The Tax to Caesar

“Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ”

“Give Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s” — Mark 12

♦

More than any other episode in the Gospels, this response to a trick question about imperial taxes convinced me that there is something extraordinary about Jesus.

1) The first thing to know about this episode is that it is widely attested: it is included in all of the synoptic gospels (SynG), the gospel of Thomas (GTh), and the Egerton fragments (EgrF), with a loose parallel in John 3 (GJn).

2) Using this information about witnesses, let’s look at the episode section by section:

a) And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? (Mk 12:13, 14 & 15a, KJV)

This is the most widely attested section; only GTh (which has “They said to him”) does not contain it. There can be no doubt that Jesus is in trouble: he is the victim of an intellectual ambush. A group of collaborators with the established authorities accosts him in the temple precincts and springs a trap on him: should we pay our taxes? If Jesus answers “Yes,” then he will be seen as a collaborator himself; if he answers “No,” he will be seen as a rebel against the Romans and Herodians and arrested.

The tax in question was a capitation or head tax, that is, a tax on each individual. This tax was collected by contractors whose only obligation was to extract the tax from the people and send it to the local authorities, who in turn paid it to the imperial treasury. The tax was levied regardless of the ability to pay, and the methods used to force the community to pay could be brutal. People in Judea had rioted over the tax, and the inception of the Zealot movement has been dated to its imposition.

b) But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. (Mk 12:15&16)

This section is attested in four of the witnesses: the SynG and GTh. The most important point to hold onto here is that the collaborators, by questioning Jesus about a subject he had given a great deal of thought to, had their own trap turned against them. Jesus was well aware of the anger that imperial taxes roused–and of their injustice. Money in general was one of his chief themes; Jesus saw it as an attempt to escape from God’s Rule by putting trust in men and their devices for protecting themselves: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” So it is plausible that Jesus showed no alarm at the question and asked for a coin. Here he is at his most brilliant, improvising in the middle of a deadly debate.

They produced the coin, and Jesus set up his own trap, asking whose image is on the coin. By calling attention to the image on the coin, Jesus reminded his questioners that they were breaking the Second Commandment by even possessing the coin. In a single stroke he destroyed their credibility: how could they be masters of the Law when they were guilty of such an elementary oversight?

c) And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. (Mk 12:17)

This is the least well attested section; the response in this form is recorded in the SynG only; GTh has “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, to God the things that are God’s, and to me the things that are mine.” GJn and the EgerF, moreover, record lengthy responses to the questioners, signaling the possibility of a different tradition regarding the end of the story. A plausible guess, since even in the synoptics Jesus makes a brief remark before delivering his punchline, is that he did in fact take a few seconds to gather himself, probably by referencing scripture, before delivering the coup-de-grace. (And the EgerF break off before the ending; perhaps they contained some form of the teaching.)

Much has been made of Jesus’s teaching, one of the most memorable in the Gospels. Should we pay our taxes, as our due to the realities of the world, or withhold them in protest against the corruptions of government? Jesus would have counseled neither course: to enter the Kingdom of God, we must give all our money to the poor and follow Jesus. As the story of the second rich man in the gospel of the Nazarenes makes clear, this is never an easy choice (especially for the rich), but it is the act that defines adherence to Jesus’s teachings–and so Jesus had little patience with those who could not find the courage to become poor themselves. If you have the money to pay your taxes, you are shirking your duty to God.

d) And they marvelled at him. (Mk 12:17)

Attested in the synoptics. I certainly did.

3) We really can’t expect a profound, well-thought answer in a situation as tense as the Tax to Caesar; what is amazing, however, is how much Jesus conveys in his brief answer, even as he extricates himself from a situation that could well have cost him his life. The rich are with us always: we can’t get rid of money, and as long as we use it, there will be people who have lots of it. What we can do is handle money (and the success and power that can come with it) gingerly, expect the rich to support the poor, elderly, crippled, mentally incompetant, and sick; and admire those people who are capable of living a good life with little or no money. Taxes themselves are not evil if they serve a good end, and they can be essential to maintaining a community’s health and cohesion. What we have a right to demand is fair, compassionate, and frugal government. But as Jesus would point out, such a Rule begins in our own hearts.   RT

*

Photo: Silver denarius w/ Tiberius’ portrait; WikiCmns; Public Domain.

Other Strangers

 

¶ 

This post, I hope, will be the first installment in an occasional series of poems by poets I know. West Virginia has attracted some very fine writers and artists over the years; their work deserves to be shared and acknowledged.

 ¶ 

Janet Harrison is a remarkable person and an even more remarkable poet; but then, it usually works that way. In addition to be being a fine poet, she makes jewelry and finds time to minister in various ways to family and friends. Right now, she is working to complete a book of her angel poems, Angels and Other Strangers, and is looking for a publisher. Know anyone who might be interested in helping her share her amazing poems? Leave a note in the comment section or send it via e-mail, and I will forward the information to Janet. Now, here is a poem from her draft. Enjoy!

•

Encumbrances of Angels

•

With all eternity to ponder

the nature and cost of freedom,

even an angel might prefer

the rasp of sand between the toes

to the ethereal tug of cosmic tides,

choose the angularity of starfish

over the symmetry of stars,

desire—whatever the penalty—

the lash of wind-driven rain

on a back unburdened of wings.

•

—Janet Harrison, © 2011, all rights reserved. Reproduced with the author’s permission.

•

Image: The Scheme of Things, 1475; WikiCmns; Public Domain

Mark and Peter: Origins of the First Gospel

page from the Gospel of Peter

*

In a field as fractious as the history of the Gospels, it is always noteworthy when scholars reach consensus on a question. Such a consensus has emerged concerning the priority of the gospel of Mark: just about everyone agrees that it was the first of the New Testament gospels to be written. This consensus rests mainly on the fact that the gospels of Matthew and Luke each contains almost all of Mark, strongly suggesting that the authors of these gospels used Mark as a source for their texts.

There is also broad agreement about the date that Mark was written: around the year 70 A.D., when the Romans took Jerusalem at the end of the first Roman-Jewish War and destroyed Herod’s Temple. This date is based on Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13 and the gospel’s sense of impending persecution, which might refer to Nero’s persecution of Christians.

Finally, there is agreement, though not as widespread, that the account handed down by the church fathers concerning the origins of Mark is essentially true: Mark was a disciple of Peter’s in Rome, and he based his gospel on the recollections and teachings of Peter.

*

But some scholars disagree. They place the author of Mark in Syria in about 70 A.D.; they see Palestinian as well as Roman influences in the gospel. And there are other, more perplexing reasons to question this gospel’s origins:

1) The author of Mark may have been more familiar with the geography of Palestine than is usually supposed. Two often cited geographical errors in Mark’s gospel (and there are others) apparently indicate that the author was unfamiliar with Palestine. One occurs after the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman–Jesus is supposed to have returned from Tyre via Sidon to Galilee. But Sidon lay to the north of Tyre, in the wrong direction. By way of explanation, one can say that Jesus may have had work to do in Sidon before returning to Galilee, and the story of his time in Sidon has been edited out. More mysterious is Mark’s claim that Jesus, on his way from Jericho to Jerusalem, passed through first Bethphage and then Bethany–when he would actually have passed through Bethany and then Bethphage. If Matthew was able to spot the error and correct it in his gospel, why weren’t people other than Mark (and above all, Peter) able to correct the error at the time of the gospel’s composition? Could it be that Mark used sources other than Peter for his gospel?

2) A gospel that claims to be Peter’s own report has been discovered. In the late 19th century, a copy of the lost Gospel of Peter was found in a monk’s grave in Egypt. Though the first half of the gospel is missing, the second half is intact (the ending is also missing) and gives an account of Jesus’ death quite different in certain respects from the one contained in Mark’s gospel. (GPtr is told in the first person, from Peter’s point of view.) Which version of the Passion might have originated with Peter in Rome? Did either?

3) The early church did not accept Mark’s gospel. The clearest indication of this is the incorporation of almost all of Mark in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The intent here seems to have been to remove Mark’s gospel from circulation and replace it with the true version.

Another indication is the fact that the end of the gospel of Mark is missing. Two endings, one long, one short, were subsequently crafted to provide a powerful close, but the original text seems to be lost. Why would the early church reject Peter’s account of the gospel, even to the point of removing the story’s dramatic conclusion?

4) Recently, a letter by the church father Clement, which claims to record “secret” passages from the Gospel of Mark that were removed from the gospel’s “public” version, has been discovered. In 1958, a handwritten copy of this letter was discovered by Morton Smith on the end papers of a 17th century book while Smith was doing research at the Monastery of Mar Saba. The book has not been available for examination for many years and may be lost, raising the possibility of a hoax. But many scholars, basing their opinion on photographs of the letter and handwriting analysis, believe the copy of the letter in the endpapers to be genuine. As if this were not enough, Clement’s letter claims that there was a third version of Mark’s gospel in circulation. Which of these versions originated with Mark? Were there yet other emended copies?

*

It might look like these questions will never be answered. But the slow, patient, and sometimes courageous work of scholars over decades and even centuries is helping us answer them.

**

Photographer: H.B. Swete, 1893. WikiCmns; Public Domain.

Peace on Earth

…and goodwill to all men!

♦

“They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
     And their spears into pruning hooks;
     Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
     Neither shall they learn war anymore.”

–Isaiah

  

♦

Image 1: Marianne Stokes, An Angel; Image 2: Dolledre. Src: Wikicommons

The Magi

The Adoration of the Magi; Pieter Breughel the Younger; WikiCmns

 

Part 2 of my reflections on the Nativity.

Let me start by pointing out some remarkable events occurring around the time of Jesus’s birth:

1) In far away China, the Han Dynasty’s rule was interrupted for 11 years (starting in 9 A.D.) by a mini-dynasty, known as the Xin.

2) In Parthian Persia, the court was convulsed by a long dynastic struggle; in the period between 2 B.C. and 10 A.D., five monarchs (one of who was a woman and former Roman slave) ruled.

3) In 4 B.C., Herod the Great, client King of Judea (and adversary of the Persians) died.

And here is a remarkable fact connecting these events: they all happened along the Silk Road.

We don’t think too often about the influence of eastern events and religion on 1st century Palestine, but in fact, the East was an important source of both wealth and ideas. And there was also the matter of establishing the eastern border of the Roman Empire.

There was nothing simple or obvious about this border, which divided neighboring cultures and cities. Creating it wasn’t easy: in fact, Rome suffered one of its most humiliating military defeats at Carrhae (better known as Harran). Ten thousand Parthian archers & their supporting infantry defeated 40,000 Romans, killing 20,000 of them and seizing prized Roman Eagles. The date? 53 B.C.

Another factoid. Taking advantage of Rome’s weakness and confusion during its Civil War, the Parthians seized Jerusalem in 40 B.C. and held it for a year. So when it recently occurred to me that Zoroasterian ritual and the sacrificial rites taking place in the Jewish Temple resembled each other in at least one important aspect (the use of a perpetual fire) and that neither religion permitted the burial of human remains, it encouraged my growing suspicion that serious connections existed between Judaism and the fire-worshippers.

If I add that the Xin Dynasty’s brief rule was augered by heavenly signs (and included the brief abolition of slavery and the institution of land reform) and that political instability in Parthia may have been caused, at least in part, by cultural and religious divisions, it seems that the Silk Road was serving as a kind of telegraph wire, transmitting revolutionary signals across the length of Asia.

And in the middle of this, the Parthian magi (or fire-priests) received word that Herod the Great had died. Who would succeed him? Would trade be interrupted? Wouldn’t it make sense to curry favor with the new king?

And then a star rose. So they set out.

Within a couple of decades, all three empires reestablished political stability, and trade along the Silk Road returned to normal. But things were changing, and rebellion spiritual and intellectual simmered…

RT

The Nativity

"Angels Appearing to Shepherds"; Rembrandt; WikiCmns

 

Now that Thanksgiving is past and along with it the busiest shopping day of the year, it strikes me as the right moment to reflect a little on the Christmas story.

The story of Jesus’ birth has long been a sore point in the argument between faith and science. Miracles are happening all over the place; three (or is it two?) wise men (or are they fire priests of the Zoroastrian faith?) arrive unannounced and worship the newborn child; and King Herod is frightened enough by the prognostications to order the murder of every infant in Nazareth (a theme played out in many stories circulating at the time, not least the birth of Moses). Who can really believe that the accounts contained in the gospels are anything but invented (if beautiful) stories intended to win over the sympathies of the Jewish people?

On the other hand, there is a curious tenderness to these stories, a voice that appears no where else in the New Testament and which is marked by a concern with astrology characteristic of the ancient Semitic peoples.

& then there is the fact that one of the infancy gospels (an overlooked genre in its own right), the Arabic Infancy Gospel, was written in Aramaic (its title notwithstanding). Here we have one of the grails of modern scholarly research, an extant gospel written in Aramaic!

& then there is the even more remarkable fact that the AIG reports that Zoroaster himself predicted the birth of Jesus (and also adds other interesting details to the Nativity). By the way, just who was Zoroaster? Does anyone really know? That he was the founder of the religion that bears his name is agreed by all, but nothing much else: the date of his life and teaching and the substance of his instruction are uncertain.  Many of the writings attributed to him have disappeared.

But, as important as those questions are, let’s return to the birth. I’m going to propose, tentatively of course, that the materials belonging to the Nativity and Jesus’ childhood comprise a special category of writings, quite ancient and composed in Aramaic. And the reason that they were written (and told) in Aramaic is that they were intended for an audience that had little contact with the outside world & its sophisticated language, Greek: Jewish and Samaritan *women*.

There is a curious lack of men in these materials (especially if we overlook Joseph’s presence–he plays almost no role in the stories). The themes are of particular (one almost might say exclusive) interest to women: childbearing and the rearing of young children. And Jesus is introduced in the most appealing way possible: as an infant.

In short, the Nativity and other infancy materials constitute a Gospel for Women. That they contain a historical layer of fact gathered by and shared among women certainly seems plausible. And other considerations point to historical elements in the Christmas story. But more on that later.  RT

copyright, 2010, the Rag Tree

hymn

S. Bernhardt; WikiC

here are couple of pieces from my notebook:

 

Hymn to the Goddess

(from the Song of Songs, KJV)

Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, terrible as an army with banners?

 

JD Tarot; WikiC

 

Response—

 

There are threescore queens,

and fourscore daughters,

and virgins without number. ψ

She is the only one of her Mother—

she is the choice one of her that bare her.

She is the undefiled one. ψ

The Daughters saw her and blessed her:

yea, the Queen and the Daughters,

and they praised her.

 

  …

Response—

The watchmen that went about the walls found me;

they smote me; they wounded me—

the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.

 

from One:

 

I am the first word

and every word

I am the answer to every question

I am the desire of your tongue,

the hunger in your belly—

I am milk in the child’s mouth.

 

© The Rag Tree 2010

Flowers

Art: Yun Shouping; Src: WikiCmns

 

The Book of Tea

VI. Flowers

 

In the trembling grey of a spring dawn, when the birds were whispering in mysterious cadence among the trees, have you not felt that they were talking to their mates about the flowers?

Surely with mankind the appreciation of flowers must have been coeval with the poetry of love. Where better than in a flower, sweet in its unconsciousness, fragrant because of its silence, can we image the unfolding of a virgin soul?

The primeval man in offering the first garland to his maiden thereby transcended the brute. He became human in thus rising above the crude necessities of nature.

He entered the realm of art when he perceived the subtle use of the useless.

 

 —Kakuzo Okakura (1906)

(text source: www.sacred-texts.com)

The Book of Tea

 

I. The Cup of Humanity

Tea began as a medicine and grew into a beverage.

In China, in the eighth century, it entered the realm of poetry as one of the polite amusements. The fifteenth century saw Japan ennoble it into a religion of aestheticism—Teaism.

Teaism is a cult founded on the adoration of the beautiful among the sordid facts of everyday existence. It inculcates purity and harmony, the mystery of mutual charity, the romanticism of the social order.

It is essentially a worship of the Imperfect, as it is a tender attempt to accomplish something possible in this impossible thing we know as life.

 

 

—Kakuzo Okakura (1906)

(text source: www.sacred-texts.com)

(photo: source, WikiCommons; author, Robert Donovan)

The Windhover

 

The Windhover

 To Christ our Lord

 I CAUGHT this morning morning’s minion, king-

    dom of daylight’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding

    Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding

High there, how he rung upon the rein of a wimpling wing

In his ecstasy! then off, off forth on swing,                                                      5

    As a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding

  Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding

Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of; the mastery of the thing!

 

Brute beauty and valour and act, oh, air, pride, plume, here

    Buckle! AND the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion                     10

Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!

 

    No wonder of it: shéer plód makes plough down sillion

Shine, and blue-bleak embers, ah my dear,

    Fall, gall themselves, and gash gold-vermillion.

                                                                                         —Gerard Manley Hopkins