Article

The Gospel according to Luke shows a particular interest in activities related to the collection of taxes. Its author not only reworked the controversy about paying taxes to Caesar that he or she took from Mark (Luke 20:20-26; par. Mk. 12:13-17) in a very striking way but, at the crucial moment of Jesus appearance before Pilate, he also added the accusation that he forbade people to «pay taxes to Caesar» (Luke 23:2). On the other hand, to the Markan scenes about tax collectors, Luke added three in which they recognize their malpractice and announce their conversion (Luke 3:12-13; 18:9-14; 19:1-10). The hypothesis proposed in this paper is that this particular interest in episodes and persons associated with the collection of taxes may reveal that Luke was aware of the abusive practices associated with the Fiscus Iudaicus in Flavian times.

The Impact of the Fiscus Iudaicus

The history of this particular tax and its impact on the Jewish people in antiquity are well known. After the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Vespasian decreed that the tax the Jews used to pay to the temple be destined for the reconstruction of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus located on the Capitoline Hill in Rome, and destroyed during the civil war that preceded his acclamation as emperor. Later, his son Domitian (AD 81-96) introduced some modifications to extract a greater profit from this tax, which went directly to the emperor’s treasury during his reign. To that end, he extended the obligation to pay it to those who led a Jewish way of life, a measure that affected numerous non-Jews associated with the synagogue and with the nascent Christian movement. He also encouraged the practice of calumny, promising informers (delatores) a share of the assets seized from those who were found guilty of not paying the tax. The social tension created by this practice explains why one of the first measures adopted by his successor, Nerva (AD 96-98), was to abolish it (See: Marius Heemstra, The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways, (WUNT, 2,277), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010, 7-84). The impact of the Fiscus Iudaicus on contemporary Judaism was enormous, for it made all the Diaspora Jews aware of the consequences of the destruction of the metropolis and its temple (See: Martin Goodman, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple”, in James D. G. Dunn (ed.), Jewish and Christians: The Parting of the Ways a.d. 70 to 135 (WUNT, 66), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 1992, 27-38 ). The author of Luke and Acts had precise knowledge of the world of the empire, and it is reasonable to think that he was aware of the situation created by the Fiscus Iudaicus and the effects this tax had and continued to have on the Christian communities living in Roman cities.

Paying Taxes to Caesar

A first indication that Luke was familiar with this situation is the term he uses when referring to the tax. Both Mark and Matthew use an inappropriate term (kēnsos), a transliteration of the Latin word census used in the provinces, not in Rome, to designate the tax (Christopher B. Zeichmann, “Loanwords or Code-Switching? Latin Transliteration and the Date of Mark’s Composition”, Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting 4 (2017) 42-64). Luke, however, uses the appropriate Greek term (phóros), which translates the Latin word tributum (tax), in the two passages in which he refers to Jesus’ attitude toward the tax due to Caesar (Luke 20:22; 23:2). Flavius Josephus uses this same Greek term when he tells how Vespasian began to impose this burden on the Jews (Bell. 7:218: phóron…epébale). Dio Cassius, in turn, referring to that same event, uses a verb of the same root (Hist. 65:7,2: didráchmon apophérein). The scene in which Jesus is asked about the obligation to pay it (Luke 22:20-26) refers to a tax that went directly into the emperor’s treasury.

1. With this new introduction, the scene perfectly replicates the situation created when the informers approached a potential victim, including the fact that the denarius was the currency used in Rome to pay this tax (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997, 711-712; Michael Wolter, The Gospel according to Luke. Volume II, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press 2017, 393). The situation reflected in these two passages (harassment of informers, handing over to the governor’s power, and being sentenced to death for not paying the tax) vividly evokes the atmosphere created around the Fiscus Iudaicus in the time of Domitian. This could be, in fact, an argument to place the composition of the Gospel at the end of his reign. This same date and place has been propossed on other grounds by Gerd Theissen, La redacción de los evangelios y la política eclesial. Un enfoque socio-retórico, Verbo Divino, Estella 2002, 94-99 (English original: Gospel Writing and Church Politics: A Socio-rhetorical Approach. Chuen King Lecture Series 3. Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 2001).
2. Tax Collectors Rehabilitated
3. This shift in the situation could explain the other striking fact mentioned at the beginning in connection with the collection of taxes. In addition to Mark’s passages about tax collectors, Luke incorporates three scenes in which they are the protagonists. In the three scenes, the tax collectors reject their previous wrongdoings and resolve to change their attitude. In the first scene, a group of tax collectors (telōnai) approaches John to receive his baptism, and he exhorts them to «do nothing against the law» (Luke 3:12-13). Later, evoking this scene, the evangelist affirms that they had been reconciled to God (Luke 7:29). In the second scene – a parable in this case – a tax collector acknowledges his being a sinner and implores God’s compassion on him. Luke comments that he returned home reconciled (Luke 18:13-14). Finally, in the third scene, a chief tax collector (architelōnēs) is presented as a model of the converted sinner, after having declared that he had falsely accused and bribed, as the delatores used to do. These scenes of repentant tax collectors take on a precise meaning when placed in a context in which the calumny and denouncement prompted by the Fiscus Iudaicus in Domitian’s time were over. In this new situation, these repentant tax collectors’ attitude could have opened a door allowing the incorporation of some publicani into the Christian groups when members of the elite were starting to join them. For evidence of elite members in the Roman congregations, see: Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2003, 85-99 and 196-236

1. Date and Place of Luke’s Gospel
2. The preceding arguments support the hypothesis that the author of Luke’s Gospel intended to evoke the abusive practices associated with the Fiscus Iudaicus in Domitian’s time. If this hypothesis is correct, its conclusions could shed light on the date and place of composition of the third Gospel, since the situation it presupposes fits very well in Rome at the end of the first century CE.