The census tax & the date of the gospel of Mark.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think there is nothing historical about Mk 12:13-17 (and all activities of Jesus in the temple after the "disturbance").
"Mark" invented the story in order to incite his Christians to pay tax to the Romans, as did earlier Paul (Ro 13:6-7), without knowing about details of taxation in Judea some 40 years earlier.

That would be very compatible with the conclusions reached in the article, I believe.

[Charles Wilson]

Ben --

There is something very strange going on in this story.

Mark 12: 13 - 17 (RSV):

[13] And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Hero'di-ans, to entrap him in his talk.
[14] And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?
[15] Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why put me to the test? Bring me a coin, and let me look at it."
[16] And they brought one. And he said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said to him, "Caesar's."
[17] Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at him.

1. The major idea first: "Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." Why? Jewish coins do not have "pictures" of people on them. Why would "Jesus" even ask such a question? This is a "cosmopolitan" view of abominable and unclean things. "Jesus" can handle such items. He can live in the filth of abominable people. This is a movement away from living a clean life to a life where it is only the spiritual that matters - and that is a Pauline idea.

2. There is also a Roman Joke here. Caesar already owns everything. He is Lord of the Earth. To give him every "thing" is to give him what he already has. "Jesus" is therefore stating a Tautology, something with no descriptive content.

3. There is the unstated "They". The prior reference to the group that "they" represents would be Mark 11:

[18] And the chief priests and the scribes heard it...

Which brings us to:

[13] And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Hero'di-ans...

Where's outhouse when you need him? This very Hellenistic view only leaves out the subjects of the story: The Romans. The Romans control everything including pictures of unclean Pig-People on their money. That is just fine with "Jesus".

No. This is at minimum a rewrite. It may be a complete creation out of whole cloth. If an Authorship after circa 110 is accurate, it would be a composition from someone who has no idea of the culture he is writing about.

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

The major idea first: "Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." Why? Jewish coins do not have "pictures" of people on them.

Roman coins do:

Obverse: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG [Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus].
Reverse: IVDAEA [Judaea].

[Charles Wilson]

The major idea first: "Bring me a coin, and let me look at it." Why? Jewish coins do not have "pictures" of people on them.

Roman coins do:

Obverse: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG [Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus].
Reverse: IVDAEA [Judaea].

'Zackly!!

[Ben C. Smith]

'Zackly!!

[Charles Wilson]

I should retire on my laurels - Ben gave me a " "!

Nonetheless, look at Matthew. Matthew at times hides: "And they went and woke him, saying, 'Save, Lord; we are perishing.' ". At times expanding as in the "completed" Story of Peter and Walking on the Water.

Matthew 23:

[15] Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how to entangle him in his talk.
[16] And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Hero'di-ans, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men.
[17] Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?"
[18] But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why put me to the test, you hypocrites?
[19] Show me the money for the tax." And they brought him a coin.
[20] And Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"
[21] They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
[22] When they heard it, they marveled; and they left him and went away.

1. The use of "They" is clarified a little. Realize, however, that "The Pharisees" label conceals many sins (See Luke 19: 39 - 40).

2. The FORM of the passages are very similar.:

a. The Bad Guys are trying to entangle "Jesus" in his talk.
b. The Bad Guys build him up. "Jesus" recognizes it and puts them down as hypocrites
c. "Izzit it OK to pay taxes to Caesar (The Romans)"?
d. "They marveled..."

3. Notice Matthew here! "'Show me the money for the tax.' And they brought him a coin..."
The money for the tax is, by implication, Roman money. Further, it is possible for Matthew's version to absolve "Jesus" of making himself unclean. He might not have even had to have looked at the face on the coin!

4."Whose likeness and inscription is this?" "Jesus" is asking the question.

Two paths here, maybe more. Matthew is expanding and explaining in a way Mark does not. This always leads to the questions as to whether the passage comes from Source (Again, the completed Story of "Jesus" walking on water and saving Peter implies Source that Matthew has "in front of him" that Mark did not use). Matthew gives a version that is more sympathetic to Jewish Sensibilities. If this is from Source then it reads almost Rabbinic and that is late - Post 70s or, as I believe, Post 110.

On a kindly reading, this would be a rewrite. It has to be forced, however, into the Anti-Temple High Priest Motif.

CW

[DCHindley]

I've downloaded the article but must read it later.

A while back, in the Crosstalk2 days, I compiled a post on Roman and Jewish taxation policy in general. It was based on, or at least informed by, Fabian Idoh's PhD thesis that was later expanded into his book on Roman taxation policy.

Let me take a look again.

DCH

[Jax]

'Mark' might have goofed (again) then?

Engaged in an anachronism, yes. What does the "again" refer to, specifically?

Doesn't he make a few geographical errors, such as pigs in Gerasa jumping 30 km (horizontally) into the sea of Galilee, or Jesus passing through Sidon on the way from Tyre to the sea of Galilee (through the borders of the Decapolis)?

From the notes in the paper,

Mark contains a number of geographic anomalies that might indicate the author’s unfamiliarity with the southern Levant (e.g., Gerasa on the coast of Gennesaret in 5:1). But geographic errors are common in other writings from the region, for example, the numerous errors in Josephus’s representation of the region. See Ze’ev Safrai, “The Description of the Land of Israel in Josephus’ Works,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History (ed.
Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988) 295

The author further adds references to the effect that Mark is writing in the southern Levant.

11 For insights about Galilee, see, e.g., Robert Henry Lightfoot, Locality and Doctrine in the
Gospels (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938) 178 ;־Ernst Lohmeyer, Galiläa und Jerusalem
(FRLANT 52; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936) 3536 ;־Howard Clark Kee, Community
ofthe NewAge: Studies in Mark’ s Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977); Werner H. Kelber, The
Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
Galilean provenance is argued in, e.g., William E. Amal, “The Gospel ofMark as Reflection
on Exile and Identity,” in Introducing Religion: Essays in Honor ofJonathan Z. Smith (ed. Willi
Braun and Russell T. McCutcheon; London: Equinox, 2008) 5767 ;־M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A
Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 1520 ;־Joanna Dewey, “A Galilean
Provenance for the Gospel of Mark?” Forum [Third Series] 2 (2013) 10120 ;־Richard A. Horsley,
Hearing the Whole Story: ThePolitics ofPlot in Mark ’ s Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2001) 2752 ;־Willi Marxen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History ofthe Gospel
(2nd ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1969) 54116 ;־David M. Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie,
Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative ofa Gospel (3rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012)
14651 ; ־Roskam, Purpose ofthe Gospel ofMark, 94113 ; ־cf. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 23671.־
Mark’s composition has been located at other sites in Judea, including Caesarea Maritima,
according to Ellis, “Date and Provenance”; and Jerusalem, according to Dean W. Chapman,
“Locating the Gospel of Mark: A Model ofAgrarian Biography,” BTB 25 (1995) 2436 ;־Robert A.
Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Nelson, 1989) xxviii; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel
ofMark: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002) 1116 .־See also the suggestions ofthe
Decapolis, according to Timothy Wardle, “Mark, the Jerusalem Temple and Jewish Sectarianism:
Why Geographical Proximity Matters in Determining the Provenance of Mark,” NTS 62 (2015)
6078 ;־Marcus, “Jewish War,” 46162 ;־and Caesarea Philippi, according to Thomas Schmeller,
“Jesus im Umland Galiläas: Zu den markinischen Berichten vom Aufenthalt Jesu in den Gebieten
von Tyros, Caesarea Philippi und der Dekapolis,” BZ 38 (1994) 4466 ;־Theodore J. Weeden, “The
Case for Caesarea Philippi as the Provenance for the Markan Community,” Forum [New Series] 6
(2003) 277־86.
Most arguments for Mark’s Levantine provenance are accompanied by a discussion of the
problems with the primary alternative, namely, the hypothesis that Mark was composed in Rome.
Some of the more salient counterarguments regarding Mark’s composition in or near the city of
Rome include the following: (1) It is sometimes supposed that Mark’s Latinisms indicate a
provenance where Latin was the common tongue, which could be Rome. Mark’s Latinisms,
however, are not the type of mundane, quotidian terms that one would expect in a Latin-fluent
context. They are primarily administrative and military terms that are associated specifically with
Roman administration and might be used in a foreign environment (e.g., speculator, centurio praetorium,flagello, legio); cf. n. 29 below

[Jax]

I found this interesting

Confusion over who should pay the tax, as well as difficulty exacting it from those obligated, led Domitian to adopt a harsh policy of exacting thefiscus Iudaicus more rigorously than his predecessors. Domitian expanded the legal category Iudaeus to include those who were alleged to have concealed their Jewish ethnicity (Suetonius Dorn. 12.1-2; cf. Cassius Dio Hist. Rom. 67.14.1-2, 68.1.2; Martial Epig. 7.55). One can imagine several demographics this may have affected: Samaritans, gentile Christians, Jewish tax evaders, people in mixed households, Jewish converts, former practitioners of Judaism, as well as people concealing their Judean ethnos. Apparently many did not pay before Domitian’s policy, whether it was because they did not understand the tax as mandatory for them or as a form of tax protest. All of this suggests that there was not an obvious answer for the dilemma ofpaying thefiscus Iudaicus, whether by those within Jewish communities or by those at their periphery.

As Antiquities of the Jews was published under Domitian I would imagine that this is when Mark was written.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Thanks for the link. I read the paper with interest.

One sore difficulty with linking Jesus' remarks about the coin to a specific tax is that the scene depicts him engaged in a timeless activity: evading a politically awkward direct question. Modern journalists refer to "ambush" questions, and the context in Mark fits that designation.

The coin is not Caesar's, nor would any adult be confused about whether the purpose of the portrait and inscription is to indicate ownership of the coin. That purpose is, then and now, to identify who issued the token.

"Give back to Caesar what is his" is no advice at all about tax compliance or resistance. The following would be an argument, both coherent and unambiguously in favor of paying something that is demanded:

1. The coin bears marks connecting it with Caesar
2. The connection is that Caesar owns the coin
3. I somehow find myself in possession of the coin
4. Caesar has demanded that I return his property to him
Therefore,
5. It is just to do what Caesar demands of me in this case

In the event, Jesus doesn't assert #2 (he "suggests" it, to be sure, but regardless, it is false and known to be false). Premises 1, 3 and 4 without 2 do not entail 5. Furthermore, if #2 were true, the argument would be unresponsive to the question Jesus was asked, which was whether or not to pay taxes. Caesar's demand in #4 is not a tax.

Oratorical dexterity is no mean feat. It is both worthy to serve as a sign of divine favor, and also a realistic skill to be found among leaders of all kinds, including religious ones. There is no reason why an intelligent grown-up sympathizer wouldn't portray a hero as blessed with the gift of gab.

It is also at least as impressive as any exorcism that the hostile questionners and onlookers not only accept Jesus' flagrant sidestep,

https://youtu.be/NJG75FJkjr8

but a later questionner is bedazzled with how well Jesus answered. We cheat Jesus when we do not list this performance along with his other miracles.

As to dating, nothing in the core argument 1-5 depends on the coin actually depicting Caesar or being of a specific denomination. Superfluous specificity is a well-worn device to achieve a feeling of realism. Another poster has already mentioned geographic details in Mark that don't correspond with reality.

The effect depends on what the audience doesn't notice, not what the author knows or doesn't know. Thus, in our time, Dan Brown placed Versailles north of Paris while reaching for the same effect. It beggars belief that Mr Brown had never seen a map of the area. On the other hand, he might read a map upside down, 'cause it's not like his target audience would care about the difference.