Vinnie

I posted a new blog entry on something I read recently and thought would put it up for hashing. Maybe it has been discussed before.

Matthew 17:24--27

24After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" 25"Yes, he does," he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?" 26"From others," Peter answered. "Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. 27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

For those who think Christianity started with a mystical Christ and date the historical material conerning Jesus late, why do we have this saying coming from the second century which probably indicates a pre-70 milieu? Since the temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. why is temple tax a concern of Matthew ca 100-150 when mythicists thinks he writes? I can see the tradition still being extant in the 80's as a potential historical saying but why ca. 120 is this being created? It reflects the concerns of an earlier era.

J Robinson writes: "This certainly does not argue a situation of open breach, but rather a concern not to provoke one. In any case, it clearly points to a pre-70 milieu. For after that date this tax had to be paid to the temple treasury of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome and would have no bearing on the Jewish question Jesus is represented as settling." (RNT, pg 104)

This passage is different than the rend unto caesar passages and any attempt to read into this a need to pay Roman taxes is probably projecting. What you you think?

Vinine

Vinnie

Or was there a saying from the Mystical Christ ca. 30-70 telling Christians to pay their taxes and this later became adapted to an HJ? When and why did this adaption occur if it did?

bacht

I think the gospel writers after Mark wanted to present Jesus as a model Jew. The coin-in-the-fish is a nice bit of magic.

Matthew is supposedly the most Jewish of the gospels, maybe written by or for Jewish-Christians. They may have been grieving the loss of the temple, or trying to maintain some kind of connection with the Jewish tradition.

Huon

First, Christ is the son of whom in gMatt, hey ? Peter and the disciples seem not to understand the allusion. Not very clever.

Second, a tax is never very popular, especially when it is paid to a detested king, or emperor. In France, two centuries after the Revolution, when somebody speaks of the old taxes, almost everybody knows what the names mean, "old injust taxes". The technical details are unimportant. The names have survived during two centuries.

Third, gMatt 17.24 speaks of "the temple tax". Jesus in 17.25 answers "the kings of the earth".
A priest is not a king of the earth. Curious, IF "the temple" was a temple of the jewish god.

Third bis : Oh, the "temple tax" is for the roman temple of Jupiter !

We have the answer : Late after 70, Jesus, son of God (very christian, not so jewish) asks Peter (the future bishop of Rome) to pay the taxes to the roman power.

I have also seen elsewhere that the "fish" could be a new convert, who would have to pay something for his admission in the church. Here, we are far from the end of the world.

Susan2

Understanding, that animals are portrayed as human beings in the bible, and equally in fictional stories/fairytales/myths, this appears to be both the vigilante Jesus, and the capitalist Jesus. I presume that Peter was to keep 2 drachma for his efforts, thuggery, being the head of the church, a Son of God. Of course.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and unto God what is God’s. If a Kings son does not have to pay taxes, why would God’s son, in that God is a higher authority then a mere mortal king.

That has certainly helped me to understand why Pilate kept the sign ‘King of the Jews’ as it was, and not, he said he was king of the jews. If he said he was king of the Jews, but wasn’t King of the Jews, that makes him a Son of the Jews, a theocracy. A theocracy gets to keep the whole 4 drachma, screw the king.

The verse also establishes Jesus authority to ‘know’ before even being asked, a sign that he is the Son of God, and of course King of the Jews, as Pilate established.



I found this an interesting, quote, and not unrelated imo.

Vinnie

So writing 30-80 years after the event in 70 c.e., the gentile author of Matthew wants to present Jesus as observant to the temple or as a model Jew. Sounds plausible but he doesn't sound like the best model. Claims he doesn't have to pay the taxes and says to Peter to pay them only to not ruffle any feathers. Doesn't sound like a "model Jew". I understand your solution but I think from a form-critical perspective that saying has a better sitz im leben in a pre-70 c.e. time period though especially since a Gentile probably wrote Matthew though I won't press this as evidence for an HJ because the alternative is possible.

Another question: why is Matthew dated post 70 c.e. when it apparently has a passage indicating regular temple function? Why is there no polemic here? Is the alleged reference in Matthew to the destruction of the temple as clear as this reference to the temple which otherwise would be thought to still stand?

Vinnie

spamandham

A world history of tax rebellions: an encyclopedia of tax rebels, revolts , By David F. Burg, p 35

"In AD 71 he {Titus} promulgated a temple tax on the Jews of two denarii per person, make and female, one year of age and older. Collection of the tax began in AD 72"

The Jewish temple tax was 1/2 shekel, not two denarii. There were even money changers in the temple complex to ensure the proper coin was used.

A 2 denarii temple tax is almost certainly an anachronism projecting the *post* temple Roman tax to an earlier time period.

Vinnie

That would certainly settle the issue if true. I admit much money ignorance here but doesn't 2 drachma = 2 denarii = 1/2 shekel?

Or are you saying because Matthew does not mention shekel but drachma its anachronistic? Though just as bacht apologized for mythicism the historicist can say this was intended to get Gentile Christians to pay the temple tax and hence used drachma. I am not sure on the usage of the words in various areas back then.

The NJBC says that the temple tax might might even be the one referenced but a tax to Jamnia or Jupiter Capitolinus seem less likely since the former banished Jewish Christians and the latter supported paganism.

Vinnie

dog-on

Vinnie,

If you wrote a story set in the 1780's.

Would your hero drive a Porsche?

...

Vinnie

Not if there were no roads. I asked why the story was created so your analogy loses its force. bacht was kind enough to supply some plausible conjecture.

Vinnie