Donahue - Tax Collectors

TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS: AN ATTEMPT AT IDENTIFICATION
Author(s): John R. Donahue

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 1 (January 1971), pp. 39-61
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43714979
Accessed: 28-09-2016 16:48 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:48:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS
AN ATTEMPT AT IDENTIFICATION
The portrayal of Jesus' ministry in the Synoptic Gospels to

upon his fellowship with the lowly of the earth and the outcasts of
The world of the ordinary people of first-century Palestine is
to his activity. Noteworthy among the people with whom he come
are the telõnai kai hamartõloi , and his fellowship with such g
much opposition in the course of his ministry. Critical opini
divided in recent years over the identification of these "sinners" o
Israel Abrahams notes "sinners were not those who neglected
ritual piety, but were persons of proven dishonesty and follo
pected or degrading occupations."1 C. G. Montefiore finds th
those "who knowingly violated or were believed to have v
precept of law, whether ceremonial or moral."2 G. Rengstorf f
connotation of the word, sinner, in the NT. The Pharisaic view
outside the law, those for whose life the Torah has no existential s
are sinners, while the view of the ordinary people is that thos
immoral life are sinners.8
In his recent work, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus , Norm
in the course of his discussion of the forgiveness of sins in th
Gospels, reviews the picture of sinners and forgiveness in the Jew
of the NT. He finds two general classes of sinners : ( 1 ) Jewish sin
who fell short and were welcomed back to the Father upon their r
and (2) Gentile sinners, the "sinners and godless," for whom,
lyptic literature, there is no hope of repentance.4 Perrin then
familiar "tax collectors and sinners" in light of this division, find
an analysis of the Gospel material and Jewish literature, that t
of sinners underlie the NT usage, (1) Jewish sinners who could
their heavenly Father, (2) Gentile sinners for whom the hope of f
was doubtful and (3) Jews who had made themselves as Gentil
category is best understood under the modern image of "quisli
people who enter the service of a foreign oppressor and thus ad
1 Israel Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels: First Series

University Press, 1917) 55.
2 C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (London: Macmillan, 192
3 G. Rengstorf, "Hamartõlos," Theological Dictionary of the New T
Kittel, ed., trans. G. Bromley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) I, 321-
4 Norman Perrm, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York:
Row, 1967) 93-102.
39
40 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 33
the bitterness of foreign domination. The "tax collectors" are sin

third category. The animosity toward them in the Gospels, m
various collocations of tax collector and robber (Lk 18:11), ta
and harlot (Mt 21 :32) and tax collector and Gentile (Mt 18 :1 7
a hatred for those who have betrayed their people by becoming a
Perrin advances the interesting suggestion that in this fellowsh
collectors and sinners we find a clue for the reason why Jesu
over to the Roman authorities for crucifixion. He writes :
There must have been a factor in the situation which both drove the authorities
themselves to desperate measures, and also gave them a defence against popular
accusation. We suggest that a regular table-fellowship in the name of the King-
dom of God, between Jesus and his followers, when those followers included
"Jews who made themselves as Gentiles" would have been just such a factor.6
In this way Perrin has found consistency with the portrayal of the ministry
of Jesus in the Gospels and the termination of this ministry in the cross.
Perrin's view counters the authority of his former Doktorvater, Joachim
Jeremias, who himself has written most extensively on the subject. In corre-
spondence with Perrin, Jeremias objects to Perrin's categorization of tax
collectors as "Jews who made themselves as Gentiles." Jeremias feels that
Perrin has interpreted the evidence in such a way as to draw the lines too
sharply in his classifications.7 In light of this difference of opinion, it will be
helpful to review Jeremias' writings on the subject.
In his Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus Jeremias has a lengthy treatment
of those occupations which were considered disreputable in the eyes of the
Jews. He notes that we are dealing with the fact that there was "a whole
series of trades which were despised and that those who practiced them were
to a greater or less degree exposed to social degradation."8 Drawing on his
vast knowledge of rabbinical literature, Jeremias finds four lists of such
occupations.9 The first enumeration from the Mishnah, Kiddushin 4 :14, lists
donkey drivers, camel drivers, shippers, wagoneers, shepherds, shopkeepers,
« Ibid., 93.
« Ibid., 103.
7 Letter of Prof. J. Jeremias to Prof. Norman Perrin, Göttingen, Germany, Sep-
tember 11, 1967. I am very grateful to Prof. Perrin for letting me study this corre-
spondence and for his encouragement to challenge the conclusions of his book.
8 Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus , trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave
(London: S.C.M. Press, 1969) 303.
0 Ibid., 304ff. References to the Mishnah and the names of the books are taken from
The Mishnah , trans. H. Danby (Oxford: University Press, 1938). The symbol "b"
indicates a tractate from the Babylonian Talmud. Since the present treatment is
directed to a dispute on the interpretation of the rabbinical material, the complex
question of dating will not be discussed here.
1971] Tax Collectors and Sinners 41
physicians and butchers. These occupations were despised

the practitioner of them in danger of being dishonest. The
Ketuboth 8:10, is made up of dung collectors, copper sme
all of whom were looked down on because of the unaesthetic
work. The third list, from b. Kiddushin 82a, includes g
combers, mill stone cutters, peddlers, tailors, barbers, bath
letters, tanners and laundrymen. Those in this list came int
with women, and therefore, these occupations were shun
In the fourth list, b. Sanhédrin 25b, we find dice players, u
of pigeon races, dealers in sabbath year produce, shephe
and toll collectors. Those who followed these occupation
suspected of dishonesty, but in the majority of the cases di
rule. They were characterized by the most severe of liabi
tion of certain civil rights. They could not be consider
legal trials. They could not be admitted into a Pharisaic
for them repentance was almost impossible since restitution
gain would be demanded as well as giving up their form of
In his article, "Zöllner und Sünder," Jeremias again add
the problem of the identity of the toll collectors and wh
them would cause scandal.11 The formality under which
problem is slightly different than in his Jerusalem , since
discussing the identity of the sinners. He notes that exegesi
two views ; in the first sinners means sinners in the eye
those guilty of ritual failing and especially of contamination
with the pagans. The second view, that of the people, sees s
and does not view ritual sin as the main sin. Jeremias reject
the sinners of the Gospels are ritual sinners. He notes th
Jesus' ministry when the Pharisees numbered only abou
would be unlikely that the concept of ritual sinner woul
as to be connoted by the Gospel tradition. Secondly, acco
isees virtually all the ' am hã-ãres would be sinners, an
Capernaum, the whole population, mixed as it was with
so considered. He finds, therefore, that Jesus' association w
not be censured on the grounds of contact with those defile
with pagans, since, in the eyes of the Pharisees, Jesus hi
of the (am hã-ãres, and could not be censured for cont
then opts for the second view of sinners and finds that
immoral because they follow a dishonorable calling. Dr
io Ibid., 311.
11 ZN W 30 (1931) 293-300. For a summary statement of his p
und Sünder," RGG* VI 1927-1928.
evidence as in his Jerusalem , he concludes that by sinners are me

morally obnoxious people who by their immoral mode of life
honorable calling were despised in public life," and that "it was a h
Jesus accepted a toll collector into the inner circle of his com
that he announced the message of salvation to those despised by th
Thus we can see clearly the lines of disagreement between
Jeremias. Perrin sees the tax collectors as ritual sinners with
plus is the fact that not only did they have contact with the paga
represented hirelings in the service of the Gentile oppressors, and
hated by the people and rejected by the Pharisees. Jeremias
collectors as sinners because they followed an occupation whic
honesty. In his correspondence with Perrin, Jeremias has
method for re-examination of the problem. He says that the Jewi
must be examined to see whether tax collectors are ritually defiled
sidered as Gentiles. Secondly, he suggests that we must find o
Jews actually performed this task in Palestine at the time of Jesu
and finally he notes that careful distinctions must be made
collectors and toll collectors. This most crucial distinction, which w
in the course of the present discussion, in its simplest form mean
collectors are those who collect the direct taxes, the poll or head t
land tax for the current rulers, while toll collectors are those who
myriad of minor taxes, sales taxes, customs taxes, taxes on tra
The present re-examination of the problem involves three di
of concern. We will first review certain data about the historical situation
in order to clarify the picture of taxation at the time of Jesus' ministry.
Secondly, we will examine those sections of the rabbinical literature which
bear on an evaluation of tax and toll collectors. Thirdly, we will make
some observations about the "toll collectors and sinners" as they are found
in the Gospel tradition.
I. The Historical Situation
The general mode of tax collection in antiquity was the system of tax
farming.13 The rulers of a city or a country would lease to an individual or
12 ZNW 30 (1931) 295, 300.

18 The following works provide the basic data for this section. F. M. Heichelheim,
"Roman Syria," in Vol. IV of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (ed. Tenny
Frank; 5 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1938) 121-257. Allan C. Johnson, Roman
Egypt, ibid., Vol. II. Sigfried J. Laet, Portorium : Étude sur l'organisation douanière
chez les Romains, surtout à l'époque du haut-empire. (Brugge: Tempelhof, 1949). Otto
Michel, "Telônës," TW NT, VIII 89-106. M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic
History of the Hellenistic World (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941). M
group the right to collect the various taxes or tolls. Th

the state in advance the sum to be collected so that the state would have
workable capital for the coming year. The cost of the enterprise and the
profit for the collectors would then be the responsibility of the lessee. As one
can readily see, the taxpayer was the loser in this process. The only check
on exorbitant exactions by the tax collectors was appeal to the state. In the
Greek city-states the abuses of this system could be kept in check because
of the proximity of the central government. However, in the Roman prov-
inces where the societas publicanorum, composed mostly of wealthy Romans
of the equestrian class, was in charge of collection and where they were
supported by the military, the taxpayer had little recourse.
This rather free-floating system of tax collection with much power in the
hands of the tax collector did not exist long in its pure form in the ancient
world. In the latter days of the Roman Republic and in the early days of
the Principáte, the centralized Roman government was locked in a lethal
struggle with the societates publicanorum . Roman writers testify to the fact
that the publicans were ruining the provinces and one of the first acts of
Julius Caesar was to break their power.14 Also in countries with a strong
centralized rule the system of independent tax farmers never gained a strong
foothold, and tax farmers were civil servants rather than independent entre-
preneurs. Such a situation prevailed in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires.
These two facts regarding the tax farming system are important as a back-
ground for our discussion because, as Rostovtzeff remarks, the system in
Palestine in the first two centuries before Christ was modeled on the Egyp-
tian system, and the rule of Rome in Palestine coincides with the reform of
the Roman system.15
Palestine : 63 B.C. to 4 B.C.
The coming of Rome and the demise of the Hasmoneans brought the
necessity to pay tribute to Rome.16 The responsibility for collecting the
tribute imposed by Pompey was in the hands of the leading citizens, the high
Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1926). M. Rostovtzeff, "Geschichte der Staatspacht in der römischen
Kaiserzeit," Philologus IX (1904) 392-512. A. N. Sherwin- White, Roman Society and
Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963).
I* On the publicans, cf. Cicero, ad. Quint, frat. I, 1,11, Michel, "Telônës," 93-94.
On the reforms of Caesar, cf. Appian, Bellum Civile V, 4,19, Caesar, Bellum Civile
III, 3,31,103, G. H. Stevenson, Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge: University
Press, 1934) X 191 ff.
15 Rostovtzeff, "Staatspacht," 475.
16 Josephus, Jewtsh War 1, 170, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray ("Loeb Classical
Library," 9 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956).
priests and the local synedria ,17 In 57 B.C. Gabinus, Pompe

divided Palestine into five toparchies for taxation purposes
own sanhédrin responsible for the collection of Roman taxe
suggested that the Roman societates publicanorum were
Palestine at this time.18 In 56 the Roman publicans acted as
between the local councils and the Roman government. Thoug
in the next few years is unclear, Rostovtzeff offers perhaps the
struction. With the coming to power of Julius Caesar and th
of the high priest as ethnarch a fundamental change in the ta
took place. In 47 B.C. Caesar made important modifications in
of the Jews. While following Pompey's system for collection
the taxes on the Jews and made the sabbath year free of tax
decree of 47 the publican system was thus retained. In a fur
44 B.C., the publican system was totally abrogated so that th
taxes was now totally in the hands of the ethnarch, Hyrcanus, t
pater in- his role of epitropos would have had a large hand in
tration.10 Thus with the abrogation of the tax farming system,
Palestine would again resemble the Egyptian system ; the collecti
taxes firmly under control of the central government and th
by means of small contracts, of indirect taxes.20 After 44 B.
system of publicans ceases to exist in Palestine.
During the rule of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) the system
of direct taxes by royal officiais is in force. Josephus mentions
was in the hands of "slaves" who appear to be royal officia
the court.21 Though the evidence is unclear, it is quite possi
Herod the Great the indirect taxes and tolls were farmed out
the system of taxation was, we know that the burdens imposed
were oppressive. Josephus records that after the death of He
"demanded the removal of the taxes that had been levied o
chases and sales which had been ruthlessly exacted."22
Palestine after Herod
In discussing the period closer to our concern, it is importa

mind what sections of Palestine were under Roman control a
17 J. Spencer Kennard, "The Jewish Provincial Assembly," ZNW

is "Telõnês," 96.
19 "Staatspacht, " 476-477. Josephus, Antiquities 14,200-203, trans. R
Vol. VII.
20 Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire , 49.
21 Antiquities 17,307.
22 Antiquities 17,204; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 124-126.
quasi-independent rule. Judea, comprising Sam

environs, and Idumea were under Roman prefects
A.D. 6 to 41, and, after a brief interlude under Herod
again under procurators from 44 until the revolt
under Herod Antipas from A.D. 4 to 39, under Ag
and after 44 under Roman procurators. The territo
nitis was least directly under Roman control, being su
of Philip, Agrippa I and Agrippa II.23 Therefor
Jesus' ministry Judea was under Roman control;
independent rule of Antipas. During the period of t
Gospel tradition, all of Palestine, except the northern
and Trachonitis, was under direct Roman control.
One of the chief functions of the prefect of Judea w
overseer. During the rule of the prefects and proc
the poll tax and the land tax were not farmed out
of collecting these were in direct employ of the Ro
citizenship was not required for the office of tax
granted and many of the tax collectors de jacto w
numerous other tariffs were probably at this time auct
bidder, so that ho telones is properly a toll collecto
In Galilee at the time of Jesus' ministry the colle
would have been under the supervision of Anti
customs at travel points such as Capernaum would hav
ity of the telõnai. In Galilee payment of taxes and
strued as direct support of the Gentile in the same
Roman officials in Judea would have been. Therefo
whether the toll collectors, the telõnai of the Gospels
as agents of a foreign power. We feel this observa
fact that the Romanized Herodian family could be
people as a "foreign power." Antipas, and Agrippa
true, by the grace of Rome as client rulers, but o
their fragile independence was that they were in
23 Emil Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the T

John Macpherson (5 vols.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke,
"From Pompey to Bar Cochba," JBC 2, 692-700.
24 Schürer, History II 69. According to Fitzmyer "'Pre
the governor's title until the time of Claudius when it wa
JBC 2, 697, cf. also A. M. Jones, "Procurators and Prefec
Studies in Roman Government and Law (Oxford: B. Blac
Gospels shed little light on this problem since the only title
25 Schürer, History II, 70.
administration of their own territory.26 Also it was a character

the Herods to be careful to avoid offense to Jewish sensibilities
they were very zealous for the rights of the Jews.27
It must also be noted that the attitude among the Jews of
Palestine toward foreign influence and even control was far
The presence of the "Herodians" in the Gospels is a primary
this.28 Also, as G. Allon has pointed out, even the first-cent
did not present a united front against the Romans. During th
Agrippa to the destruction of the temple, three clear divisions e
the Pharisees : (a) those who favored the rising Zealot movem
taught the absolute prohibition against any détente with Ro
the peace seekers who preferred public security to the chao
revolutionary movements, and (c) those who held the classic a
Pharisaic position - a constant desire for maximum possible
and at the same time a readiness to engage in war.29 Though
were sharpened after 44 they were forming throughout the
Discontent with Roman rule was simmering throughout th
was heightened when the whole country was under Roman ru
In his work, Jesus and the Zealots , S. G. F. Brandon outline
stages in the rise of the Zealots which enabled them to become s
force at the time of the Jewish revolt.80 After outlining the in
ings and discontent against the census of A.D. 6 and the con
the prefecture of Pilate, Brandon finds that the years A.D. 39
a crucial time in the hardening of attitudes in Palestine. In th
emperor Gaius (Caligula) decided to have the Jews publicly
his divinity. To enforce the mad emperor's will Petronius arr
mais with two legions. Though the timely death of the empe
the full realization of his plans, the Jews saw with full horror w
rule could involve. Brandon finds that the rule of Agrippa
more than a pause in the mounting crisis and that "after th
Agrippa I [A.D. 44], Jewish history seems to take on the guis
tragedy as it moves inexorably to what appears to be the pred
trophe of A.D. 70."31 Brandon finds that the activity of th
spread throughout Palestine, but that many of them are from G
this Galilee itself was not a center of ferment until after 44, since
2« Ibid.
27 Steward Perowne, The Later Herods (London : Hodder and Stoug
28 H. H. Rowley, "The Herodians of the Gospels," JTS 41 (1940), 14
29 G. Allon, "The Attitude of the Pharisees Toward Roman Rule an
Dynasty," Zion III (1935) 300-322.
80 Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: University Press, 1967).
si Ibid., 99.
The long reign of Herod Antipas had afforded the Jews

from direct subjection to Rome which was the fate of the
Whether they appreciated this aspect of Herod's rule is d
have been fully aware of what Roman rule meant from e
they apparently became sometimes personally involved.32
Therefore in evaluating any segment of Jewish s

Romans, certain distinctions must be kept in mind.
geographical : Galilee, Judea, and all of Palestine mu
own peculiarity. Related to this geographical distinc
Events must be considered as to whether their setti
Galilee under the rule of Herod Antipas and Agripp
period, or all of Palestine under Roman rule after A.
tion involves the group which a certain attitude char
whether an attitude represents the Pharisees and wh
as outlined by Allon, or whether it represents a Zealot
of the less radical parties, the Herodians or the Sadd
three sets of distinctions are kept in mind can an ad
to the question as to whether the toll collectors of A
the period of Jesus' ministry could be rejected as qui
Before concluding this survey of the historical dat
some indications of the roles played by Jews in the
tolls. In general, the pursuit of economic positions w
with the Romans was not of itself scorned by the J
the office of agoranomos (market inspector), which app
literature as rab sûq or ba'al has-sûq , was coveted by
by respected members of the community.33 Such a p
commercial transactions would demand frequent con
Historical sources indicate that at different times and in different locales
Jews held the office of tax and toll collector. Under Ptolemaic rule in
Palestine the local synedria were responsible for the collection and payment
of the prescribed tribute, and the narration of Josephus about the Tobiad
Joseph indicates that indirect taxes were farmed out to Jewish tax farmers
in the early period.34 There is good evidence that in Egypt Jews were tax
collectors. Schwahn mentions ostraca with indications of Jews who served
in this capacity, and Tcherikover concludes from his study of the material :
Among the petty customs collectors were also a considerable number of Jews as
we learn from the ostraca of Upper Egypt .... Tax collectors were hated by
the Egyptian population as they were hated by the population everywhere else.35
82 Ibid.. 83-84.
38 Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie (Hildersheim: Georg Olms, 21966) II, 372.
84 Antiquities 12,159-222; Michel, " Telônës ," 94.
85 V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews , trans. S. Appelbaum
In the NT period it seems that Jews worked both as tax c

toll collectors. Regarding the direct taxes, Billerbeck writes :
The collection of the poll tax and the land tax was accomplishe
times by civil officials under the responsibility of the procurators. Je
were used in the collection of taxes.36
Asher Gulack concludes from a study of the Talmudic material:

From the very fact that Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi passed this regulation concerning
the collection of taxes, we can deduce that taxes were collected in accordance
with the regulation of Jewish law. Either the tax collectors themselves were
Jews who observed the laws of Israel, or else the taxes were paid on behalf of
the whole community by the municipal administration of the wealthy people of
the place who in turn collected them from local citizens in accordance with the
laws of Israel.37
Thus it seems clear that Jews were engaged in the collection of direct taxes.
There is also strong evidence that Jews engaged in the system of tax farming
which prevailed for the indirect taxes. A primary source of this affirmation is,
of course, the Gospel tradition, where Matthew appears as a telones (Mt
10 :3) and Zaccheus as an architelõnês (Lk 19 :2) - technical terms for func-
tionaries in the toll farming system. Josephus narrates that a certain John of
Caesarea, a telones , went with the chief civic officials to plead the Jewish
cause at the time of the trouble over the synagogue in Caesarea.38 Billerbeck
characterizes these telõnai as "lesser officials who were usually from the
native population."39
We may now attempt a brief summary of the historical data. By the NT
period the classical publican system no longer existed in Palestine, so that
the telõnai of the Gospels are not publicans. The direct taxes, at this time,
were under the supervision of the central authority, the prefect or the
tetrarch. In those sections under direct Roman control the tax collectors
would have been Roman officials or Jews in direct employ of the Romans.
In Galilee under Antipas the direct taxes were collected by Antipas' officials,
and the local synedria played a role in the collection. In both Judea and
Galilee the indirect taxes, the tolls and other imposts, were farmed out to
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1959) 341. On the evidence from the
ostraca, cf. W. Schwahn, " Telõnai " Paulys Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft , V a (1934) 422.
36 H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud
und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922-1956) I, 377.
37 "The Method of Collecting Roman Taxes in Palestine," Magnes Anniversary
Volume (Jerusalem, 1938) 97-104. Translation is from the English summary, p. xxii.
»8 Jewish War 2,287.
89 Kommentar , I, 377.
individual lessees. This farming of taxes brought w

dishonesty and exorbitant tariffs inherent in such a
active part in the whole taxation system. However, t
activity must be evaluated in light of where (Jude
(before or after A.D. 44) they were active.
II. Tax Collectors in the Rabbinical Literature
An attempt to evaluate the position and moral standing of the tax

toll collectors in Jewish society must proceed from a study of the pertin
sections of the rabbinical literature. The main areas of disagreement betw
Perrin and Jeremias center on interpretation of the rabbinical mater
our presentation we will concentrate on those sections mentioned by P
in his Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus . The point at issue is whe
the toll collectors had so alienated themselves from Jewish society that th
could be considered as "Jews who had made themselves as Gentiles"
quislings. The main texts to be discussed are Mishnah, Sanhédrin 3 :3
Kamma 10:2, Tohoroth 7:6 and the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhédrin
Observations from other texts will be added where they enlighten
problem.
We must mention initially a significant terminological distinction found
in the Jewish material. The difference of function between tax and toll
collectors is expressed by the use of different Hebrew words. Toll collector
is expressed by the word, mokes (pl. môkesîn). This noun is not found in
the Bible, but its radicals appear in the word for religious tax or toll, mekes
(Num 31:28,37-41). In the bilingual tariff inscription from Palmyra, the
Aramaic mãkesãr) (pl. mākesayyā') corresponds to the Greek telones , in a
series of texts where the regulation of toll contracts is under discussion.40
We thus arrive at the equation toll collector - mokēs - ho telones. In the
rabbinical literature mokēs is used not only of the main contractor in the
toll farming system, but is extended to all who work for or with him. For
those who collect the direct taxes, the term gabbay (or gabba(>}y) is used.
Goldschmid has noted that the earliest usage of this term is for those who
administered the charitable dole, the gabba' ê sedãqãh, and was later applied
to those who collected taxes for the government.41 The significance of these
terms will emerge in the course of the discussion, where it will be shown that
40 Palmyrene tariff inscription, i ,6,7; iia,46; iib,30; iib,48; iic,27. Cf. G. A. Cooke,
A Text Book of North Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903) 313-333.
In one instance mãkesâO is translated as dëmosiônês, iiia, 9.
41 Leopold Goldschmid, "Les impôts et droits de douane en Judée sous les Romains/'
Revue des études juives , 34 (1897) 214.
SO The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [Vol. 33
the moral evaluation of the tax collectors is different from that of the toll
collectors, and that the telõnai of the Gospels are toll collectors.
The first text to be discussed is from the Tohoroth, where, in the context
of a discussion of the various ways uncleanness can arise, we find the fol-
lowing statement :
If tax gatherers ( gabbďím ) entered a house [all that is within it] becomes un-
clean; even if a Gentile was with them they may be believed if they say ("We
did not enter," but they may not be believed if they say) "We entered but we
touched naught." If thieves entered a house, only that part is unclean that was
trodden by the feet of the thieves.42
This text is important to Perrin's position, for he sees in the juxtaposition

of the defilement caused by the tax collector and the Gentile an indication
that the tax collector was considered a Jew who made himself a Gentile.43
First of all, it must be noted that since the text deals with "tax collectors"
and not toll collectors it is prima facie not clear evidence for an evaluation
of the telõnai of the Gospels. Only the tax collectors had occasion to enter a
house in the performance of their duties. The toll collectors would have been
met at stationary locations.
Another reference to the uncleanness caused by tax collectors is in
Hagigah 3 :6 where the discussion centers on the uncleanness of things con-
nected with various offerings :
If tax collectors entered a house (so too, if thieves restored stolen vessels), they
may be deemed trustworthy if they say, "We have not touched."44
The Gemara on this section adds
Now we shall point to a contradiction : If tax collectors entered a house the whole
house is rendered unclean. There is no contradiction. In the one case a Gentile
was with them ; in the latter case no Gentile was with them.45
Thus it seems there was a discussion about how the entry of a tax collector
could cause uncleanness. The difficulty is resolved by the statement that it
was the presence of the Gentile with the tax collector which caused defile-
ment. Therefore it is not self evident that the mere entry of the tax collector
caused uncleanness.
Another text pertinent to the discussion of uncleanness associated with
tax collectors reads as follows :
All hangers are susceptible to uncleanness, excepting that of a householder's
42 T ohoroth 7 :6.
43 Rediscovering , 94.
44 Danby, 215.
45 References to the Talmud are from The Babylonian Talmud , I. Epstein, ed. (35
vols.; London: Soncino Press, 1935-1952). Hagigah , trans. I. Abrahams, 164.
1971] Tax Collectors and Sinnêrs 51
sifter or riddle. So R. Meir. But the Sages say : They are

tible excepting the hanger of the sifter belonging to flou
that belongs to threshing floors, and the hanger of a han
of the exciseman's ( hab-balläsln ) staff, since they aid th
of its use.46
Jeremias has noted that this is the only text where the
ciated directly with uncleanness, and he does this by po
stick in the packs of the travelers.47 However, it is sign
term for toll collector ( môkës ) is not used here. T
"exciseman" ( ballāštn ) comes from the root bis whi
investigate and is a broad term used for police, comm
and toll collectors.48 Also the uncleanness is considered to attach itself to
the instrument the ballāšīn use in their work and not to the men themselves.
One of the more important texts for an evaluation of Jewish views on tax
and toll collectors comes from the tractate Sanhédrin. The Mishnah alludes
to those occupations which render a person unqualified to be a witness to
which the Gemara adds herdsmen, tax collectors ( hag-gabbďím ) and toll
collectors (ham-môkesîn) ,49 A later statement in the same section notes :
Tax collectors and toll collectors, "at first they thought that they collected no
more than the legally imposed taxes. But when it was seen that they over-
charged, they were disqualified."
A further opinion is added to the discussion where Rab Judah says :

A herdsman is in general ineligible (to be a witness), while a tax collector is in
general eligible.
This section of the Talmud then concludes with the story of the father of
Rabbi Zera who was a tax collector and who helped the people avoid the
heavy taxes when the district supervisor came to collect. The evaluation of
the various occupations thus proceeds in stages. At first, herdsmen, tax
collectors and toll collectors are lumped together. The reason seems to be
that they were all thought to be dishonest. The second stage seems to
exonerate the tax collector, and the final statement even admits that they
can be of some help to people. It is important here that the tax collector
( gabbãy ) is exonerated, not the toll collector. Also, it is seen that being in
the employ of foreign rulers did not of itself disqualify a man.
46 Kelim, 15.4.
47 Jeremias, Correspondence cited, supra , n. 7.
48 The word is late and not found in biblical Hebrew, cf. J. Levy, Wörterbuch über
die Talmuden und Midraschin (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2 1 963 )
I, 237.
49 Sanhédrin 3:3, b. Sanhédrin 25b, trans. Jacob Schachter (Soncino Edition)
148-149.
The next sections pertinent to the discussion are from Baba
If one robbed aught and fed his children, or if he left it for

exempt from repayment. But if it were real estate, they must
They must not change money from the public treasury [lit. f
of the publicans, mitt ébat ham-mô kesin] nor from the exciseman
sel hag-gabbďím ) and they may not take alms from them, but
from his (the tax gatherer's or exciseman's) house or in the m
If toll collectors ( môkesîn ) took away his ass and gave him a
robbers robbed him of his garments and gave him another ga
belongs to him because the owners have despaired of regaining
The general context of the discussion behind these texts is th

goods which are tainted because dishonesty was associated wit
acquisition. The prohibition in the first text against chang
the wallets of tax and toll collectors indicates that this was considered to be
"dirty money" and the parallelism of toll collectors and robbers in the second
text confirms this view. Therefore this text is good evidence for the asso-
ciation of toll collectors and robbers, as Perrin has emphasized.61 Also, as
Windfuhr remarks, the injustice in this case clings to the money, not to the
person of the official.52
Thus far we have seen that the conjunction of both tax and toll collectors
with robbers is a frequent one. On the other hand, there is no conclusive
evidence that either group was regarded as Gentiles. In order to obtain a
more complete and ordered view of the evaluation of tax and toll collectors
we may summarize some of the conclusions of Leopold Goldschmid. In a
long article Goldschmid first summarizes the various taxes the Jews were
subject to during Roman rule. In the second part of the article he discusses
the persons engaged in the work of collecting the various direct and indirect
taxes.53 The passage most important for a reconstruction of the evaluation
of tax and toll collectors, Goldschmid finds in the Talmud, tractate b . Beko -
roth , 31a:
Our Rabbis taught : At first the sages said : "If a. höher became a tax collector
(gabbãWy) , he is expelled from the order. If he withdrew, he is not received as a
60 Baba Kamma 10:1. The translation here is taken from Blackmann who is more
accurate than Danby here. Philip Blackmann, Mishnayoth (7 vols. ; London : Mishnah
Press, 1951) IV, 76.
01 Rediscovering, 92.
62 Die Mischna: Text, Uebersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung, ed. G. Beer,
O. Holtzmann, and I. Rabin (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1912 - ). Baba Qamma, trans. W.
Windfuhr (1913) 79.
«3 L. Goldschmid, "Impôts," 214-217.
hãbêr" They subsequently declared: "If he withdrew, he

other person."64
Goldschmid claims that this statement mirrors three disti

composition of the Mishnah. The first (exclusion from
from the early redaction of the Mishnah and comes f
certain eminent men entered the service of the Roman
ments against them, and the equating of them with r
this period. Later the idea is expressed that tax collect
good of the people. The statements discussed above fro
date from this period. The third stage is the period when
of the tax system were removed and the gabbā'īm we
irreproachable.
Goldschmid also notes that at no period was anim
gabbā'īm as great as against the môkesîn. The reason fo
the arbitrary quality of their imposts and the dishonesty
their activity. Thus Goldschmiďs researches support the
telõnai, toll collectors, of the Gospels were not hated s
were in the service of Rome. When service to Rome is under discussion
gabbā'īm is used to characterize the officials. Unfortunately Goldschmid does
not specify the exact historical period to which his threefold periodization
corresponds, so it is difficult to correlate his periods with events in the NT
period. His work is important in showing that among the rabbis, the heirs
to the Pharisaic traditions, it was not mere association with a foreign oppres-
sor which made a work rejected, but rather the dishonesty which charac-
terized some of the Roman civil servants. It is safe to assume, then, that at
all periods there was a fluctuation of opinion on those who worked in consort
with the Romans, and it is the quality of this cooperation which tips the
balance, not the mere fact.
For the sake of clarity we may now attempt to summarize the evaluation
of tax and toll collectors as found in the rabbinical literature. There is a
series of statements where judgment on both the gabbā'īm and the môkesîn
is harsh. In these texts they are put on the same level as robbers. The judg-
ment on toll collectors, môkesîn , the telõnai of the Gospels, remains harsh
throughout the Talmud. The evaluation of the gabbā'īm is mitigated at many
points, and the harsh judgments against them, when found, vary between
criticism of their cooperation with Roman officials and their suspected dis-
honesty. When Roman rule was fair and the taxation system was controlled,
the judgment was not as harsh.
54 b. Bekoroth, trans. I. Miller and M. Simon (Soncino, 1948) 196.
III. The Gospel Tradition

The ultimate thrust of our discussion should be a complete
Gospel tradition on toll collectors and sinners and of those s
give a view of the economic and social situation of Palestine a
Jesus' ministry. The work of Perrin has shown that compl
and theological motivations lie behind the Gospel picture of Jesu
with toll collectors. H. E. Tödt sees in the table-fellowship with t
an entrée to Jesus' authoritative preaching of the Kingdom of G
complete discussion is beyond the scope of the present study
ceived as a pre-condition to future work, so that we will limit ou
to observations about the telõnai from a philological, sourc
form critical point of view.
The telõnai of the Gospels are wrongly interpreted when
translated either as "publican" or "tax collector." The literal G
tion of the Latin publicanus is dëmosiônës, a word which does
the Gospels.56 Also, as has been noted, the classical publican syst
gated in Palestine by the NT period. The translation "tax collecto
accurate, unless it is taken in the most general sense as referr
who had any role in the collection of taxes. If the distinction bet
and indirect taxes is maintained, the term "tax collector" should
to those who collect the direct taxes imposed either by the R
in Judea or the tetrarch in Galilee. The accurate translation of t
collector. It is significant in this regard that in the Gospels they
at those commercial centers (Capernaum and Jericho) where
of tolls would be expected. The word has a wide connotation.
nate functionaries or employees at the toll center ( telõnion )
rich man who buys the right to collect the tolls. In New Tes
the tolls were farmed out, but the mode was according to th
that is, individual contracts for a specific toll station or type of t
The phrase, telõnai kai hamartõloi, is found in three places in t
Gospels : Mk 2:15 (par. Mt 9 :10ff. ; Lk 5 :29ff. ) , a Marcan source
Lk 7 :34, from Q ; and Lk 15 :2 as part of a Lucan introductio
ethnikos is found in close conjunction in Mt 5:46-47 (Q)
(Mt). Matthew has a parallelism of telõnai and pornai in the
two sons (Mt 21 :28ff.), where the telõnai and pornai are said
kingdom of heaven before the chief priests and elders (Mt
65 The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition , trans. D. Barton

Westminster Press, 1965) 306-312.
56 H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Cl
1925-1940) s.v., cf. Strabo, Geography 12,3,40; Pap. Oxyn . 44,8.
57 Rostovtzeff, "Staatspacht," 480.
has a similar conjunction in the prayer of the Phar

thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners,
even like this toll collector" (Lk 18:11). 58 The wor
independently in Mk, and in Mt only to designate M
list (10:3). Luke uses the word absolutely, that is, no
another term, in those references to the telõnai who ca
John (3:12; 7:29), in the parable of the Pharisee
(18:10ff.), and in reference to Zaccheus, the architel
is never found outside the Synoptic Gospels and, in
Jerusalem setting of Jesus' ministry, usually in the fram
stories. Thus from a source critical viewpoint, "toll c
is found as a set phrase in Mark and Q. The stateme
Now the toll collectors and sinners were all drawing nea
Pharisees and scribes murmured saying, "This man re
with them/'
has all the earmarks of a summary since the Marca

Jesus receiving toll collectors and eating with them and
Pharisees are present in Luke. Thus we can say that
kai hamartõloi as a set phrase characterizes Mark
breaks down and the telõnai are joined to other grou
Since the area of concern in the present study is J
toll collectors and sinners, and since the specific prob
with the question of whether the toll collectors are
will limit our extended comments to the Marcan and
fellowship is portrayed, and to that section of Matt
and ethnikoi are in close connection. The aim of our
delimit the Sitz im Leben of the texts as a necessary
clusions we will make about the Gospel usage of telõn
Mk 2:14-17
And as he passed on, he saw Levi, the son of Alpheus sitting at the toll station
( telõnion ), and he said to him, "Follow me," and he rose and followed him.
15And as he sat at table in his house, many toll collectors ( telõnai ) and sinners
were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed
him. 16And the scribes of the Pharisees when they saw that he was eating with
sinners and toll collectors said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with toll
collectors and sinners ?" 17 And when Jesus heard it he said to them, "Those who
are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick ; I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners."
68 Translations are from the RSV which always translates telônës as tax collector.
As the article shows, the proper translation is toll collector, which I have substituted
for the sake of clarity and emphasis.
This pericope is set geographically "beside the sea," most lik

region around Capernaum (2:1). The Gospel setting is within
controversies where some action of Jesus occasions an objection
scribes object to his forgiving of sins; in 2:15 the scribes of th
to his acceptance of toll collectors. In 2 : 18 they object that he do
in 2:24 the Pharisees object to the plucking of the grain; and
opposition culminates in the statement that the Pharisees took
the Herodians on how to destroy Jesus. The exact location of 2 :15
ous. Mk reads en tę oikią autou ; Mt, simply en tę oikią (9 :10
(5 :29) resolves the ambiguity by specifying that the feast was
of Levi. The location of the incident is not unimportant for an un
of the pericope. Abrahams notes that the Pharisees would not
at eating with "sinners" if this could be done in one's own ho
the ritual prescriptions could be observed. Scandal would arise
at the house of sinners.50 The ambiguity of location in Matthe
may indicate his concern to portray Jesus as sensitive to the
the law.
Mk 2:14-17 does not really form a unity. The thrust of verses 13-14 is
one of calling and discipleship, as the command, akolouthei moi, followed
by the immediate response, kai anastas ēkolouthēsen autç, indicates. Bult-
mann notes à propos of 2:14 that "the verse condenses into one symbolic
moment what was actually a process."60 Dibelius views the pericope as a
paradigm of the less pure type and notes two distinct emphases in it, the
calling and the feast.61 He views 2:15, 16a as an added background and
says that "Mark supposes a meal and weaves it into a paradigmatic remark
which the followers of Jesus would have accepted."62 Bultmann characterizes
the whole incident as an apophthegm in which 15 and 16 is a story designed
from the unattached saying of 17.63 The joining of 15-16 comes about from
the fact that the kalein of 17 can be seen as an invitation to table-fellowship
which was greatly prized in the early community.64 The pericope is thus
very complex, involving elements of a controversy story and integrating a
call to discipleship within the context of table-fellowship as a manifestation
of Jesus' call to sinners. Thus we can affirm that the fellowship with telõnai
69 Studies , I, 56.
«o History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (New York: Harper and
Row, 1963) 57.
61 From Tradition to Gospel, trans. B. Wolf (New York: Charles Scribners, n.d.)
47-48.
«2 Ibid., 64 n. 1.
63 History of the Synoptic Tradition, 18.
m Ibid., 163.
kai hamartõloi belongs to an early stage of the traditio

the Marcan context we can see that it is intimately c
Marcan presentation of the ministry of Jesus.
Mt 11:19
The Q usage of telõnai kai hamartõloi is found in Mt 11 :19 (Lk 7 :34)

where Jesus is pictured as quoting an objection to his activity in contrast
with the work of John. The section reads :
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "He has a demon";
19the Son of Man came eating and drinking and they say, "Behold a glutton and
a drunkard, a friend of toll collectors and sinners."
Again as in Mk, the phrase is used in the framework of a controversy.

Although there is no explicit reference to "eating" with toll collectors and
sinners in the pericope, this is the substance of the charge against Jesus.65
Perrin argues for the authenticity of this passage stating that the "designa-
tion of Jesus as a 'glutton and drunkard' belongs to the polemics of the
controversies surrounding Jesus' earthly ministry," and that the precise
gravity of the charge is that Jesus ate with those Jews who had made them-
selves as Gentiles.66 As we have noted, in Galilee the basis of the controversy
would not be Jesus' table-followship with toll collectors construed as fellow-
ship with those who had made themselves as Gentiles, since in Galilee the
toll collectors were not in the employ of the Gentiles. However, if the contro-
versy mirrored a setting in Judea prior to A.D. 44 or a church concern
after 44, Jesus' fellowship with toll collectors could be interpreted as fellow-
ship with virtual traitors. The conjunction of Mk and Q on the controversies
evoked by Jesus' table-fellowship with toll collectors and sinners argues for
a very early tradition, but this tradition could have been modified in terms
of the situation the church found itself in first century Palestine.87
Mt 18:17
The significant passage for the conjunction of toll collector and Gentile
comes from Mt's Gemeindeordnung of chapter 18.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church ; and if he refuses to listen
even to the church, let him be to you as a gentile and a toll collector (Mt 18 :17).
Both Stendahl and Michel remark that the negative opinion of toll collectors
found here and in Mt 5 :46-47 is striking in the context of Mt's Gospel.68
65 Perrin, Rediscovering . 105-106.
«« Ibid.. 120.
67 E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 21968) 110.
68 K. Stendahl, "Matthew," Peake's Commentary on the Bible (London: Thomas
Nelson and Sons, 1962) 789; Michel, "Telõnês" 104.
Bultmann views Mt 18:15-17 as a saying created independe

Church. In such a dominical saying "the Risen Lord speaks, t
Lord addresses his Church."09 Stendahl observes that this statement is
similar to the Qumrân Manual of Discipline (5 :25-6:ll) and argues for an
early setting for the statement.70 Michel states that the saying "betrays an
expressed Jewish Christian view and is certainly of Palestinian origin."71
With these opinions in mind, we may try to assign a historical setting to
the statement. As was seen, the equation of the telõnai with Gentiles does
not fit in with a Galilean setting. It is more suited to a period or a place
where cooperation with the Romans in any form could be conceived as
cooperation with the Gentile oppressor. The exclusion of Mt 18:17 would
fit into any Palestinian setting after A.D. 44 or in a Jerusalem setting prior
to this date.
Lk 3:12-13
In contrast to the late setting suggested by Mt 18:17 the logion of Lk

3 : 12- 13 suggests an early setting. At the same time it is good evidence
that the telõnai were suspect of dishonesty. Within the composite pericope
containing the preaching of John (Lk 3 :7-17) we find a catechetical section
where various groups question John with the familiar Lukan phrase, ti poiës -
omen.72 In answer to the question of the telõnai (3:12) John urges them,
"Collect no more than is appointed ( diatetagmenon ) you." The answers of
John in this section are adapted to the particular moral failing tempting the
questioner; in vs. 11 to the selfishness of the crowds, and in vs. 14 to the
misuse of power by the soldiers. In the answer to the toll collectors (3 :13)
we see that the moral weakness they were prone to was dishonesty, or to the
collection of tolls beyond the declared amount. Not only does this text sup-
port the charge of dishonesty against the toll collectors, but it suggests that
the telõnai are here minor functionaries in the toll farming system, rather
than prime contractors. The word diatassõ (3 :13) is used often in the Lucan
writings for orders a subordinate follows in performing some assigned duty
and conveys the subordinate quality of the telõnai of this pericope.78 The
69 History of the Synoptic Traditio », 147.

70 "Matthew," 789.
71 " Telõnês r 104, n. 147.
72 Verses 7-9, 16b-17 are from Q ; 15-16a are from Mark ; 10-14 may be tradition or
Lucan composition. Bultmann calls 10-14 catechetical and says it is a Christian con-
struction, HST 145-147. The Lucan ti oun poiêsõmen is found in a conversion pattern
here and in 16:4 (sg.) ; 18:18 (part), Acts 2:37; 16:30 (inf.) 22:10, cf. H. Conzel-
mann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. G. Buswell (New York: Harper and Row,
1960) 102.
73 Cf. Lk 3:13; 8:55; 17:9,10; Acts 18:2; 23:31.
saying of John in 3 : 13 fits in with a Galilean setting t

and supports the notion that the telõnai met by Je
ministry were suspect of dishonesty.
IV. Conclusion
At this point it may be helpful to pull together some of the data from th
first two parts of our presentation in order to see what light they throw o
the Gospel material. As was noted, the precise point of dispute betwe
Perrin and Jeremias is whether the telõnai are sinners because they a
"Jews who made themselves as Gentiles" or because they are engaged in
dishonest occupation, and whether Jesus' association with them would
tantamount to treason. Our investigation of the historical data has show
that the taxation system was different in different places at diverse period
Judea from A.D. 6 until the rebellion of 66-70 was under direct Roman rule
except for a brief interlude from A.D. 41-44, Galilee was relatively imm
from the oppression of Roman rule, being under the Herodian family u
44. Also it should be noted that the classical "publican" system was no
operative in any part of Palestine during the NT period. In Judea the collec-
tion of direct taxes was under the control of the prefect. The indirect taxes
and tolls were also under his control, but were farmed out to toll collect
who could be Jewish citizens. In Galilee the collection of direct taxes w
under Antipas or Agrippa, and the local synedria had a hand in the coll
tion. The indirect taxes were farmed out. The telõnai of the Gospels a
either toll farmers or men who work in the employ of the toll farmers. Sin
Galilee was independent of direct Roman control until 44, the taxes or t
could not be construed as direct support of the Romans.
Our examination of the evaluation of toll collectors and tax collectors in
the Talmud has shown that the toll collectors were not considered to be
ritually defiled because of their contact with Gentiles, but were scorned
because of their dishonesty, and that the judgment on them remains harsh
throughout the Talmud. The judgments on the tax collectors are also harsh,
but they fluctuate throughout the Talmud. At times the severity of the
judgment is based on their real or supposed dishonesty, and at times on
their cooperation with the Romans. However, in those periods and places
where a modus vivendi was reached with the Romans this latter reason was
not in force. Since the telõnai of the Gospels are the toll collectors of the
Jewish material, and since these are always scorned because of their dis-
honesty, Jesus' association with them would be seen as association with
dishonest people.
Analysis of the Gospel material indicates that fellowship with toll col-
lectors and sinners belongs to the earliest strata of the Gosp

Though we may be dealing with historical reminiscences of the
Jesus, it is not certain that we are dealing with historical repr
Analysis of Mk 2 :15ff. suggests that the narrative was formed in
of the Palestinian church, and the work done on Mt 18:17 indic
certain circles the telõnai were considered as Gentiles. Though
historical ministry of Jesus his association with the toll collectors
be seen as association with those who made themselves as Gent
are periods in the formation of the Gospel tradition when n
collectors, but the toll collectors as well, would have been asso
Roman oppression. Not only are the temporal periods signifi
Allon has pointed out, the quality and quantity of opposition
different according to which Pharisaic school is represented in
versy dialogue.74
Therefore, the view of Jeremias that the toll collectors of t
cannot be seen as "Jews who made themselves as Gentiles" is
applied to the historical ministry of Jesus in Galilee where th
reason for the scandal of Jesus would be his association with
people. However, the ambiguity of the Jewish material re
evaluation of the tax collectors (gabba îm) indicates that at tim
the service of Rome were repudiated by their people. During th
period of the Gospel tradition and amid the chaos of first century
distinctions which were valid when applied to a short space of tim
could well be lost sight of. It is quite possible that in Jerusalem
not only the center of Roman opposition, but also longest under R
and in those circles which leaned toward a Zealot position, am
were certain Pharisees, fellowship with toll collectors would b
as a charge tantamount to treason. Therefore, Perrin's sugge
Jesus' fellowship with toll collectors is a motive behind the morta
to Jesus could be true of a period or place where the distincti
Galilee were not in force. The period could be from A.D. 6 to
place would be Jerusalem where the distinction between tax a
lectors would not have the same force as in Galilee since all income went
into the Roman coffers. Circles in Jerusalem would interpret Jesus' fellow-
ship with toll collectors in terms of what this would mean in their own
experience, so that in such a setting fellowship with those scorned in Galilee
because of their real or suspected dishonesty could be construed as fellowship
with those in the service of Rome. Perrin's suggestion would also explain
74 Supra n. 29.
certain tendencies at work in the formation of the Go

in the period after A.D. 44 when the church would
table-fellowship with toll collectors against the cha
representatives of the growing Roman oppression.
John R. Donahue, S.J.

Divinity School, University of C
Chicago, Illinois

Donahue - Tax Collectors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Donahue - Tax Collectors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Donahue - Tax Collectors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic discussed in the article?

What is the main topic discussed in the article?

What are some of the differing views on who the 'tax collectors and sinners' referred to in the Gospels?

What are some of the differing views on who the 'tax collectors and sinners' referred to in the Gospels?

TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS: AN ATTEMPT AT IDENTIFICATION

Author(s): John R. Donahue

The portrayal of Jesus' ministry in the Synoptic Gospels to

1 Israel Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels: First Series

the bitterness of foreign domination. The "tax collectors" are sin

physicians and butchers. These occupations were despised

evidence as in his Jerusalem , he concludes that by sinners are me

I. The Historical Situation

12 ZNW 30 (1931) 295, 300.

group the right to collect the various taxes or tolls. Th

Palestine : 63 B.C. to 4 B.C.

priests and the local synedria ,17 In 57 B.C. Gabinus, Pompe

Palestine after Herod

In discussing the period closer to our concern, it is importa

17 J. Spencer Kennard, "The Jewish Provincial Assembly," ZNW

quasi-independent rule. Judea, comprising Sam

23 Emil Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the T

administration of their own territory.26 Also it was a character

The long reign of Herod Antipas had afforded the Jews

Therefore in evaluating any segment of Jewish s

In the NT period it seems that Jews worked both as tax c

Asher Gulack concludes from a study of the Talmudic material:

individual lessees. This farming of taxes brought w

II. Tax Collectors in the Rabbinical Literature

An attempt to evaluate the position and moral standing of the tax

This text is important to Perrin's position, for he sees in the juxtaposition

All hangers are susceptible to uncleanness, excepting that of a householder's

sifter or riddle. So R. Meir. But the Sages say : They are

A further opinion is added to the discussion where Rab Judah says :

The next sections pertinent to the discussion are from Baba

If one robbed aught and fed his children, or if he left it for

The general context of the discussion behind these texts is th

hãbêr" They subsequently declared: "If he withdrew, he

Goldschmid claims that this statement mirrors three disti

54 b. Bekoroth, trans. I. Miller and M. Simon (Soncino, 1948) 196.

III. The Gospel Tradition

65 The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition , trans. D. Barton

has a similar conjunction in the prayer of the Phar

has all the earmarks of a summary since the Marca

This pericope is set geographically "beside the sea," most lik

kai hamartõloi belongs to an early stage of the traditio

The Q usage of telõnai kai hamartõloi is found in Mt 11 :19 (Lk 7 :34)

Again as in Mk, the phrase is used in the framework of a controversy.

Bultmann views Mt 18:15-17 as a saying created independe

In contrast to the late setting suggested by Mt 18:17 the logion of Lk

69 History of the Synoptic Traditio », 147.

saying of John in 3 : 13 fits in with a Galilean setting t

lectors and sinners belongs to the earliest strata of the Gosp

certain tendencies at work in the formation of the Go

John R. Donahue, S.J.

You might also like