I
In_Hoc_Signo312
Guest
You evidently failed to see the conditionals in the sentence you quoted. If the tax collector DOESN’T get paid by the Romans, he obviously needs to get money from somewhere.
Why were tax collectors despised in the time of the Gospels?
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
You evidently failed to see that I’m asking you to see it from the taxpayer’s perspective.You evidently failed to see the conditionals in the sentence you quoted. If the tax collector DOESN’T get paid by the Romans, he obviously needs to get money from somewhere.
When someone reaches into your pocket and takes out money that you feel is an excessive amount, do you really care where his ‘paycheck’ comes from? Nah… you just bristle at the amount that’s been taken from you, and despise the tax collector over it.
(And, if you’re the kind of guy who doesn’t mind being taxed… then I’ll send you my 1040 to pay for me.
)
G
GEddie
Guest
Well yeah, he could take your household goods, beasts, home, etc to pay the tax bill.
Remember also where the tax revenues, in part, were going. The Roman pantheon was state supported. Not only was the blood being squeezed from your personal turnip to pay for your own oppression, but also for the foreign idols you had been bred to hate.
ICXC NIKA
I
In_Hoc_Signo312
Guest
Try telling that to the guy who doesn’t even get paid for what he does.You evidently failed to see that I’m asking you to see it from the taxpayer’s perspective.
When someone reaches into your pocket and takes out money that you feel is an excessive amount, do you really care where his ‘paycheck’ comes from? Nah… you just bristle at the amount that’s been taken from you, and despise the tax collector over it.
(And, if you’re the kind of guy who doesn’t mind being taxed… then I’ll send you my 1040 to pay for me.
I
In_Hoc_Signo312
Guest
Yes, well, try telling that to a man who doesn’t even get paid for what he does.You evidently failed to see that I’m asking you to see it from the taxpayer’s perspective.
When someone reaches into your pocket and takes out money that you feel is an excessive amount, do you really care where his ‘paycheck’ comes from? Nah… you just bristle at the amount that’s been taken from you, and despise the tax collector over it.
(And, if you’re the kind of guy who doesn’t mind being taxed… then I’ll send you my 1040 to pay for me.
P
phil19034
Guest
You know… take your personal property or home in order to pay your debt (in this case taxes)
R
Reepicheep
Guest
And horrible.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
And yet Jesus was charitable to those horrible tax collectors. He even went as far as to compared one to a Pharisee, favorably.
I know Got Questions is not a Catholic site but I don’t see anything in their answer to this question that goes against Catholic doctrine.
gotquestions.org/Bible-tax-collectors.html
G
GEddie
Guest
Well, the Pharisees too were oppressors in a way; all of their extraneous legal requirements imposed burdens on the people, as well (the water needed for all the handwashing, etc., needed to be carried on someone’s head), the difference being that they used God as an excuse, something that our LORD didn’t like much.And yet Jesus was charitable to those horrible tax collectors. He even went as far as to compared one to a Pharisee, favorably.
I know Got Questions is not a Catholic site but I don’t see anything in their answer to this question that goes against Catholic doctrine.
gotquestions.org/Bible-tax-collectors.html
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
Even today in “nature” cultures, heavy loads are carried on the human head; it requires less muscular effort than other methods, as the skeleton bears most of the load.
ICXC NIKA
P
patrick457
Guest
I think the Pharisees get a bit of a bad rap, partly because people take Jesus’ criticisms against them overly-literally. But to temper that image, there was actually a reason for their ‘imposing burdens’ on the people.
The Pharisees took seriously God’s declaration that Israel is a ‘kingdom of priests’. This, they interpreted, meant that the various laws in the Torah that were geared towards the priesthood were actually applicable to all Jews, regardless of whether they were actually priests or not. They were populist in their outlook. (Not surprising, since most Pharisees themselves were laymen.) (Ritual) purity, argued the Pharisees, wasn’t something only priests or pilgrims visiting the Temple should worry about: all Jews should take being ‘clean’ seriously in their everyday lives. That, they said, distinguishes the chosen people from the unclean gentiles who defile the land with their idolatry and other abominations.
For their part, the common people actually liked the Pharisees and their interpretation of the Law that were geared towards them. Somebody was actually taking them seriously, unlike the Sadducees who apparently jealously guarded the Torah as something ‘just for them’ - the priests and the nobility - or the Essenes who mainly distanced themselves from the common rabble.
The Pharisees, for their part, mostly did not try to force their views onto non-members: it was the common people who imitated them of their own accord, because they were held to be the most accurate interpreters of the Law. So we might assume the Pharisees Jesus encounters in the gospels (the ones that were always questioning Jesus why He and His disciples do this or that) either assumed Jesus and His ilk were also Pharisees - a bit unlikely though - or they were the 1st century equivalent of those annoying self-centered folks who always think they’re right and get all uppity when everybody isn’t doing things their way.
In fact, the Pharisees were hardly the most rigorous interpreters of the Law in 1st century Judaism as some people seemt to imagine. The Qumran sectarians were much, much more strict in their interpretation of the Torah, and the Sadducees with their supposed literal ‘as-written’ interpretation of the Law were essentially fundamentalists. In some matters (such as ritual purity), yes, they were strict, but their sometimes-rather creative interpretations of the Torah actually made it easier to follow for people.
You would even notice in the gospels themselves that Jesus was not so much condemning Pharisees for what they teach (Jesus actually held a lot of things in common with them - never was a doctrinal issue involved in Jesus’ various disputes with them, unlike with the Sadducees), but for failing to actually practice what they teach.
P
patrick457
Guest
Re.: Tax collectors.
The Galilee was part of Herod Antipas’ tetrarchy - all the soldiers and the tax collectors in the area were his. There were actually no Romans in the Galilee, because there was no reason for them to be there. (The “centurion” Jesus encounters in Capernaum is more likely to be a soldier in Antipas’ army than a Roman one. We know Herod the Great copied the Roman military structure for his multinational army, and it’s not too much of a stretch to assume his sons did likewise for their armies.)
Client rulers like Antipas paid Rome tribute, so that Rome will leave them alone to do whatever the heck they wanted with their territory. (Rome was actually content to leave its subjects and its clients alone as long as they paid and weren’t causing a ruckus. It wasn’t a kind of totalitarian, 1984-esque society where Romans spy on you 24-7.) Often, the money would usually come out of their own pocket. To recoup their losses, the ruler will then employ different sources of cash, such as dipping into the income from his estates and imposing taxes and tolls. It’s kinda like a food chain, really: Herod will squeeze the aristocrats, the aristocrats would squeeze the local landlords under them, and so own down the chain.
The taxes Galileans pay is a bit different than what Judaeans pay. Judaeans, since they were in a Roman province, paid direct taxes to Rome. Officially, it was the Roman prefect’s job to collect the taxes, but in reality, he delegated this and other governmental duties to Jewish magistrates such as the Temple priests and noblemen (the “elders”) in Jerusalem. (Hey, after all, many Jews didn’t want to see him or any other Roman soldiers, so for most of the year he stayed out of their sight and let the Jews run their own affairs.)
But since the Galilee wasn’t ruled directly by Rome during Jesus’ day, the taxes there more likely came in the form of indirect taxes on stuff like tolls, customs, market taxes, or rents, collection of which was farmed out to the highest bidder. (Some scholars assume that Galileans also paid the direct Roman tax in addition to these indirect ones, but others point out that it’s unlikely they did, at least during the time when Jesus still walked the earth.)
Such tax franchises were a lucrative business, and that’s probably why tax collectors were seen as distasteful: the tax farmer was free to collect as much ‘tax’ as he wished and then keep the extra (everything beyond the imposed minimum) as profit. In other words, buying a tax franchise was a kind of double-edged sword: it would almost certainly make you rich(er), but people would hate you.
In addition to the taxes imposed by Rome or the client ruler, there’s also the Temple tax and the traditional obligation for the people to give tithes to their local priests.
The Galilee was part of Herod Antipas’ tetrarchy - all the soldiers and the tax collectors in the area were his. There were actually no Romans in the Galilee, because there was no reason for them to be there. (The “centurion” Jesus encounters in Capernaum is more likely to be a soldier in Antipas’ army than a Roman one. We know Herod the Great copied the Roman military structure for his multinational army, and it’s not too much of a stretch to assume his sons did likewise for their armies.)
Client rulers like Antipas paid Rome tribute, so that Rome will leave them alone to do whatever the heck they wanted with their territory. (Rome was actually content to leave its subjects and its clients alone as long as they paid and weren’t causing a ruckus. It wasn’t a kind of totalitarian, 1984-esque society where Romans spy on you 24-7.) Often, the money would usually come out of their own pocket. To recoup their losses, the ruler will then employ different sources of cash, such as dipping into the income from his estates and imposing taxes and tolls. It’s kinda like a food chain, really: Herod will squeeze the aristocrats, the aristocrats would squeeze the local landlords under them, and so own down the chain.
The taxes Galileans pay is a bit different than what Judaeans pay. Judaeans, since they were in a Roman province, paid direct taxes to Rome. Officially, it was the Roman prefect’s job to collect the taxes, but in reality, he delegated this and other governmental duties to Jewish magistrates such as the Temple priests and noblemen (the “elders”) in Jerusalem. (Hey, after all, many Jews didn’t want to see him or any other Roman soldiers, so for most of the year he stayed out of their sight and let the Jews run their own affairs.)
But since the Galilee wasn’t ruled directly by Rome during Jesus’ day, the taxes there more likely came in the form of indirect taxes on stuff like tolls, customs, market taxes, or rents, collection of which was farmed out to the highest bidder. (Some scholars assume that Galileans also paid the direct Roman tax in addition to these indirect ones, but others point out that it’s unlikely they did, at least during the time when Jesus still walked the earth.)
Such tax franchises were a lucrative business, and that’s probably why tax collectors were seen as distasteful: the tax farmer was free to collect as much ‘tax’ as he wished and then keep the extra (everything beyond the imposed minimum) as profit. In other words, buying a tax franchise was a kind of double-edged sword: it would almost certainly make you rich(er), but people would hate you.
In addition to the taxes imposed by Rome or the client ruler, there’s also the Temple tax and the traditional obligation for the people to give tithes to their local priests.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
That was the normal way to carry large heavy jars at the time. Balance it on your head rather than lug it in your arms.
- Status