Was Galilee (and therefore Jesus) Exempt from Caesar's Tax?
R. T. France states in relation to Mark 12:13-17 that "As a Galilean [Jesus] was not liable to pay the κῆνσος, which applied only to provinces such as Judaea which were under direct Roman rule." I don't see any citation for this assertion...Can anyone cooperate this as historically accurate?
If I should be posting this somewhere else, please let me know.
France, R. T. (2002). The Gospel of Mark: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 465). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.
Comments
-
Andrew said:
I don't see any citation for this assertion...Can anyone cooperate this as historically accurate?
Remembering that this episode occurred in Jerusalem:
The Herodians were supporters of the Herodian dynasty in general and of Herod Antipas in particular. Their presence in Jerusalem might seem strange, since the Romans had deposed Herod Archaelaus in 6 C.E. and replaced the Herod family in Jerusalem and Judea with a series of Roman governors or prefects (the most famous being Pontius Pilate from 26 to 36 C.E.). But the “Herodians” could be in Jerusalem for the Passover pilgrimage (as Herod Antipas was, according to Luke 23:6–12). Since the Herodian dynasty owed its existence to its support of and by the Roman empire the Herodians presumably would support paying taxes to Caesar.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
SineNomine said:
Remembering that this episode occurred in Jerusalem:
Thank you SineNomine, but I don't think the quote you provided relates to my question
0 -
Andrew said:
Thank you SineNomine, but I don't think the quote you provided relates to my question
I suspect that SineNomine assumes that the Herodian presence in Galilee makes his quote relevant to the question.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Andrew said:
Can anyone cooperate this as historically accurate?
I searched for (Galilee, Galilean, province) INTERSECTS {Milestone <Mk 12:13-17>}. Most references were to Judas the Galilean, but many commentaries take the same view as France. Here's a sampling, some with citations:
Stein (BECNT): Since such a tax was apparently not imposed on Galilee (Gundry 1993: 697), the question seems more applicable in a Judean setting, such as the present one, than in a Galilean one.
Gundry: Though there is some uncertainty (J. D. M. Derrett, Law 329), κῆνσον (v 14) probably means a census-based poll and land tax. The Greek word comes on loan from the Latin census, and such a tax was imposed on Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, but not on Galilee, in 6 C.E. (Josephus Ant. 18.1.1 §§1–4; Acts 5:37). Thus, though the question, “Should we give or not give?” does not fall appropriately from any Galilean Pharisees and Herodians sent by the Sanhedrin, the Judean residence of the Sanhedrin makes the question suitable, as though they seek outside judgment—Jesus is a Galilean—on an internal issue. The tax has to be paid in Roman coinage, not in Jewish coinage devoid of Tiberius’s image and of an ascription of deity to the deceased Augustus (F. F. Bruce in Jesus and the Politics of His Day 258; E. Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars 114–20, 124).
Tan (NCCS): In Jesus’ day, only Jews in Judea paid this poll tax, because it became a Roman province in AD 6 when Archelaus, Antipas’s brother, was forced to abdicate by Jewish protest and Roman greed. A Galilean Jew was not subjected to this Roman poll tax, as they had Herod Antipas as their ruler.
Osborne (TtT): Is it right to pay the imperial tax …? This was the poll tax (see the “Taxes, the Zealots, and Government”), consisting of one denarius paid annually by all adults (women as well as men). Jesus, being a Galilean, was not directly involved (only Judea was a province under direct Roman rule), but this was an issue debated and opposed by virtually all Jews, and that is the purpose of the leaders here.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Thanks for the masterclass, Mark!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Andrew said:
Can anyone cooperate this as historically accurate?
I searched for (Galilee, Galilean, province) INTERSECTS {Milestone <Mk 12:13-17>}. Most references were to Judas the Galilean, but many commentaries take the same view as France. Here's a sampling, some with citations:
Stein (BECNT): Since such a tax was apparently not imposed on Galilee (Gundry 1993: 697), the question seems more applicable in a Judean setting, such as the present one, than in a Galilean one.
Gundry: Though there is some uncertainty (J. D. M. Derrett, Law 329), κῆνσον (v 14) probably means a census-based poll and land tax. The Greek word comes on loan from the Latin census, and such a tax was imposed on Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, but not on Galilee, in 6 C.E. (Josephus Ant. 18.1.1 §§1–4; Acts 5:37). Thus, though the question, “Should we give or not give?” does not fall appropriately from any Galilean Pharisees and Herodians sent by the Sanhedrin, the Judean residence of the Sanhedrin makes the question suitable, as though they seek outside judgment—Jesus is a Galilean—on an internal issue. The tax has to be paid in Roman coinage, not in Jewish coinage devoid of Tiberius’s image and of an ascription of deity to the deceased Augustus (F. F. Bruce in Jesus and the Politics of His Day 258; E. Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars 114–20, 124).
Tan (NCCS): In Jesus’ day, only Jews in Judea paid this poll tax, because it became a Roman province in AD 6 when Archelaus, Antipas’s brother, was forced to abdicate by Jewish protest and Roman greed. A Galilean Jew was not subjected to this Roman poll tax, as they had Herod Antipas as their ruler.
Osborne (TtT): Is it right to pay the imperial tax …? This was the poll tax (see the “Taxes, the Zealots, and Government”), consisting of one denarius paid annually by all adults (women as well as men). Jesus, being a Galilean, was not directly involved (only Judea was a province under direct Roman rule), but this was an issue debated and opposed by virtually all Jews, and that is the purpose of the leaders here.
Thank you Mark! You not only gave me a fish, but taught me how to fish better in the future by providing the search you used - I really appreciate it.
Any idea why Judas the Galilean would have revolted if he didn't need to pay the tax anyways? Or was his revolt actually successful?
0 -
Andrew said:
Thank you Mark! You not only gave me a fish, but taught me how to fish better in the future by providing the search you used - I really appreciate it.
Any idea why Judas the Galilean would have revolted if he didn't need to pay the tax anyways? Or was his revolt actually successful?
I could be mistaken, as don't have reference to hand right now, but wasn't the revolt instigated because of the attempt to institute a tax on Galilee? Can anyone confirm or deny my fuzzy half memory?
Carpe verbum.
0 -
Andrew said:
Any idea why Judas the Galilean would have revolted if he didn't need to pay the tax anyways? Or was his revolt actually successful?
The issue wasn't the money. It was because he resented the implications of Caesar's claim over Jerusalem and Judea. Jerusalem was hugely important to all Jews, not just those in Judea. The tax suggested Caesar was King, not God, which was anathema to many Jews. That's why Jesus answered the tax question the way that he did: "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Mark Barnes said:Andrew said:
Any idea why Judas the Galilean would have revolted if he didn't need to pay the tax anyways? Or was his revolt actually successful?
The issue wasn't the money. It was because he resented the implications of Caesar's claim over Jerusalem and Judea. Jerusalem was hugely important to all Jews, not just those in Judea. The tax suggested Caesar was King, not God, which was anathema to many Jews. That's why Jesus answered the tax question the way that he did: "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".
Thank you Mark. Are you able to cite any references that confirm that it was the Judean tax that caused Judas to revolt rather than a Galilean tax? I don't see that specified in Josephus.
0 -
Andrew said:Mark Barnes said:Andrew said:
Any idea why Judas the Galilean would have revolted if he didn't need to pay the tax anyways? Or was his revolt actually successful?
The issue wasn't the money. It was because he resented the implications of Caesar's claim over Jerusalem and Judea. Jerusalem was hugely important to all Jews, not just those in Judea. The tax suggested Caesar was King, not God, which was anathema to many Jews. That's why Jesus answered the tax question the way that he did: "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".
Thank you Mark. Are you able to cite any references that confirm that it was the Judean tax that caused Judas to revolt rather than a Galilean tax? I don't see that specified in Josephus.
I think I found it:
"Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance...yet there was one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty..." (Antiquities 18.2-4)
0
