Numismatic and History Discussion Forums > Biblical & Judean Coins Discussion Forum

Tribute Penny

<< < (3/6) > >>

Wolfpack:
What has me puzzled is why collectors of Christian iconography who are of the faith, would want a coin that is expressly forsaken by Jesus.

Isn't it odd to celebrate a faith by coveting an object diametrically opposed to said faith (or at least representing an antagonist)?  Obviously there is a connection that would interest a history buff or an agnostic religious scholar, but not the faithful.

Wouldn't some nice Constantine coinage be more appropriate?

Joe Sermarini:

--- Quote from: Wolfpack on April 07, 2008, 03:23:17 pm ---What has me puzzled is why collectors of Christian iconography who are of the faith, would want a coin that is expressly forsaken by Jesus.

Isn't it odd to celebrate a faith by coveting an object diametrically opposed to said faith (or at least representing an antagonist)? Obviously there is a connection that would interest a history buff or an agnostic religious scholar, but not the faithful.

Wouldn't some nice Constantine coinage be more appropriate?


--- End quote ---

Christians generally do not see Tiberius or Rome as diametrically opposed to Christianity.  Also, Jesus did not foresake the coin.  He simply meant there are spiritual things and worldly things.  Coins and taxes are worldly things and He did not oppose paying taxes because it was not a matter that concerned Him.
   

slokind:
Though I don't want to compete for possession of a 'Tribute Penny', I do appreciate that serious coin collectors who also are serious Christians are, naturally, also serious historians of this period.  The wish to have a specimen of a coin that is part of the narrative and refers to logia of Jesus is perfectly reasonable, whether as an object of contemplation (speaking as a former nun), or as a historical document for the Imperial context of the gospels.

Personally, I think that the story is a parable (the fish's mouth!) with a profound insight about the separation of the civil and the religious; assuming that the logia in question, the Render unto..., is accurately reported as Jesus' own, or even if it isn't: I think it reveals understanding of the essential nature of this separation: they both can corrupt each other.

Philologically, of course, the Gospel texts are also important documents, in this case part of the incomplete evidence for how loosely or exactly words like 'denarius' and 'drachma' might be used colloquially.

Similarly, the lepton, well translated by the non-monetary word 'mite'.  The point is that however small the widow's material worth, and however small her monetary contribution, its meaning is that she gave as much as she possibly could give.

With the Gospels, as with all other texts, their intention should never be ignored, if we possibly can determine it, as in these cases I think we can.  The specific words are used contextually (quite apart from the question of translation, as in the 'amartia' in the Lord's Prayer), and the context has bearing even on the philological discussions.  For believers, it is almost everything, of course.

If this is too religious, I'll delete it.  But I thought it might be helpful.  Like, to possess a 'mite', it is enough to own just any one of those common little coins, the point being that they are small and common.

Pat L.

Robert_Brenchley:
I think you're being a bit anachronistic reading the separation of the civil and the religious back into the First Century. The emperor was likely also to be Pontifex Maximus (I'm not sure whether they all were); Herod I appointed nonentities as High Priest, probably in order to keep the Temple under control, and not long before the Hasmoneans had been High Priest and, in some cases, king. The Roman governors of Judea kept the High Priestly vestments under lock and key except during the major festivals, doubtless again in order to control the Temple.

The first Christians were realists who knew they had no chance of influencing the state, except possibly to get it to treat them a bit better, and many of them didn't care anyway, since they were convinced Jesus was coming back any day to put an end to all that nonsense and inaugurate the Reign of God.

I think there are two plausible readings for the story. One, if you assume it originates with Jesus, or at least about his time, is a question as to the legitimacy of Roman rule over the Jews. Deuteronomy 17:15 bans the Israelites from having a foreign king. Probably the crunch came with Quirinius' census in late 6 or early 7AD, and the taxation that followed it. Judas of Galilee revolted, and according to Josephus, founded the nameless 'Fourth Philosophy' which later influenced the First Revolt.

Josephus says: These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions, but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relatives and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord; (Antiquities of the Jews 18:23). These sound like radical Pharisees, but whatever their origin, they clearly didn't accept the legitimacy of Roman rule, and, given the origins of the movement, may well have been reluctant to use Roman coinage or pay tax to Rome. If Josephus is to be believed, they were around in Jesus' day, but there was no organized resistance at the time. We do have evidence of individual 'rebels' (lestes), but these may well have been little more than bandits. But the beliefs of the 'fourth philosophy could plausibly have given rise to the question.

The other possibility, if you hold, as I do, that the Gospels are the product of later Christian communities, and represent theology rather than history, relates to Vespasian's fiscus judaicus, introduced after the destruction of the Temple. The was levied at the rate of 2 drachmae per man and was equivalent to the earlier Temple Tax. It was paid to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, but whether this was a deliberate insult, or whether it was because the temple acted as the imperial treasury, isn't clear. Mark appears to have been written after 70, probably during the 70's, and thus at a time when the tax may well have been controversial. Christianity was a Jewish movement, and was probably recognized as such at the time; the Jews only appear to have begun to reject it in the 80's. Mark was written for a largely Gentile community, however, so should that pay a tax intended purely for Jews? It would have been a potentially divisive issue when the church included both Jews and Gentiles, and one way of settling it might have been to put an appropriate saying in Jesus' mouth.

Which reading a person prefers will doubtless depend on their beliefs, but that is theology, and has no place here!

Joe Sermarini:
My intention in delving into the theology behind the tribute penny was a simple explanation of why Christians could desire a "Tribute Penny" rather than find it an anathema.   Regardless of when or why the story was written, the meaning for most Christians today is simple and timeless.  And the meaning of the story to Christians today answered the questions posted by Wolfpack regarding why Christian collectors desire the coin.   

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page