Diogenes the Cynic

Holy shit, is that a real web site? Are we sure it's not a Landover-type parody? That can't be real.

Toto

Yes, Conservapedia is for real. It is part of the same Conservative movement that has given us the totally serious for real Republican presidential primary.

DCHindley

They don't have taxes in Galilee? And are we speaking of 4-6 BCE or 6 CE?

DCH

Diogenes the Cynic

Neither. Judea was annexed as a Roman province (actually as part of the province of Syria) in 6 CE, but Galilee was not. Galilee stayed a tetrarchy under Antipas. It was not under Quirinius' authority and was not subject to the census and tax imposed on Judea. No one in Galilee had to move an inch or pay a cent to Quirinius.

DCHindley

My point was supposed to be

If 6-4 BCE (during Herod's reign) then Galilee was subject to the exact same taxes as Judea, paid in some way or another to Herod the Great. Over the course of his reign Herod had reduced the kingdom's reliance on agricultural taxes in favor of tolls on goods passing through the country. However, there were regional differences regarding the types of taxes levied and their relative amounts.

If 6 CE, Judea is taxed directly by Rome by poll tax (all) and produce taxes (all except for temple administered lands). Antipas would not have trade routes to tax, so agricultural taxes would have to do it.

Once Judea became a Roman Province, Roman taxation is actually a rather complicated matter. I created an article on it once (early 90's) but cannot find a copy on my current computer. I might have to search a couple places where it might be archived online.

DCH

DCHindley

I found the tax info I was looking for. It was written for a Compuserve Furum in the mid 1990s and reposted on Crosstalk2 around 2000-2002.

Some years ago I summarized the scattered references to Roman direct tax policies in the Revised English edition of Emil Schurer’s _The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_ (edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Miller and Matthew Black, volume 1, 1973).

THE ROMAN CENSUS:

A) Roman Citizens:

“The original Roman census as it developed during the time of the Republic concerned only Roman Citizens. It was an inventory of Roman citizens and their possessions taken for two purposes:

(1) the regulation of military service, and

(2) the collection of direct taxes. The [citizen] to be assessed had to report to the censor and declare his possessions; but it was the custom for the head of the family to make the declaration for himself and the whole family.” (p. 401)

“Under the Empire, and even in the later years of the Republic, the census of Roman citizens had completely lost its original significance since they (i.e., the whole of Italy and colonies with [the legal designation of] *Ius Italicum*) no longer paid direct taxes or were liable to regular or universal conscription. If therefore Augustus, Claudius and Vespasian [who carried out the last full census of Roman citizens in AD 73/74] still took censuses of Roman citizens, it was only for the purpose of statistics or because of the religious ceremonies connected with them, but not for the levying of taxes.” (p. 401)

B) The Provinces:

“The provincial census was fundamentally different [from a census of Roman citizens], the control of taxation being its main function. There was great diversity, too, even in this respect in the early days of the Empire. In general, however, the same principals were applied which in later juristic documents ([compiled in] Digest. L, 15: De censibus) are presumed to prevail everywhere.” (p. 401).

C) How was it conducted?

“As far as the provincial census is concerned, i.e., the preparation of lists for the purpose of taxation, this was conducted in the same manner as the census of Roman citizens.” (p. 403)

D) What taxes were involved?

“From these it is evident that there were two kinds of direct taxes for the provinces: [and from here on I am paraphrasing pp. 401-403, but keep the original wording whenever I can]”

(1) a tax on agricultural produce, *tributum soli*. [This] was paid partly in kind, partly in money. [e.g., Egypt and parts of Africa supplied through this tax enough grain to feed all Italy].

(2) a poll-tax, *tributum capitis*. The second included various kinds of personal taxes:

(a) a property tax which varied according to a person’s capital valuation.
For example, in Appian’s time non-Roman citizens resident in Syria and Cilicia paid a tax of 1% of the amount of valuation. There does appear to be a question as to whether the valuation tax was further split between landed property and moveable possessions.

(b) a poll-tax proper at a flat rate per all capita [“heads”]. Women and slaves were also subject to this tax. Only children and old people were exempt. In Egypt a poll-tax was levied that was not identical for all the inhabitants but varied for each category of the population. This was accomplished by segregating the country into communities with a privileged class of “metropolites” subject to a lower rate. In Syria, men aged 14-65 and women aged 12-65, were subject to poll-taxes. In Egypt, the obligation lasted from the age of 14 to 60 or 61.

“In both [the above] cases [of poll-taxes] the expressions *edere* [i.e., to put forth, or give out, (documents or data)], *deferre censum* [i.e., to report, or bring certain things, to the place where the census was conducted in his area], [and] *profitari* [i.e., to make a public statement, or make a (tax) return of property] were used, from which it is evident that the taxpayer himself had to submit the necessary data, which were then checked by the officials. This declaration had to be made in the chief town of each taxation district; indeed, landed estates were required to be registered for taxation in the communities in which they are situated.” (p. 403).

E) Frequency:

“No regular census was taken in Republican times of the nations subject to Rome. They were conducted here and there, but were not closely connected either with each other, or with the census of Roman citizens.” (p. 401)

“[in later periods i]t is not known for sure how often the censuses were renewed. A clear idea of this can only be gained in the case of Egypt, because of the abundant material which the papyrus finds in that country have brought to light. In Roman times there were two kinds of periodic registration (*apographai*), for which the inhabitants themselves were obliged to supply the information.

(1) Every fourteen years each house-owner was required to deliver to the authorities a list of those residing in his house during the past year [see D2b above]. These registers, called *kat’ oikian apographai*, served mainly in the assessment of poll-tax. [in a footnote (#17), he says “It is possible, but not certain that these regular population counts [in Egypt] were introduced under Augustus. The earliest actually attested is that of A.D. 33/4, (or possibly A.D. 19/20...), and there is evidence for every census of the fourteen-year cycle from then until A.D. 258. It has been argued, however, that the cycle actually began in 10/9 B.C. - see esp. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt on P. Oxy. 254---and even as early as 24/23 B.C., see [S. L.] Wallace, [Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian (1938)] pp. 97-98, and Tcherikover in Journ. Juristic Pap. 4 (1950), p 18; for a skeptical view of the theory that the [Egyptian] cycle began under Augustus see Hombert, Preaux, [Recherches sur le recensement dans l’Egypte romaine (1952)], pp. 47-55.”] Presumably the reason for the fourteen-year period was that liability to pay the poll-tax began at the age of 14. It was therefor not necessary to supplement the lists with birth notices within the period. On the other hand, deaths appear to have been regularly registered with the authorities. The lists supplied evidence for the *epikrisis*, or examination to determine status, and the consequent liability for poll tax. [He doesn’t specifically say so in this place, but based on what is stated in D2a above, it appears that at this same time that landed property was also declared. See the final paragraph, and my comment, of section E2 below.]

(2) Each year, every property-owner had to give a written record, applying to the current year, of his movable possessions such as cattle, ships and slaves. These declarations for tax purposes are also called *apographai*. The tax was then determined on the basis of the details supplied, these latter having been checked by the authorities.” Footnote #20 adds “Wilcken supposed, in his Ostraka I, pp. 456-469, that the annual property declarations included landed property as well, and not only movable possessions. The general inclusion of landed property only took place when there was a need for it, and was specially ordered in each case. Moreover, the official registers of landed property were kept up to date because of the notices served on each change of ownership [i.e., under normal circumstances, ownership of landed property can be tracked through each 14 year cycle through deeds filed with authorities.]”. (pp. 403-404)

Also

It seems to me that the basic organization of the political entities active in the Roman world, including the Levant, would look something like this:

Arrows are used to show the direction of flow of the "excess" production of the farmers. The relationships get a little messy, and a lot of technical terminology gets used pretty loosely, not just by modern critics but by the ancient sources as well. However, the excess production is passed from farmer to villages, and from villages to towns or city states, and from these entities to the crown or the regional governments.

Roman Government <- Provinces <- Towns OR City States OR Client Principalities

Provinces <- Capital <- Towns OR City States

Kingdoms (client principalities) = (Capital <- Towns (a few of which might be constituted as a POLIS)

Towns <- CWRA (countryside) = (Villages <- Farmers)

POLIS (city state) <- AGROI (fields belonging to the city state, for which CWRA was often used as a synonym) = (Villages <- Farmers)

It always starts as grain ("in kind"), and the villages and towns and city states each stockpile grain to 1) pay taxes, and 2) hedge against famine years, usually a years supply.

However, it is hard for elites to conspicuously consume grain alone. They want to flout fancy clothes or villas or works of art. To effect this consumption, stockpiled grain must be bartered for handicrafts and services and non-grain foodstuffs produced or rendered by the farmers and by the artisans living in the villages, towns and cities. Cash is also necessary for any extensive trade to be possible, since exotic clothes, architectural materials, food or art are much preferred over local cloth, wool, locally smelted metals, wine, etc. Also, how does a town or city pay its taxes? The answer is that it depended on a lot of factors. Some was undoubtedly shipped, still in the form of grain, from coastal towns and cities to Rome. Herod made some pretty fine deals, gaining control of coastal towns in order to pay at least some of his tribute "in kind."

Whatever the circumstances, once grain gets to regional capitals and certainly by the time it reaches the king or the Romans, taxes collected "in kind" must be converted to cash.

Also

Herod, as his reign progressed, repeatedly remitted taxes on his Jewish subjects to a level Udoh estimates was 50% lower than that paid by Greek city states under his control (which presumably paid the "normal" rate that prevailed in these sorts of entities in the Roman world). He did this by gaining control of several Mediterranean port cities, stabilizing Trachonitis by sending 3000 Idumean settlers, and Batanaea by settling some Babylonian archers. These settlers, in exchange for stabilizing the area for the benefit of trade, were given land tax concessions. Herod ended up more than recouping the loss in land taxes by imposing tolls and fees on the vastly increased level of luxury items traversing the area as part of trade.

Finally (yeah!!! :innocent1

Herod, as his reign progressed, repeatedly remitted taxes on his Jewish subjects to a level Fabian Udoh estimates was 50% lower than that paid by Greek city states under his control (which presumably paid the "normal" rate that prevailed in these sorts of entities in the Roman world). He did this by gaining control of several Mediterranean port cities, stabilizing Trachonitis by sending 3000 Idumean settlers, and Batanaea by settling some Babylonian archers. These settlers, in exchange for stabilizing the area for the benefit of trade, were given land tax concessions. Herod ended up more than recouping the loss in land taxes by imposing tolls and fees on the vastly increased level of luxury items traversing the area as part of trade.

I am not suggesting that Antipas exempted his subjects from land taxes as Herod, and later Philip, did for the settlers in Batanaea and Trachonitis, but he was also not financially pressed to burden the farmers by excessive land taxes, nor need to have every inch of his kingdom under cultivation (in spite of Josephus' boasts). He offered inducements to those willing to populate and support the infrastructure of the new capitol of Tiberias, also including peasant farmers I would suppose. How many moved there to take advantage of the economic situation? Artisans would have work. Merchants had a chance to make deals. Once fallow land would have to be put under cultivation to support them.

DCH

Chili

No taxes in Galilee . . . that was purgatory, remember? and Joseph went there to give an account of himself as he was taxing religion = testing it for it's real worth and so was a tax collecter like Paul and here now had to give an account as himself is he was called to Order, by God, of course, as 'ark builder' and 'cave hewer' in faith and doubt . . . and there was no room at the in to say that he was beyond thelogogy and beyond time and so is 'beyond surrender' but while speechless still went throught he motions as shown by Zechariah. It's all there, in English this time to even the temple consternation that in Luke is edified as the fruit of religion itself.

Diogenes the Cynic

Thanks for the tax information. It's interesting.

Luke does not say that Joseph moved to Judea, though, only that he went there to register for the census, then went right back to Galilee.

DCHindley

Then I have to wonder just why he would go there to begin with. If Joseph really owned no land, and was making a living as an artisan in Galilee, he had no reason to go there when the new Procurator began to get a "head" count with personal property valuation in 6 CE.

If he went while Herod the Great was still alive, it would have to be that it afforded him some sort of advantage. Even though Herod's agricultural taxes were 1/2 that of a comparable Greek Polis (and there were several of these in Judea), if Josephus had no land, then he would have come to find artisan work. I can see that. Herod had a lot of agricultural excess to convert to cash, and this meant trading grain for goods, such as those produced by artisans, which he could export to Rome, Alexandria and Antioch for cash.

No, I think Joe was there to make a stake for himself, for his family, with some cash from a lifetime of trading goods in Babylon. On the way he learned that the ancestral tract of land was available at a price. Now he figures he could acquire a stake and become a "gentleman farmer." He was as proud as hell of his ancestry, maybe too proud. If he's over there questioning the legitimacy of Herod the Great's birth and pedigree, like others in the family did, all comfy and all with the Parthians, then maybe it was no wonder why Herod went after his kid. Exile in Egypt was the price he paid.

Of course, that is if he really was in exile in Egypt. Matthew starts with Jesus' birth in Judea, then exile to Egypt, then finally to Galilee, which doesn't seem to be where they came from. Luke says Joseph & Mary started out in Galilee and ended up in Judea because of a "census," in spite of the fact that no census requires him to be there if he doesn't already live there. No visit by the Magi or problems with Herod. THEN he goes back to Galilee with his parents, with no Egyptian exile. Since Luke makes up a census to explain Jesus' birth in Judea, maybe he makes up the idyllic family peasant life in Galilee. Maybe Matthew has the story right, he came from a family of royal claimants.

Of course, take what you like of this story what suites you, and treat the rest with a grain of salt. I don't mind. [/end rant]

DCH

Diogenes the Cynic

That's an awful lot of speculation to a question far better answered by "Luke made it up."