Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 10-16-2008, 07:43 AM

24 But, when they came into Capernaum, those who took up the didrachma came toward Peter and said: Does your teacher not pay the didrachma tax? 25 He says: Yes. And, after he had come into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying: How does it seem to you, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take up custom-tax or poll-tax? From their sons or from strangers? 26 And when he said: From strangers, Jesus said to him: Then the sons are free. 27 But, so that we do not scandalize them, journey to the sea and cast a hook and catch the first fish that rises up, and when you have opened its mouth you will find a stater; take that and give it to them for you and me.

Is this a miracle story or just a saying? That is, does the writer expect the reader to assume that Simon did in fact go out and catch a fish with a coin in its mouth, or is the writer merely reporting a clever or sarcastic dominical comment?

If the former, why is the miracle itself not actually narrated (even if with something as simple as: And Simon did as Jesus said)? If the latter, what is Jesus (according to the author, anyway) trying to say?

Are there any other miracle stories, whether inside or outside the canonical gospels, in which the miracle is understood to have occurred without any actual narration of it?

Thanks in advance.

Ben.

the_cave · 10-16-2008, 04:06 PM

In this case Chili is onto something, but I think it's a little less complicated. This passage seems to at least amount to a statement that Jesus' followers at one time paid the temple tax (IMO it is also a statement that their leader paid the tax himself). It would seem to release the readers of the gospel from the obligation to pay the tax--much like Peter's dream in Acts. Simon, as a son of Israel, is exempt, even if Jesus paid the tax--because Jesus was a "stranger", i.e. he was a divine being.

However, we do have the added fact that Jesus told Simon to pay the tax (however miraculously). I think this may reflect a kind of compromise--"so that we may not offend" could simply mean, hey, if they force you to, go ahead and give them the money. But the point is that it is no longer a religious oblgation. How do we know this? Because Jesus tells Simon to go get the coin miraculously, suggesting a spiritual meaning. My guess is that the fish represents Jesus himself (cf the feedings of the 5,000 and 4,000, the appearance by the lake of Tiberias, etc.) or at least represents his crucifixion and resurrection. The tax is "paid" in the sense that the disciples are freed from temple obligations by the death of Jesus. My guess is that this is also a reference to early eucharistic practices (which may have involved fish)--in celebrating the early Eucharist, the Christians were also declaring their freedom from the need for temple rites. Possible also that this is an oblique reference to Peter's own, legendary death by crucifixion.

(In addition, I also wonder if this is meant as a way of excusing payment of the tax using coins minted during Domitian's reign, since we know that some of them read Theou Yios--this passage could be making it a pun on Jesus' "Ichthys" title (Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter--so the joke, in a sense, is on the Romans: the Christians are giving them coins with the name of their savior on them.)

mountainman · 10-16-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Matthew 17.24-27 reads:

24 But, when they came into Capernaum, those who took up the didrachma came toward Peter and said: Does your teacher not pay the didrachma tax? 25 He says: Yes. And, after he had come into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying: How does it seem to you, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take up custom-tax or poll-tax? From their sons or from strangers? 26 And when he said: From strangers, Jesus said to him: Then the sons are free. 27 But, so that we do not scandalize them, journey to the sea and cast a hook and catch the first fish that rises up, and when you have opened its mouth you will find a stater; take that and give it to them for you and me.

Is this a miracle story or just a saying?

IMO, theological romance literature.

Quote:

That is, does the writer expect the reader to assume that Simon did in fact go out and catch a fish with a coin in its mouth, or is the writer merely reporting a clever or sarcastic dominical comment?

If the former, why is the miracle itself not actually narrated (even if with something as simple as: And Simon did as Jesus said)? If the latter, what is Jesus (according to the author, anyway) trying to say?

Dear Ben,

Our Emperor Julian saw it this way:

Quote:

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

This adequately answers your question (IMO) c.362 CE.

Quote:

Are there any other miracle stories, whether inside or outside the canonical gospels, in which the miracle is understood to have occurred without any actual narration of it?

Have you read Eusebius' Vita Constantini, thought to have been authored and published c.337 CE? In it, without blushing once, Eusebius appears to assert that at least two of the miraculous prophecies of the book of Revelations were historically enacted. I am not altogether sure though, at that time, whether the book of Revelations was considered inside or outside the canonical gospels. But that finally brings us to the Shepherd of Hermas, which I believe at that time was regarded by Eusebius and his christians as inside the canon of Constantine. The Shepherd of Hermas might be mined for this sort of stuff.

Best wishes,

Pete

storytime · 10-16-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Matthew 17.24-27 reads:

24 But, when they came into Capernaum, those who took up the didrachma came toward Peter and said: Does your teacher not pay the didrachma tax? 25 He says: Yes. And, after he had come into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying: How does it seem to you, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take up custom-tax or poll-tax? From their sons or from strangers? 26 And when he said: From strangers, Jesus said to him: Then the sons are free. 27 But, so that we do not scandalize them, journey to the sea and cast a hook and catch the first fish that rises up, and when you have opened its mouth you will find a stater; take that and give it to them for you and me.

Is this a miracle story or just a saying? That is, does the writer expect the reader to assume that Simon did in fact go out and catch a fish with a coin in its mouth, or is the writer merely reporting a clever or sarcastic dominical comment?

If the former, why is the miracle itself not actually narrated (even if with something as simple as: And Simon did as Jesus said)? If the latter, what is Jesus (according to the author, anyway) trying to say?

Are there any other miracle stories, whether inside or outside the canonical gospels, in which the miracle is understood to have occurred without any actual narration of it?

Thanks in advance.

Ben.

If Jesus did not speak unless in parables, it seems to be a parable and in line with the sons as heirs. Strangers were not heirs. And heirs did not pay tax[interest].(see OT law for Israelites)

So what was Jesus teaching? A predistined theology in sons of Jacob as the promised seed, the heirs? And in that heritage interest was not to be placed on the brethren. A Jewish thing. But why did Peter need instructing to the ways of Judaism, if that in fact is what the money in the fishes mouth is all about?

Compare Matthew 13:11-13 - not everyone was predistined for the kingdom of heaven[God]. Only those to whom it had been given, the heirs.

My question is: Was Peter a proselyte in process of becoming a Jew? In another conversation with Peter, Jesus informs Peter that Satan desires to sift him as wheat, but Jesus prays for him that his faith fail not, and when Peter is converted, he should strengthen the brethren[other disciples]. I find this an unusual part of the story as scholars have always said all the disciples were fully Jewish.

neilgodfrey · 10-17-2008, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Is this a miracle story or just a saying?

Check an earlier discussion on this passage here --
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236598

Neil

storytime · 10-17-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

[I find this an unusual part of the story as scholars have always said all the disciples were fully Jewish.

. . . except maybe Peter who's keen insight to recognize Jesus as the Christ was to be the Rock of the Church that Jesus had in mind.

But, was the Rock speaking of Peter or the foundational doctrine of Christ that Peter recognized? Remember, after declaring salvation to the Gentiles, (something that Jesus did not preach), Peter went back to Jerusalem and the Jews (because he did not see it his place to wait on tables, meaning, being a servant. Peter seems to have desired to be a lord) and Paul took the gospel to the Gentiles.

storytime · 10-17-2008, 06:39 AM

In OT, it was forbidden for Israelites to charge interest among themselves. It was a form of usury, enslavement. In Matthew, the character Matthew is called a sinner because he is a tax[interest] collector. Evidently the Jews were still aware that taxing their own was forbidden. Jesus also said, render to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods. So, if Jesus paid the tax[tribute] for Peter, did he separate to Caesar that which was Caesars in Peter as a proseltye[Gentile] and himself as a son of Jacob-Israel[son of God] and heir who paid no tax?

Clivedurdle · 10-17-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Is this a miracle story or just a saying?

Check an earlier discussion on this passage here --
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236598

Neil

from the thread above

Quote:

"Just as you Romans have grasped the Jewish state from its people, we have grasped the kingdom of God from them as well."

Let us try a slight alteration to that

Quote:

"Just as we Romans have grasped the Jewish state from its people, we Romans have grasped the kingdom of God from them as well."

DCHindley · 10-17-2008, 01:16 PM

Assuming that what was here put into Jesus' mouth (no pun intended) traces more or less as stated back to an actual Jesus, I have to wonder whether it was said in jest. Humor is in contrasts. Here Jesus makes a bold statement about who is - and who is not - a "son of the kingdom," but "proves" it by telling Peter to do something which our normal experience tells us is not very likely to happen. In effect, he is saying "If you catch a fish with a diddrachma in its mouth, then go ahead and use it to pay our tax." The unstated part continues: "... but of course you won't, so we will not be paying our tax after all!"

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Matthew 17.24-27 reads:

24 But, when they came into Capernaum, those who took up the didrachma came toward Peter and said: Does your teacher not pay the didrachma tax? 25 He says: Yes. And, after he had come into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying: How does it seem to you, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take up custom-tax or poll-tax? From their sons or from strangers? 26 And when he said: From strangers, Jesus said to him: Then the sons are free. 27 But, so that we do not scandalize them, journey to the sea and cast a hook and catch the first fish that rises up, and when you have opened its mouth you will find a stater; take that and give it to them for you and me.

Is this a miracle story or just a saying? That is, does the writer expect the reader to assume that Simon did in fact go out and catch a fish with a coin in its mouth, or is the writer merely reporting a clever or sarcastic dominical comment?

If the former, why is the miracle itself not actually narrated (even if with something as simple as: And Simon did as Jesus said)? If the latter, what is Jesus (according to the author, anyway) trying to say?

Are there any other miracle stories, whether inside or outside the canonical gospels, in which the miracle is understood to have occurred without any actual narration of it?

Thanks in advance.

Ben.

Toto · 10-19-2008, 07:01 PM

Chili's explanation split off here

10-16-2008, 07:43 AM	#1
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	The coin and the fish. Matthew 17.24-27 reads: 24 But, when they came into Capernaum, those who took up the didrachma came toward Peter and said: Does your teacher not pay the didrachma tax? 25 He says: Yes. And, after he had come into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying: How does it seem to you, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take up custom-tax or poll-tax? From their sons or from strangers? 26 And when he said: From strangers, Jesus said to him: Then the sons are free. 27 But, so that we do not scandalize them, journey to the sea and cast a hook and catch the first fish that rises up, and when you have opened its mouth you will find a stater; take that and give it to them for you and me. Is this a miracle story or just a saying? That is, does the writer expect the reader to assume that Simon did in fact go out and catch a fish with a coin in its mouth, or is the writer merely reporting a clever or sarcastic dominical comment? If the former, why is the miracle itself not actually narrated (even if with something as simple as: And Simon did as Jesus said)? If the latter, what is Jesus (according to the author, anyway) trying to say? Are there any other miracle stories, whether inside or outside the canonical gospels, in which the miracle is understood to have occurred without any actual narration of it? Thanks in advance. Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-16-2008, 04:06 PM	#2
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	In this case Chili is onto something, but I think it's a little less complicated. This passage seems to at least amount to a statement that Jesus' followers at one time paid the temple tax (IMO it is also a statement that their leader paid the tax himself). It would seem to release the readers of the gospel from the obligation to pay the tax--much like Peter's dream in Acts. Simon, as a son of Israel, is exempt, even if Jesus paid the tax--because Jesus was a "stranger", i.e. he was a divine being. However, we do have the added fact that Jesus told Simon to pay the tax (however miraculously). I think this may reflect a kind of compromise--"so that we may not offend" could simply mean, hey, if they force you to, go ahead and give them the money. But the point is that it is no longer a religious oblgation. How do we know this? Because Jesus tells Simon to go get the coin miraculously, suggesting a spiritual meaning. My guess is that the fish represents Jesus himself (cf the feedings of the 5,000 and 4,000, the appearance by the lake of Tiberias, etc.) or at least represents his crucifixion and resurrection. The tax is "paid" in the sense that the disciples are freed from temple obligations by the death of Jesus. My guess is that this is also a reference to early eucharistic practices (which may have involved fish)--in celebrating the early Eucharist, the Christians were also declaring their freedom from the need for temple rites. Possible also that this is an oblique reference to Peter's own, legendary death by crucifixion. (In addition, I also wonder if this is meant as a way of excusing payment of the tax using coins minted during Domitian's reign, since we know that some of them read Theou Yios--this passage could be making it a pun on Jesus' "Ichthys" title (Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter--so the joke, in a sense, is on the Romans: the Christians are giving them coins with the name of their savior on them.)

10-17-2008, 06:39 AM	#7
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	In OT, it was forbidden for Israelites to charge interest among themselves. It was a form of usury, enslavement. In Matthew, the character Matthew is called a sinner because he is a tax[interest] collector. Evidently the Jews were still aware that taxing their own was forbidden. Jesus also said, render to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods. So, if Jesus paid the tax[tribute] for Peter, did he separate to Caesar that which was Caesars in Peter as a proseltye[Gentile] and himself as a son of Jacob-Israel[son of God] and heir who paid no tax?

10-19-2008, 07:01 PM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Chili's explanation split off here

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.