Temple Tax

Matthew's four verses about this subject^[1] do not rate high in the prevalent opinion, chiefly because the introduction of the fish is uncomprehended—to say the least.^[2] A further reason is the neglect of a controversy within Jewry certainly very intense in the thirties but going on right until A.D. 70. The following pages are intended to show that the little section forms a well-constructed whole; that it is definitely part of Ur -Christian lore and, indeed, most probably harks

[1] Matthew 17.24ff. See my 'Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels', New Testament Studies 19 (1972): 13ff., and 'Fraud No. 3', in The Legal Mind, Essays for Tony Honoré , ed. N. MacCormick and P. Birks, 1986, p. 15.

[2] It might be worth while, as a contribution to Wissenschafts-geschichte , to study the diverse methods (including silence) of dealing with this embarrassment. Even authors who, as far as the rest is concerned, come close to the approach of this paper—e.g. G. A. Buttrick, 'The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Exposition', in The Interpreter's Bible , vol. 7, 1951, pp. 465f., and Eduard Schweizer, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus , 1976, pp. 231ff. — are at a loss when it comes to the haul.

back to an actual occurrence; and that the fish makes perfect sense in a directive of eminent practical and spiritual importance for the earliest believers.

The collectors of the Temple tax accost Peter. What they say is translatable in two ways between which it is fortunately not necessary to decide: 'Your teacher does not pay the half-shekel' or 'Does your teacher not pay the half-shekel?'. If we go by the first alternative, they assume resistance; but even the second presupposes suspicion—they would not be surprised by Jesus opting out, they are on the attack. The challenging of a disciple for his master's aberrations is a universal phenomenon. A Jungian is expected to defend Jung's response to the Third Reich, a devotee of Est Werner Erhard's socialising. In the first two Gospels Jesus's disciples are interrogated why he eats with publicans and sinners.^[3] Peter's 'Yes', however, quickly stops the confrontation. No doubt he thinks that Jesus cannot be remiss, though he may be far from sure about the ins and outs. It is likely, moreover, that his desire to get rid of the officers without ado plays a part in the terse affirmation.

As he returns from the encounter, ere he can report, Jesus divines his perplexity and enlightens him. At first sight, one might infer that we have to do with the type of disciple who does not dare or know to ask and whose interest is to be aroused by the teacher. This type figures in the ancient Seder, from where it is taken over into Mark's day of questions: 'And no one dared any longer ask him, and Jesus, commencing the discourse, said'.^[4] Yet the set-up be-

[3] Matthew 9.10ff., Mark 2.15ff., restructured in Luke 5.29ff. See my 'Responsibilities of Master and Disciples', pp. 11ff.

[4] Mark 12.34f. See my The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (1956; rept. 1973, pp. 148ff.; 'The Earliest Structure of the Gospels', New Testament Studies 5 (1959): 180ff.; He That Cometh , 1966, pp. 8ff.; and 'Zukunftsmusik', Bulletin of The John Rylands University Library of Manchester 68 (1985): 58ff.

fore us is not quite the same. For one thing, whereas both in the Seder and in the Marcan analogue, the problem does not enter the disciple's mind till his attention is called to it, in the Temple tax story, he comes upon it himself. Again, whereas both in the Seder and in the Marcan analogue, the master refrains from unravelling the knot—his task being to get the disciple to cogitate—in the Temple tax story, Jesus does so. Lastly, maybe Peter would have asked, only that Jesus 'anticipates him', gets in first. This action, as we shall see, is indeed of no mean import. It sets the tone: he has rare powers at his command. We may compare his spontaneous taking up of the dispute among his disciples as to which of them will be the greatest in the kingdom—found in Mark and Luke;^[5] also, though it is less close, his precise acquaintance with the home life of the Samaritan woman in John.^[6]

The handling of the Temple tax, he explains to Peter, is a far from simple matter and the 'Yes' stands in need of a vital qualification. He begins his instruction by setting out the latter: ideally, he and his are not bound at all. He reasons that earthly kings exact tribute from strangers only and not from their sons. By analogy, as he and his are sons—scil. of the heavenly King, the Temple's sovereign—they must be free.

The antithesis between son or member of a family and stranger is common both in Greek and in Hebrew. Hero-

[5] Mark 9.33f., Luke 9.46ff. Not in Matthew 18.1ff.: the display of extraordinary perception in the Temple tax piece suffices. It has long been seen that there is a genetic tie between 'And when they were come to Capernaum . . . and when he [Peter] was come into the house' in Matthew 17.24f. and 'And he came to Capernaum and being in the house he said to them' in Mark 9.33. (None of it in Luke.) Which of the two descends from which may here be left open.

[6] John 4.17ff.

dotus^[7] tells of a woman whose entire kinsfolk are under sentence of death. Darius, moved by her continual laments (one is reminded of the Lucan judge^[8] ), allows her to pick one of the lot to live. She names a brother, whereupon he enquires why she chooses one who is 'more a stranger than your children'. Hosea speaks of bastards as 'sons that are strangers',^[9] and the stricken Job is accounted 'a stranger' by his own household.^[10] Particularly relevant, however, is the attachment in Jewish religion of the label stranger to a nonpriest, frequent from Exodus, 'a stranger shall not eat thereof',^[11] through Sirach, 'but strangers [Korah, Dathan and Abiram] were incensed against him [Aaron]',^[12] to the Talmud where, indeed, we find a derivative added, an abstract, strangeness, signifying the quality of being a nonpriest.^[13] Such a formation testifies to considerable reflection and discussion upon the area. The point here is that, in Jesus's time, the priests insisted on exemption from the Temple tax,^[14] doubtless as 'belonging' in a fashion incompatible with this obligation on strangers. The reverberations of this issue in fragmentary reports and allusions—several of which will be inspected—give us an idea of just how hotly and widely it was debated. To some degree, it appears, he is casting himself and his followers in a similar role.

Several other groups were immune: women, slaves, minors, gentiles and Samaritans. In all five cases, we have to do with a privilegium odiosum , a benefit that is really a degrada-

[7] Herodotus, Histories 3.119.

[8] Luke 18.1 ff.

[9] Hosea 5.7.

[10] Job 19.15, 17.

[11] Exodus 29.33.

[12] Sirach 45.18.

[13] E.g. Babylonian Yebamoth 68b towards the beginning.

[14] Mishnah Sheqalim 1.3f. See H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch , 4 vols., 1924–1929, rept. 1969, 1:762f. Hophshi and eleutheros denote similar freedom already in I Samuel 17.25.

tion.^[15] A specimen from our day is the non-conscription of asthmatics and homosexuals. There was, moreover, within the five a division into two ranks. Women, slaves and minors, though under no duty, yet might make payment of their own will; whereas none was accepted from gentiles and Samaritans—they were right outside, with no stake in the community. (No need here to go into fluctuations with respect to Samaritans.) To this, too, there are modern parallels. An asthmatic, not too sick, if offering to serve, will not necessarily be rejected; but the army has no room for a homosexual. The priests' contention was on a radically different level from any of these categories: for a privilege in the proper sense, a mark of excellence. They regarded themselves as intimates of the Revered one at whose feet the levy was laid. They were almost recipients of it, standing apart from, above, all the rest, whether payers or non-payers. So essentially tied to their calling, in their eyes, was the exercise of this distinction that they—or at least the extremists among them—declared unenforced payment by a priest to be a sin, an abdication of their special relationship. Persons dispensed from the draft because of their absolutely vital work in thermonuclear development would be something of a present-age counterpart. Or better, in 1914, the young man at Oxford who, unlike most of his contemporaries, did not volunteer. When a patriotic lady, passing him in the street, reproved him, 'What are you doing here? Why are you not with your comrades in the trenches, defending civilisation against the Huns?', he replied: 'Madam, I am civilisation'.

It is against this background that the reaction of the

[15] See my 'Enfant Terrible', Harvard Theological Review 68 (1975), 371ff., 'Johanan ben Beroqa and Women's Rights', in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, 99 (1982), Rom. Abt., 27ff., and 'Fraud No. 3', pp. 4ff.

Pharisees becomes understandable. To them, the attitude summarized was one more instance of unwarranted priestly pretensions—smacking of Sadducean exclusivity. At the academy of Jabneh, one Ben Bukri reported a pre-destruction tradition to the effect that a priest paying voluntarily was committing no sin.^[16] Johanan ben Zaccai, the academy's head, now as before advocated an even stronger line: it was sinful for a priest to abstain from paying. The Mishnah's legal ruling, which must have prevailed in the final years of the State whenever the Pharisees had the upper hand, agrees with Johanan, i.e. priests ought to pay; none the less 'one does not compel them, for the sake of the ways of peace'.^[17] Relaxations in order to avoid ill-feeling are no rarity in Rabbinic—or New Testament—teaching;^[18] the very pericope here studied ends up with one, on the part of those who feel unjustly taxed. It is worth noting, however, that, possibly, a variant of the Mishnah's compromise, preserved in the Jerusalemite Talmud, reflects a stage when the priests' aspirations still enjoyed a measure of recognition. Instead of 'the ways of peace', we meet here the far less usual term 'the ways of honour': indicating, possibly, less a mitigation of a principle than a genuine relief on account of exalted vocation.^[19] After all, vestiges of their past glory

[16] Ben Bukri is known only for this testimony, cited, besides Mishnah Sheqalim 1.4, in Babylonian Menahoth 21b f., 46b, Arakin 4a.

[17] Mishnah Sheqalim 1.3f. and, consistent with it, 1.6.

[18] See my 'Pauline Contributions to a Pluralistic Culture', in Jesus and Man's Hope , ed. D. G. Miller and D. Y. Hadidian, 1971, 2:233ff.

[19] Such distinctions as that between interrupting one's prayer to greet somebody from fear and doing the same in acknowledgment of his honour are pertinent: Mishnah Berakoth 2.1 and accompanying Gemara. 'The honour of kings' occurs in Babylonian Berakoth 19a.

survive in fairly late statements—e.g. a fourth-century one, that the priests, when officiating, were representatives, not of the congregation before God, but of God before the congregation.^[20]

In debate with Johanan ben Zaccai, prior to the catastrophe, the priests appealed to an injunction in Leviticus^[21] according to which offerings brought by them for themselves must be totally burnt, without any portion being eaten. Quite a few offerings, their argument went, as for example the showbread, the ingredients of which the Temple purchases with its revenue,^[22] are expressly given over to them as food in the Pentateuch.^[23] If they contributed to the revenue, they would be helping purchase these offerings,^[24] ergo be bringing them—in part at least—for themselves, ergo be precluded from eating them. Seeing that, on the contrary, they are encouraged to do so, it follows that they must have no hand in the purchase. The conclusion: they may not lawfully participate in the tax. It would be naive to think that the provision in Leviticus and the tortuous ratiocination taking off from it were the actual root of their claim. The latter came first and was perhaps in existence for centuries before being pegged to the Pentateuch.^[25] Roughly, from Hillel on, any regulation, to be fully binding, had to be based on a Scriptural law. Mat-

[20] Babylonian Yoma 19a f., Qiddushin 23b, Nedarim 35b. See Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar , 3:4, and 4, pt. 1:150.

[21] Leviticus 6.16.

[22] Confirmed by Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 3.10.7.255.

[23] Leviticus 24.9.

[24] It would be interesting to examine this construction within a history of legal personality in Jewish law.

[25] The Roman priests who protested against being taxed in 196 B.C.—Livy, From the Founding of the City 33.52.4—had no Pentateuch to support them.

tathias, for instance, and his entourage had allowed their troops to fight on a Sabbath if attacked, after experience showed that, otherwise, the Syrians would simply annihilate them; and there is no indication that they invoked a Mosaic ordinance. Some hundred and fifty years later, however, Hillel managed to prove from Deuteronomy that a Jewish army need not interrupt a siege on a Sabbath. This code forbids the use of fruit-bearing trees for siegeworks, adding: 'only those not for food, with them you shall build bulwarks against the city until it be subdued'. 'Until it be subdued': that is to say, according to Hillel, without desisting on a Sabbath.^[26] An interpretation manifestly superimposed on, not generated by, the original tenor—just like the priests'. Again, when Jesus's disciples pluck corn on a Sabbath, in all three Synoptics he supports them by referring to David and his band who, as they suffered hunger, ate the showbread reserved for the sanctuary. In Matthew, he appends a justification from what may be read 'in the law'. In the Book of Numbers, the Temple priests are supposed to break the Sabbath, say, for the slaughter of sacrifices. What is now involved, he urges, is greater than the Temple, ergo plainly supersedes those rules. The conclusion: the plucking of the corn is licit. Once more, a highly refined syllogism, employing the technical step a minori ad maius , not at all envisaged by the old text.^[27] The derivation from the Torah of the prohibition of suicide (subscribed to by Hamlet when he deplores 'the Everlasting's canon' gainst

[26] I Maccabees 2.39ff., Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 12.6.2.276f., 13.1.3.12f., Deuteronomy 20.20, Tosephta Erubin 4.7. See my 'Texts and Interpretation in Roman and Jewish Law', Journal of Jewish Sociology 3 (1961): 9, 15.

[27] Matthew 12.1ff., Mark 2.33ff., Luke 6.1ff., I Samuel 21.1ff., Numbers 28.9f. See my New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism , pp. 67ff.

self-slaughter') and the duty of procreation (in the Bible, a blessing) are of the same nature.^[28] The number of these cases is large; enormous if we include all the slightly less extreme ones, where the passage resorted to contains some element at least of what is made of it. A systematic exploration would throw much new light on the evolution of the Rabbinic edifice.

The assumption by Jesus and his circle of priestly status of some sort is traceable from early on in so many different strata of the New Testament that—discounting any reinforcement from the Dead Sea Scrolls—its beginnings may safely be ascribed to his lifetime. It is indeed met in his quotation, just adverted to, of the precedent set by David and his retinue who, in an emergency, ate the priests' showbread. The implication is that their overriding task entitled them, even obliged them, to act thus, they were directly engaged in executing God's Messianic plan,^[29] and now it is Jesus and his faithful who occupy this place. The additional plea, from precept (the Book of Numbers) instead of from example (David's boldness), puts the notion in more explicit terms: the Sabbath restrictions, suspended for the priests serving in the Temple, must a fortiori not stand in the way of a greater service, greater priests. The 'cleansing'

[28] See supra, 'The Old Testament in the New: A Jewish Perspective', pp. 1ff., where the reading back of the ban on suicide into the Ten Commandments is noted, and my The Duty of Procreation , 1977, pp. 1ff., 42.

[29] It would not be surprising if pious scribes of Jesus's era had taken David's declaration in I Samuel 21.3, 'The king has commanded me a business', in the sense not of 'Saul has commanded me' but of 'God has commanded me'. For one thing, on this basis David would not be guilty of deception. That the interpretation is not preserved may be due precisely to the use made of the episode in the Gospels. But, of course, one cannot build on this speculation.

of the Temple with, in Mark, prominence accorded to a technical detail of the daily priestly business,^[30] is another strong piece of evidence.

Jesus is not willing to waive the prerogative: this is the major premise he impresses on Peter. From here, however, he goes on to a formidable complication. A downright refusal of the administration's demand might put off^[31] people not otherwise hostile—interfering with his mission. No doubt there are conditions in which a path must be continued regardless. But the Temple tax does not fall under them, hence creates a dilemma. He solves it by devising a course which formally, in semblance, amounts to perfect compliance, so will avoid any discord while, in reality, they part with nothing that is genuinely their own, so are not subjecting themselves to the impost. The latter is to be satisfied with a coin Peter will take from the mouth of the first fish he catches. Whosever it was in the past, it became ownerless when the fish carried it off, and now it falls to the finder. It can, therefore, be validly employed to discharge a debt and—equally important—no uninitiated will be aware of anything out of the ordinary. Nevertheless, as far as substance is concerned rather than image, no concession is made. Economically and psychologically, the passing on of money coming from nowhere and the group's property for a fleeting moment only, just long enough to fulfil the purpose of appeasing an environment of deficient insight, is not a true contribution on their part.

[30] Mark 11.16, a provision singled out by the priest Josephus, Against Apion 2.8.106.

[31] Skandalizo : when it has its full weight, 'to give offence to somebody leading to his alienation, missing the right way, stumbling'; at times, little more than 'to give offence to somebody'—our modern 'to scandalize'. See G. Stählin, art. 'Skandalon, Skandalizo', Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament , ed. G. Friedrich and others, vol. 7, 1964, pp. 343ff.

Dodges of this pattern were familiar in that period. Here is one dating from before the middle of the first century B.C. and going on for hundreds of years.^[32] Under the austere Roman reglement of insolvency, infamy befell not only an actual bankrupt but also a debtor who got his creditor to be content with a percentage. A creditor wishing to spare his debtor this punishment would cooperate in the following procedure. Say, the debtor owed 1200 and all he had was 200. He paid 200 and the creditor immediately returned it, by way of gift. The debtor then paid it again, to get it back again as a gift. And so on—and only the sixth payment was kept by the creditor. Formally, in semblance, the debtor had now paid in full. But 1000 out of the 1200 were, so to speak, brought along by a fish, provided to him for just the brief hour of the transaction, economically and psychologically not a true disbursement by him. A Talmudic anecdote,^[33] where it is not payment that is simulated but acceptance of a gift, is worth quoting here because the reason for staging the make-believe is to forestall the would-be donor's resentment: reminiscent of Jesus's reason for feigning conformity. On a pagan festival, Jews were to refrain from any dealings that might boost the thanksgiving to idols—such as lending or making a present to a pagan. Some Rabbis worried even about receiving a present since even this might make the pagan rejoice and bless his gods. When Judah II (grandson of Judah the Prince) on such a festival was sent a gold piece by a pagan acquaintance, he asked Resh Laqish who happened to be with him: 'If I do accept, he may render thanks to his idol, if I do not, he will conceive enmity against me'. At Resh Laqish's advice, he took the piece but at once, while the messenger was still there, dropped it

[32] Digest 46.3.67, Marcellus XIII digestorum. See my Roman Law , 1969, pp. 93f., and 'Fraud No. 3', p. 14.

[33] Babylonian Aboda Zara 6a, cited by Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar , 1:885.

into a well as if by accident. Thus the donor, on being told, could not be insulted—since his gift was accepted—but neither would he be moved to praise his idol—since no sooner was it accepted than lost. It was 'accepted' in inverted commas, for a few seconds, so no animosity would ensue.

Modern commentators tend to overlook the fact that Jesus is supplying an illustration, a model, and that it is offered not for literal imitation but for imitation as to its substantive content, its message—namely, that while the position of this special priesthood is inabdicable, it must be exercised gently. Au fond, it accords with the counsel: 'Be subtle as the serpents and harmless as the doves', which, curiously, like the Temple tax narrative, is preserved only in Matthew.^[34] His sending out of Peter for a coin the first fish will present draws on his superior capacity of being informed about odd circumstances, certainly not meant to be reproduced. As noticed above, the session opens by his realizing what has occurred without being told. This is a peculiar knowing of past and present. His mandate regarding the coin actually implies a foreknowing—such as he manifests when he predicts to the disciples preparing his entry into Jerusalem that they will find a colt tied for his use^[35] and to those looking for a room for his Passover meal that they will meet a guide.^[36] Of course, once he is gone, the community cannot rely on a magical haul. But this does not dispense them from heeding the core of the lesson. They will have to contrive mundane, ever varying ruses enabling them to reconcile the conflicting requirements—to live up to their election at once and not upset the ignorant. It is the

[34] Matthew 10.16.

[35] Matthew 21.2ff., Mark 11.2ff., Luke 19.30ff.

[36] Mark 14.13ff., Luke 22.10ff., considerably reduced in Matthew 26.18f.

master alone who may choose a shortcut bordering on the miraculous for the exemplary precedent. For one thing, in this way, it can be flawless—as even the best-intentioned schemes lacking supernatural assistance seldom are.^[37] It should be observed that this mode of instruction is evidenced among the Tannaites. The clearing up of a complex of questions by Gamaliel II, successor of Johanan ben Zaccai as president of Jabneh, involved his astounding identification of a person he had never seen before: 'He recognized him through the holy spirit and from his words we learnt three things'.^[38]

In the most fundamental respect, Jesus's attitude to tribute to Caesar is at one with that just outlined. Caesar does occupy an elevated rank, but when his bidding clashes with God's, God must prevail: in the maxim to pay 'what is Caesar's to Caesar and what is God's to God', the emphasis is on the final words. Often, here too, the best course will be to be serpent as well as dove, to get along by means of loopholes.

(Wolfgang Kunkel^[39] lived up to it in the Second World War. He was a Military Judge in the East. In 1943 one captain denounced another one for having listened to the Moscow radio a year previously: a capital crime. What prompted him to come forward at that moment was that

[37] Take the one mentioned above, where creditor and debtor colluded to save the latter from infamy. The earlier jurists did not pass it: they decided that, as 1000 came in effect from the creditor's funds, it remained a case of insolvency. By contrast, even these diehards would have had no complaint about money furnished to the debtor by a god or, for that matter, discovered inside a fish.

[38] Tosephta Pesahim 1.27, Palestinian Aboda Zara 40a, Babylonian Erubin 64b, Leviticus Rabba on 27.2.

[39] A sketch of his personality by Dieter Nörr may be found in Gedächtnisschrift für Wolfgang Kunkel , ed. D. Nörr and D. Simon, 1984, pp. 9ff.

the culprit had just been appointed Bahnhofskommandant , i.e. was given charge of a little railstation. Terrifying: the degree by which this put him ahead of the accuser was minuscule; and so, of course, was either's life expectancy. Kunkel did not want to pronounce sentence of death. The trouble was that his verdict would have to be approved by higher-ups behind the front, and they were ruthless. It would have been no use, for example, to point to the promotion as proof that the man was doing his duty to the full. Yet he found a way. The decree which ordained the death penalty was issued für den grossdeutschen Raum , 'for the greater German realm'. The area around Moscow was not part of this, but again, to simply state this and acquit would not have sufficed: the Berlin authorities would have rejected it as formalistic and weak-kneed. Kunkel declared the decree inapplicable because the Moscow area was noch nicht , 'not yet', incorporated in the grossdeutsche Raum . By phrasing it thus, he appeared to be absolutely confident of the outcome: it was only a matter of a few clean-up operations. To make doubly sure, and no doubt also to teach the informer a lesson, he added a rider in which he severely censured the latter for waiting so long before bringing so serious an offence to the attention of his superiors. The judgment was duly confirmed.)

Indeed, Jesus's reply itself is 'subtle', serpent-like, so framed that while sympathizers will appreciate where priority is placed, no easy pretext for intervention is handed to the government. Significantly, in Mark, this section corresponds to that of the Seder exhibiting the type of disciple concerned about law, and he also receives a cryptic answer.^[40] The opacity of the saying is underlined by the contradictory meanings attributed to it already in New Testament

[40] Mark 12.13ff. See the writings listed in footnote 4.

times. According to Luke,^[41] it was used in Jesus's arraignment before Pilate, distorted into an unambiguous No to Roman taxation. In Romans,^[42] it is pretty much the opposite. (Admittedly, juristic acumen can turn around the clearest dictum. A forthright Mishnaic paragraph treats murderers, robbers and excise-gatherers as equally deserving to be misled. The Gemara transmits an exegesis of it which, deferring to Caesar like Romans, virtually annuls the part as to publicans.^[43] ) Of course, notwithstanding the profound affinity, there are bound to be major dissimilarities between the two cases. One is that, Caesar being a heathen tyrant, whatever may speak against submitting to his tribute, it cannot be his fatherhood; nor can we expect from Jesus a warning against 'putting him off'. Another, that, in the Gospel framework, the question respecting Caesar emanates from hostile outsiders, whereas that respecting the Temple is gone into within the inner circle. As a result, the answer to the former has to remain on a general level, whereas that to the latter follows up the governing principle with specific, practical guidance.

In conclusion, some remarks on setting. Few nowadays deny that the first half of the pericope goes back to before the destruction. After it, the conquerors appropriated the tax, diverting it to heathen worship.^[44] To take the argument as envisaging this Fiscus Judaicus will not do. No first-century Christian author can have thought of the saved ones

[41] Luke 23.2, prepared for by 20.20. See J. M. Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke , 1930, p. 247. The historicity or otherwise of the notice is immaterial in the present connection.

[42] Romans 13.6f.

[43] Mishnah Nedarim 3.4, Babylonian Nedarim 28a.

[44] Josephus, Jewish War 7.6.6.218, Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars , Domitian 12.2, Dio Cassius, Roman History Epit. 65.7.2.

as sons of the Emperor to whom it went, and to be sons of the Highest would be irrelevant if the tax was not his.

The second half is mostly treated as an eccentric appendage. There is a tendency, moreover, to postulate relatively late elements both in it and in the first. If the foregoing exposition is approved, the pre-destruction date holds good for the pericope in toto, including the catch—essential to the complete, down-to-earth teaching. As for the late elements, the arguments are unconvincing. Jesus's repudiation of liability is alleged to evince a disdain for the Temple at variance with his zeal as he 'cleanses' it.^[45] In reality, his stand founds on the conviction that he and his are its truest priests. The view here combated would mean (unless the comparison he draws is quite off, hinkend ) that the sons of earthly kings are left untroubled by the treasury because they despise the throne; whereas, palpably, the reason is their closeness to it, their share in it. It would mean also that, when Jesus, in defence of his disciples, cites the eating of hallowed food by David and his men, he is depicting them as scornful of the sanctuary—not credible. They were, indeed, at this moment its most devoted fighters, precursors of Jesus's group. This is not to exclude the possibility that the preservation (precarious, via Matthew only)

[45] See e.g. E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus , ed. W. Schmauch, 1956, p. 275; F. V. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew , 1960, p. 195; Stählin, 'Skandalon, Skandalizo', pp. 350f. Basically similar is the position of C. H. Dodd, History and the Gospel , 1938, pp. 90ff.: The story 'of the Coin in the Fish's mouth is pertinent to the question of the payment of the Temple tax by Jewish Christians who no longer felt themselves to be within the Jewish community. That question is hardly likely to have become acute in the stage of Church life represented by the early chapters of Acts, and still less likely during the lifetime of Jesus. The story is suspected, not without good reason, of being a later accretion'.

of the incident owes something to precisely this misinterpretation of its as documenting contempt. Again, the prominence of Pauline ideas is noted as militating against the first half of the century: the Christian's freedom from the law as a child of God and the yielding in order not to cause the weak to stumble.^[46] But it may be Paul who is secondary. The freedom theme in the Temple tax story is far less developed than in his writings; and all the three Synoptics carry strong pronouncements by Jesus against putting off the little ones.^[47]

W. D. Davies lists the second half among the Matthean revisions by which a Jesuanic absolute is toned down, to make it livable with; it is akin, as he sees it, to Paul's procedure anent tribute to Caesar.^[48] The parallel, however, is illusory. Jesus's saying about the tribute guardedly (since ill-wishers are listening) recommends a bending which, however, must never be such as to detract from the principal allegiance; Paul bids us pay.^[49] By contrast, Jesus's saying about Temple tax openly (since he is addressing a confidant) denies its bindingness and the practical solution following on it (again, not needing to be veiled) is in line, not with Paul, but with the original, cautious word about the tribute: do make the requisite gesture without, however, any surrender of substance. This latter agreement, already mentioned above, sets the case apart from others where Davies is right. He takes no account of the fish. It may be worth observing that, even if it were due to Matthew, this manner of procuring the tax ought to be credited

[46] See e.g. S. E. Johnson, 'St. Matthew, Exegesis', Interpreter's Bible , 7:465f.

[47] Matthew 18.6, Mark 9.42, Luke 17.2.

[48] W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount , 1964, pp. 389ff.

[49] With a powerful underpinning, so there be no breach.

with the goal here postulated: appeasement but no stepping down. It would still be, not some extravaganza, but a standard for an embattled community to emulate. To this extent, that is, the gist of my thesis would remain unaffected.

A number of traits do strongly favour a very early origin of the whole—the nature of the band in particular. As already pointed out, the collectors expect Peter to account for Jesus's conduct. Furthermore, they speak of 'your teacher' with 'your' in the plural: any one of the disciples represents all the others. Nor is this all. In expounding the situation, Jesus does not differentiate between himself and his followers: they are all equally of the family of the Temple's Lord. By the same token, the coin he foresees will be a stater , a full shekel, to serve in one go on behalf of both himself and Peter;^[50] and doubtless, qua recipient of the

[50] For B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels , new ed., 1930, p. 504, the stater supports an Antiochene provenance of the pericope: it seems that only at Antioch and Damascus was this coin worth exactly two half-shekels. But, first, the evidence is shaky. Secondly, the stater is customarily equated with a full shekel, so at any rate near enough. Third, the half-shekel being seldom coined in Jesus's time, it may indeed have been quite usual for two persons to combine and pay with a stater : see A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew , 1955, p. 257. Lastly and above all, even if the stater hails from Antioch, by itself it proves nothing for the bulk of the narrative. 'When I worked on fables, I was amused by the transformation of animals in the course of migration. The longbeaked bird that removes a bone from the wolf's throat is a heron in Babrius, a crane in Phaedrus, a stork in La Fontaine. Joshua ben Hananiah speaks of an Egyptian partridge; and the wolf becomes a lion—symbolizing Rome or the Emperor Hadrian. None the less the body of the paradigm stays the same throughout': see my Ancient Jewish Law , 1981, p. 22. Valuta is at least equally exchangeable. Streeter himself describes the point as of merely 'infinitesimal' significance.

model advice on how to cope, Peter once more stands for his fellows as well. Such a presentation suggests a time when the group was small and close-knit and before the crucifixion had rendered the master more distant. Perhaps the latter point can be made more concrete by adducing again the Matthean expansion with Jesus's statement^[51] that 'here is something greater than the Temple'. From the sixth century on, we meet the reading 'somebody greater'. The Temple tax episode is unmistakably conceived in terms of 'something greater'.

Peter's appearance may have to be taken seriously. If he were singled out just for retrieving a bonus from a fish, that might be brushed aside by reference to his former trade. But he is on stage from the first, when probed by the officials. There is reason to believe that Mark's day of questions derives from a Seder where Peter fitted sayings of Jesus into the pre-established liturgy.^[52] The opening topic is tribute to Caesar. Quite possibly, then, Peter heard about the related topic of the Temple tax, too, from Jesus. I Peter, it should be recalled,^[53] contains what sounds like an echo of the scene here analysed: the Christians are looked upon as the choice Temple and priesthood and as such, indeed (by now Jesus has been crucified and the battle lines are drawn), a rock putting off^[54] unbelievers.

At any rate, two basic considerations seem scarcely disputable. One, the Temple tax problem must have been terribly hard, on every level, for Jesus and those around him. Two, whatever Jesuanic tradition existed concerning it is likely to have crystallized, say, around A.D. 40, in those years, that is, when the community would badly want to hear about what it owed to the foreign regime and the na-

[51] Matthew 12.6.

[52] See my 'Zukunftsmusik', pp. 61ff.

[53] I Peter 2.4ff.

[54] Petra skandalou.

tive Temple rulers, an unholy alliance between whom had just contrived the death of its head. Even Paul, preaching obedience to the State, still focuses on tax as the ultimate criterion.^[55] For one who disagrees with Bill's affirmation of the overall priority of Matthew, it is gratifying to be able to write up for his Festschrift an occurrence as authentic as anything in Mark. It is one of very few such instances, leftovers, one imagines, from the Hebrew precursor.

[55] Romans 13.1–7.