Jaguar Prince

Hi everybody!

This is going to be my first post here. I hope it can stimulate your Biblical and other neurones and generate some enlightened comment. The subject is the relationship between Jesus (as mediated through the voice of the anonymous gospels) and the publicans.

This is a theme I have brought up for discussion on several Christian discussion forums without ever eliciting any reactions except the customary expressions of abuse and indignation from marauding Biblical fundamentalists. There seems to be an entrenched prejudice in Christian circles that Jesus indeed loved tax collectors and vice versa.

Each time I tried to talk about this, I drew the reader's attention to the discrepant message of Matthew 5:46-4, "If you love those who love you and greet those who greet you, what is your merit? Even the publicans do as much!" More disturbing is the injunction of Matthew 18:17: "If a sinning brother neglects to hear the 'church', let him be to you like a heathen (thus) and a publican! (not verbatim quote)"

Now it seems to me that in these verses Jesus is in fact not only confirming but grossly playing on vulgar prejudice against publicans to drive home his own points, which is quite remarkable in view of the often heard claim that he tried to change people's attitudes toward this very special category of citizens: tax collectors aren't that bad, deep down they are as good, if not better than the righteous prigs of the religious establishment, etc., etc.

What do ye think?

It seems to me the whole theme of Jesus' friendship with the tax collectors of his day has been somewhat overblown, if not forged (think of Jewish accusations during the trial in Luke that he had incited the crowds not to pay tax to the Emperor and of the rather ambiguous answer he gave himself when asked if people should pay tribute to Caesar), in order to make his attitude agree with that of Paul, who recommended his converts to be tax zealots to Rome out of charity.

Thank you for your attention

Jag

Diogenes the Cynic

Welcome, Jaguar.

Are you asking whether Mark invented the story of Levi in 2:14-17 (which was also imported into both Matthew and Luke) to fit expectations of Pauline Christianity?

Possibly. Pretty much everything Mark wrote was his own invention so there's no reason to take that story any differently. One of your quotes from Matthew comes from Q and probably does preserve some real hostility towards Roman tax collectors from the community produced those sayings (I'll reserve judgement on whether the Q sayings go back to HJ). Your other quote from Matthew seems original to him and not surprising, even if it does seem to conflict with his version of the Levi story.

So yeah, Jesus' love for tax collectors is probably a Markan invention.

Jaguar Prince

Could we read the story in Mark as an attempt by Jesus to disrupt fiscal administration? If Levi/Matthew really left his office on the spot to follow Jesus, I suppose this must have created some chaos in local tax collection! Naturally, the gospel text doesn't dwell on the consequences of Levi's conversion, but, if the incident is historical, this must have been what happened.

It is interesting that it is Mark and not Matthew who tells the story of Matthew/Levi, the ex-IRS inspector turned evangelist.

Something I keep wondering about is: what did Jesus expect from repentant publicans? And who took the initiative? Did Jesus seek out the publicans or did these seek out Jesus and invite him for luch or supper? Did Jesus require that they stop praticing graft (Zacchaeus case*)? Or did he want them to stop betraying the Jewish nation by quitting their office altogether (Levi)? Did Jesus really expect repentance? Sanders says he didn't. In that case, the charismatic rabbi from Galilea would have been hanging out with the oppressors of the poor and eating food stolen from their mouths.

I feel that while one or two publicans may have had a change of heart as a result of Jesus' preaching, which naturally caused hostile and gossiping Pharisees to level at Jesus the accusation that he was a friend of despicable sinners, it cannot possibly be true that, as Matthew claims in 21:31ff, that "the publicans go before you in the Kingdom" and that the publicans believed massively in the way of righteousness proclaimed by John the Baptist.

Can anyone in his sober mind conceive that John and Jesus' ministry radically emptied the brothels and sanitized tax collection in Palestine, freeing the latter from corruption and greed? Or are the definite article (oi telonai) just Oriental hyperboles?

*the intereting thing to note about Zacchaeus is that Jesus apparently did not tell him to mend his ways at all

andrewcriddle

Matthew 5:46, "If you love those who love you what is your merit? Even the publicans do as much!" is indeed Q (The reference to publicans in Matthew 5:47 in the KJV is not the original text which had Gentiles not Publicans) but the parallel in Luke 6:32 has the general sinners instead of the specific publicans. Whether Q originally read Publicans (ie tax-collectors) or Sinners is difficult to decide.

We do however have some Q references to Jesus being friends with tax collectors (or at least accused of such friendship) Matthew 11:19 parallel Luke 7:34.

Hence it seems unilkely that the idea simply originates with Mark.

Andrew Criddle

Jaguar Prince

My own theory is that Matt 11:19 was in fact a slander!

But when the Gospels were written (in my view their writing dates from the end of the first century and beginning of the second century), what was said derisively by Jesus was misinterpeted as historical truth. This misinterpretation was made all the more easier by the desire of gospel writers to find material supporting Pauline claims that Christians had to pay tax. Presenting Jesus as a friend of tax collectors was an excellent means to drive home this controversial point and to refute Jewish rumors that Jesus had been a tax protester (see Lukan Passion narrative).

Vorkosigan

It probably came to Mark from Galatians. Gal 2 to Mark to Matthew. No Q necessary, or involved. It doesn't strike me as very important whether the "original" text said sinner or Gentile. Weren't the two interchangeable to Jews?

The "Levi the tax collector" is probably parody/irony. Mark 2:14 the disciple call, doubles 1:16-18.

2:14a: And as he passed on,
And passing along by the Sea of Galilee,

2:14b: he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office,
he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.

2:14c: and he said to him, "Follow me."
And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men."

2:14d: And he rose and followed him.
And immediately they left their nets and followed him.

The next section sets up the chreia that ends the pericope.

There's Jesus eating with sinners!
The bum! What does eat with them for?
Physicians heal the sick, not the healthy!

The whole setup is very Markan.

andrewcriddle

There isn't a variation between sinner and Gentile per se, the issue is about how both are used in different places as alternatives to tax collector

In Matthew 5:46 Matthew clearly has tax collectors but the Lukan parallel has sinners

In Matthew 5:47 (with no Lukan parallel) Matthew almost certainly wrote Gentiles but later manuscripts followed by the KJV changed it to tax collectors

Andrew Criddle

Jaguar Prince

It's very interesting in my view that Luke changed "publicans" into "sinners". He, unlike Matthew, must have felt the contradiction between a Jesus which plays on the prejudices of the mob and the enlightened, Pauline Jesus who eats with tax collectors and even praises them.