grasp, grab) in vs 25 and LABWN in vs 27. In a way similar to the way kings of the earth grasp hold of foreigners to exact tribute and taxes, "take [LABWN] that [stater] and give it to them [i.e., the tax collectors] for me and for yourself" (EKEINON LABWN DOS AUTOIS ANTI EMOU KAI SOU).

I took this to mean that either the kingdom of God, or the temple hierarchy as God's representatives, represented by the stater, had been swallowed up by the Christian movement as its replacement. That the stater is taken from the mouth of the fish may be an acknowledgement that in the time of the author the tax was paid to the Romans directly. "Just as you Romans have grasped the Jewish state from its people, we have grasped the kingdom of God from them as well."

If it doesn't mean something like this, what else makes sense? Whatever you come up with, it has to jibe with the implication that those who pay the temple tax are not sons of the kingdom that imposed the tax.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/12662

I see it as a response to a charge, with the context being taxation of Jews by the Romans (as evidenced by the statement about "kings of the earth" not taxing their own citizens - something only Romans are known to have done). The charge would take a form something like this: "If your movement was founded by a Jew, why don't you Gentile-Christians pay the temple tax instituted by Vespasian?" The charge is meant to embarrass, since all Jews were required to pay the temple tax as a Roman poll tax after the defeat of the Jewish rebels in 70 CE, as a token of their submission as a people to Rome.

The statement in Matthew would then be intended to excuse the Gentile Christians' unwillingness to be associated with Judaism in the aftermath of the war. "The Roman government has taught us that taxes are exacted from the conquered. Thus, because the Jews of Jesus' time paid temple tax they could not be sons of the God of that temple. If Jesus paid it, it was a subterfuge to fool the evil Jews, who only showed their ignorance. He knew better, and so do we."

Replacement theology through and through.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/12735

FWIW, this is what Fabian E. Udoh has to say in _Tribute and Taxes in Early Roman Palestine_ (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Svcs, 2000 [PhD dissertation 1996, microfilm 1997]):

The Gospel of Matthew also disputes the legitimacy of the temple tax (17:24-27). Here the temple tax is linked with the "tolls and tribute [census] (TELH H KHNSOS)" collected by "the kings of the earth" (Mt. 17:25). Therefore, even if one were to accept that Jesus dealt with the problem of payment of tribute (in Judea) [referring to contemporary interpretation of the pericopes in Mt. 22:15-21; Mk. 12:13-17; and Lk. 20:20-25 - dh], one would be faced with the distinct probability that the context of that problem, as it now appears in the Gospels and in Matthew's Gospel in particular, had shifted to a later period [meaning after 70 CE - dh] when Rome demanded a per capita tribute [i.e., the old temple tax - dh] paid in denarii. (pg 13n21)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/12720

DCH

andrewcriddle

The Temple-Tax may have been voluntary in the sense that it was not extracted by force by bailiffs but it does seem to have been seen as an obligation on pious Jews not a freewill offering see Josephus Antiquities 18 http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hus/ant-18.htm IMO on form-critical grounds the story about the fish is a later addition to the original controversy pericope. Hence arguments that in its present form (with the fish) the story relates to the post-70 CE situation would, even if true, not relate to the date of the story in its earliest form.

I have to say that I don't actually find your understanding of the post-70 CE context of the story particularly plausible. Surely Christians post-70 CE did not pay the Romans the Temple-Tax simply because the Roman authorities did not regard them as Jews for this purpose. (Alternatively some Jewish Christians may have been regarded as Jews by the tax men and would have had to pay up whether they wanted to or not. ) IMO the story makes best sense if the Temple-Tax is regarded as a moral/religious obligation but is not enforced in the narrow sense. (It is possible I suppose that Jews or Jewish Christians felt that even if not compelled to do so Gentile Christians should pay the Romans the Temple-Tax as a gesture of solidarity with the Jews, but it does not seem likely. If the Temple-Tax as collected by the Romans had been a set total for the whole population then there would have been advantages for Jews in having Gentile Christians sharing the burden but this is not true with a fixed sum per person.)

Andrew Criddle

offa

Christianity and 70 CE and the temple tax. Well Andrew I am very curious how you came about this excellent observation! You are very close to a treasure. You should already know this tip, I mean, you are from the UK. You have probably been here already. I want you to search a little on your own. Go to google and look up infinitesoulutions.

thanks,

offa