(Why) Did Jews Hate Tax Collectors–Or Did They? The Evolution of a Modern Stereotype in Biblical Studies

How to cite this article: Guido Baltes, “(Why) Did Jews Hate Tax Collectors–Or Did They? The Evolution of a Modern Stereotype in Biblical Studies,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28688/].

This article belongs to the collection Ashrech Ziqnati (Blessed Are You, My Old Age): Studies in Honor of David Bivin’s 85^th Birthday.

The image of the despised tax or toll collector,^[113] ostracized and hated by the Jewish community, is a common motif in Christian bible exposition and New Testament exegesis. The relevant texts for the development of this motif are the stories of the calling of Levi or Matthew (Mark 2:13-17 parr) and Jesus’ encounter with Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). Additional references to criticism of Jesus’ association and table fellowship with “tax collectors and sinners“ (Matt. 11:19 ∥ Luke 7:34; Luke 15:1-3) or to sins committed by tax collectors (Matt. 5:46; 21:31-32; Luke 3:12-13; 18:10-13; 19:8b), as well as the depiction of toll collectors as apparent “outsiders” (Matt. 18:17) add to the picture.

In the popular TV series “The Chosen,” a fictional dramatization of the life of Jesus,^[114] one of the opening scenes shows Matthew crossing a crowded marketplace while people from all sides shout insults at him. In order to reach his tax booth safely, he has to hide on the cart of a local dung collector whom he pays for discrete transport. But even this man refuses to be seen with Matthew in public, fearing reprisals against himself and his family. Matthew’s booth has to be opened by a Roman soldier, suggesting direct subordination of the tax collector to the local Roman administration. Later on in the series, we learn that Matthew had been disinherited and declared dead by his father years ago. His whole family severed all contact because, as a collaborator with the enemy, he betrays his own nation.

Did Jews hate tax and toll collectors? Neither the New Testament nor the rabbinical sources testify to the existence of such hatred. As a matter of fact, the Greco-Roman sources are much more polemical and hate-filled than the Jewish sources. Yes, there are legal restrictions for tax and toll collectors. However, we also read that Rabbis intervened in order to ease these restrictions for those tax and toll collectors who did not conform to the stereotype, but did their job justly and reliably. The few stories that we actually find in Jewish literature about tax collectors, on the other hand, paint a very positive picture of persons well integrated into their community.

The stereotype of an alleged Jewish hatred against this group of people did not, therefore, emerge from the sources that we have. It originates in a much older stereotype: the charge of Jewish hatred against the whole world. The New Testament, read from a “Jerusalem Perspective,” with an open eye and an open heart for Jewish faith, life, history and literature, can help us overcome this stereotype and ask afresh what we can learn from these tax and toll collectors who gave up everything to follow their new teacher.

• ^[1] Donald Hagner, “Tax Collector,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, 742-43, 742. ↩
• ^[2] Otto Michel, “Τελώνης,” in ThWNT 8, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969), 101. ↩
• ^[3] John R. Donahue, “Tax Collector,” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 6:338. ↩
• ^[4] Sources given are Cicero, De offic. 15–51; Diogenes Cynicus, Ep. 36.2; Lucan, Pseudolog. 30; Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 14.14 as well as a reference to Michel, “Τελώνης,” 99. ↩
• ^[5] m. Ṭoh. 7:6; m. Baba Kamma 10:2; m. Ned. 3.4 are given as sources. The passages will be cited in full length and discussed in section five “Back to the sources”. ↩
• ^[6] With a reference to b. Sanh. 25b (The passage is cited and discussed section five “Back to the sources”) and Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu: eine kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 302-12. ↩
• ^[7] Jeremias, Jerusalem, 310; Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, New Testament library (London: SCM Press, 1967), 93-94. ↩
• ^[8] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC 33A (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 237; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 101; Ulrich Luz, Matthew. Vol. 2: Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001), 33; Richard Thomas France, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC.NT 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 351; idem, The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985), 167; Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 193: “deep disdain”; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, The Tyndale New Testament commentaries 3 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 131: “heartily disliked.” ↩
• ^[9] François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 189; Morris, Luke, 106. ↩
• ^[10] John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, WBC 35A (Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 246: “social stigma”; France, Gospel According to Matthew, 129: “ostracized minority”; Robert A. Cole, Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 2 (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity-Press, 2008), 69: “outcast from Jewish society as the leper of i:4 had been.” ↩
• ^[11] John R. Donahue, The Gospel of Mark, Sacra Pagina 2 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002), 104; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina 3 (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1991), 287; Peter Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium, ThHK 1 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006), 329; Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, KEK Sdbd. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 148; Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium, HNT 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 162; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 1:330; Peter Dschulnigg, Das Markusevangelium, vol. Band 2 of ThKNT 2 (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2007), 97, https://d-nb.info/982487657/04; Nolland, Luke 1, 246; Luz, Matthew, 13; Bovon, Luke , 189; France, Gospel of Matthew, 227; idem, Gospel According to Matthew, 167. ↩
• ^[12] Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 238; Guelich, Mark 1-8, 101; Nolland, Luke 1, 246; Luz, Matthew, 33; France, Gospel of Matthew, 353; idem, Gospel According to Matthew 167; Cole, Mark, 70. ↩
• ^[13] William David Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Volume I: Commentary on Matthew I-VII (London: T&T Clark, 1988), 558; Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 237; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 162; Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium. Erster Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1-13,58, 2nd ed., HThK I.1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 330; Heinz Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium. Teil 1: Kommentar zu Kap. 1,1 - 9,50, HThK 3,1 (Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 288; Dschulnigg, Markusevangelium, 97; Warren Carter, Mark, Wisdom commentary 42 (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2019), 49; François Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 1. Teilband: Lk 1,1-9,50, EKK III/1 (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1989), 257; Nolland, Luke 1, 150; France, Gospel of Matthew, 351; idem, Gospel According to Matthew, 167; Cole, Mark, 69; Morris, Luke, 106 and 131. ↩
• ^[14] Robert L. Brawley, Luke: A Social Identity Commentary, T & T Clark social identity commentaries on the New Testament (London et al.: T&T Clark, 2020), 57, 76, 164, 170; Carter, Mark, 49; Ulrich Luck, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Zürcher Bibelkommentare NT.1 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1993), 125; Collins, Mark, 195; Cole, Mark, 69; Bovon, Luke, 189; France, Gospel of Matthew, 351; Morris, Luke, 131. ↩
• ^[15] El-Mansy, Τελῶναι, 18-25. ↩
• ^[16] This view has become influential through the work of Joachim Jeremias, “Zöllner und Sünder,” ZNW 30.3 (1931): 293-300, who suggested moral aspects such as overtaxation and fraud, but not ritual impurity. Jeremias based his assumptions mainly on rabbinic lists of “dubious trades” (e.g. m. Kid. 4:14 par. y. Kid. 4:11,66b and b. Kid. 82a, b. Sanh. 25b, for full texts see below). The aspect of ritual impurity was later introduced by Jeremias’ student Norman Perrin (Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 134), but also by Michel, “Τελώνης.” Both based their assumption mainly on m. Toh. 7:6 and parallels (see section five “Back to the sources”), which ascribe ritual impurity to a house entered by a toll collector. For a discussion of these rabbinic passages see section five “Back to the sources.” ↩
• ^[17] Main proponents have been Herbert C. Youtie, “Publicans and Sinners,” Michigan Alumnus 34 (1937): 1-7 (repr. in ZPE 1 [1967]:1-20) and John R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33.1 (1971): 60. While Youtie claims the “collaborator” motive already for the Galilean ministry of Jesus, Donahue attributes it to the later Gospel writers. ↩
• ^[18] Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann, Jesus von Nazareth - Hoffnung der Armen, UTB 639 (Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer, 1978), 16-23. In contrast to Youtie, Schottroff/Stegemann claim that the Greek term τελώνης (telōnēs) in the New Testament in most cases does refer neither to the privileged Roman class of publicani, nor to wealthy Jewish tax-farmers but rather to their lower-class subordinates who were entrusted with the job of collecting the money for their superiors. ↩
• ^[19] Fritz Herrenbrück, Jesus und die Zöllner: historische und neutestamentlich-exegetische Untersuchungen, WUNT 2/41 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 226–27 and 289–93. El-Mansy, Τελῶναι, 22, speaks of categories 3a and 3b since both approaches assume a rejection of tax/toll collectors by the elites on the basis of social stratification. ↩
• ^[20] El-Mansy, Τελῶναι, 14-18 and 358-363. ↩
• ^[21] Grammatically, the formula “tax collectors and sinners“ can either be read as a list of two separate groups (“tax collectors as opposed to sinners“) or as an explanatory clause (“people who are tax collectors and therefore sinners“). In the specifically Matthean pairings of “tax collectors and prostitutes” and “tax collectors and non-Jews,” it is clearer that two separate groups are in view. ↩
• ^[22] Matt. 17:24-27 could be seen as a hidden critique of Temple tax and/or governmental tax. The admonition of John the Baptist in Luke 3:12-13, however, assumes the legitimacy of taxation. ↩
• ^[23] On Josephus’ friendly attitude toward the Roman Empire and how it compares to the pro-Roman stance in the Gospel of Matthew, see JP Staff Writer, “Evidence of Pro-Roman Leanings in the Gospel of Matthew,” Jerusalem Perspective (2024) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/28170/]—JP. ↩
• ^[24] Jos. Ant. 17:28. ↩
• ^[25] Morten Hørning Jensen summarizes: “It counts to his credit that he [i.e., Herod Antipas—GB] was able to keep his tetrarchy for 43 years in a relatively stable and calm condition with no known major upheavals apart from a couple of ’low-threat’ incidents […] Josephus treats Antipas as one of the minor persons within the Herodian house, and though it would have substantiated his line of thought, he is not able to attribute any real examples of despotic cruelty to Antipas. Instead Josephus actually labels him ‘a lover of quietness’ (Ant. 18.245).” M. H. Jensen, Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee WUNT 2/215 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 254, 257-258. ↩
• ^[26] Jerome, On Matthew 1.9.9 (CCL 77:55). ↩
• ^[27] Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 29.4 (CCL 24:171). ↩
• ^[28] Gregory of Nazianzus, Homily 45 On Easter 26 (PG 36:659). ↩
• ^[29] Tertullian, On Modesty 9. ↩
• ^[30] Chrysostom, Homily in Matthew 30.1 (PG 57:361–62; NPNF 1 10:198–99). ↩
• ^[31] Tertullian, ibid. ↩
• ^[32] Chrysostom, Homily in Matthew 30.2 (PG 57:363–64; NPNF 1 10:199–200). ↩
• ^[33] Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel 3.5 (TLG 2018.005, 3.5.81.1-3; POG 1:137). ↩
• ^[34] Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, 5:16. ↩
• ^[35] Beda Venerabilis, Homilies on the Gospels 1.21. ↩
• ^[36] Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Luke, Homily 12 (CGSL 113); cf. also Cyril’s comment on Luke 18:13, where the tax collector “had been careless in keeping his laws and had led an unchaste and uncontrolled life“ (Commentary on Luke, Homily 120), and on Luke 19:2-4, where Zacchaeus was “a man entirely abandoned to greed, whose only goal was the increase of his gains,” and Cyril adds: “This was the practice of the tax collectors” (Commentary on Luke, Homily 127). ↩
• ^[37] Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 1.9.13. Notice the difference between social distance and hatred. ↩
• ^[38] Cyrill of Alexandria, Commentary on Luke, Homily 21-22. ↩
• ^[39] Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on July 2nd, 1525, WA 17 I,317-320 (Erwin Mülhaupt, D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-Auslegung, Vol. 3: Markus- und Lukasevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1953), 225. ↩
• ^[40] “Was er erschinden kann, davon muß er eine bestimmte Summe abgeben, das übrige gehört ihm. Wenn solche Summe auf ein ganzes Land oder eine Stadt geschlagen war, dann mußt er gehörig schinden und schaben. Darum heißen sie Zöllner und waren berüchtigt im ganzen Land als Schinder.” Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on Aug 8th, 1532, WA 36,272,3-9 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 226). A very similar passage is found in his sermon on Aug 12th, 1532, WA 46, 490, 19-22. Since both versions are based on audience transcriptions, Luther probably used the same words in both cases. ↩
• ^[41] Further research is needed to identify the earlier sources and contemporary influences that led to the inclusion of such historical digressions in Luther’s sermons (and, as we will see, also Calvins commentaries). The motives, however, remain the same at least into the 13^th century, where they are repeated in the Catena Aurea and in Thomas Aquinas’ Lectura supra Mattheum (Paris, 1269-1270), cf. Renard, Jean Paul, “La Lectura super Matthaeum V,20-48,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 50 (1983): 145-190. ↩
• ^[42] Sermon on Luke 15:1-10 (see n. 38 above), Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 226. ↩
• ^[43] “Da sind kleine Sünden neben die großen gemalt, da sind die großen Heiligen die größten Sünder und die kleinen Sünder große Heilige.” Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on July 2nd, 1525 (see n. 41). ↩
• ^[44] Cf., in addition to the sermons quoted before, also Martin Luther, Annotationes in aliquot capita Matthaei (1538), WA 38:479,30-484,16 (Erwin Mülhaupt, D. Martin Luthers Evangelien-Auslegung, Vol. 2: Matthäusevangelium, 4th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 320. ↩
• ^[45] „…die nichts haben als daß sie Christus gerne hören, der ihnen die Freundschaft erweist, daß er mit ihnen ißt und trinkt.“ Sermon Jul 12th, 1525, WA 17 I,317-320 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 224). ↩
• ^[46] Martin Luther, Sermon Sept. 21, 1516, WA 1:85-87 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 2, 318-320). ↩
• ^[47] “Sie hätten lieber selber die Ehre gehabt, dass er mit ihnen gegessen hätte“, ibid. ↩
• ^[48] “Aber dies ist, wie oben gesagt, den Pharisäern ein groß Ärgernis; denn sie hassen Sünden und Sünder nach dem Gesetz und meinen, solches alles geschehe gegen das Gesetz. […] Summa summarum, das Evangelium ist den Juden, d. h. den Werkheiligen und Gesetzesmenschen ein Ärgernis“, ibid. (Mülhaupt, Vol. 2, 321). In two other sermons, Luther uses the term “despise” (verachten) instead of “hate” for the attitude of the opponents: Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on July 6th, 1522, WA 10:III, 217,7-218,16; (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 231); Sermon on Luke 15:1-10, delivered on June 17th, 1526, WA 20:444,11-14; 445,21-33 (ibid.). ↩
• ^[49] “Diese Geschichte kann man sich nicht deutlich genug vor Augen malen: Da sitzt Christus fröhlich unter den Zöllnern als ein Geselle der Sünder und als ob er ihr Leben gut hieße. Derweil aber stehen die Pharisäer drum herum, runzeln die Stirn, blecken die Zähne, sind unwillig, richten und verdammen, kurzum: sie sehen auf nichts als aufs Gesetz gegen den, der nicht unter dem Gesetz ist noch unter ihm sein kann, ja der alle vom Gesetz erlöst”, (Mülhaupt, Vol. 2, 321). ↩
• ^[50] It is obvious from Luther’s sermons that he aims to use the stereotype of the “Jew” mainly as a metaphor for contemporary “works-righteousness” among Christians, which he saw exemplified in the Roman Catholic church. Elsewhere, in his commentary on Galatians, he explains: “The papist are our Jews.” However, even though he only speaks about the “metaphoric Jew” it is obvious that such language inevitable contributes to a consolidation and multiplication of negative attitudes and enmity towards “real Jews.” ↩
• ^[51] “Da ist schon ein reines Herz, das nur noch verdeckt liegt unter einem bösen schändlichen Deckel, dessetwegen sie Zöllner genannt werden von den Heiligen. Bei den Pharisäern liegt ein stinkend Herz unter einem schönen Deckel, ihre Werke haben den schönsten Schein; bei den Zöllnern ist ein rein Herz unter dem Deckel der schlechtesten Werke.” Sermon July 12th, 1525, WA 17 I,317-320 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 225). ↩
• ^[52] Sermon on Luke 18:9-14, delivered on August 23, 1528, WA 27,312,14-313,6 (Mülhaupt, Vol. 3, 315). ↩
• ^[53] William Pringle, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke, by John Calvin (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 1:195 (on Luke 3:12); in very similar words, also 1:307 (on Matt. 5:46) and 1:399 (on Matt. 9:9-13). ↩
• ^[54] Pringle, Commentary by John Calvin, 1:400-401. ↩
• ^[55] Pringle, Commentary by John Calvin, 1:400. ↩
• ^[56] Pringle, Commentary by John Calvin, 2:434. ↩
• ^[57] Ibid. ↩
• ^[58] Ibid. ↩
• ^[59] Emphasis mine. ↩
• ^[60] Pringle, Commentary by John Calvin, 1:307. ↩
• ^[61] Claudius Salmasius, Dissertatio de Foenore trapezitico, in tres libros divisa (Leiden: Maire, 1640). Salmasius’ hypothesis that the tax and toll collectors mentioned in the New Testament were not in fact publicans (as the traditional Latin Vulgate translation suggests), but portitores, i.e. minor administrative subordinates extracting taxes for the Roman publicans, became influential and was later advocated, among others, by Theodor Mommsen. Further research, however has made it more plausible that the system of Roman publicani was never implemented in the Galilee of the first century C.E. Rather, taxes were gathered by individual regional tax-farmers within the framework of the older, Persian-Hellenistic system of tax farming. Cf. the recent survey of the discussion in El-Mansy, Τελῶναι, 18-25. ↩
• ^[62] Salmasius, Dissertatio, 386. ↩
• ^[63] “The telonai, frequently mentioned in the New Testament, were probably not publicani themselves, but worked for them and were hated by the Jews […] because they suffered from the yoke imposed on them as well as from taxation, and were afflicted by these rapacious harpies,” Petrus Burmannus, Vectigalia Populi Romani (Leiden: Wishoff, 1734), 125. The short passage on the New Testament was not yet part of the original 1694 edition. ↩
• ^[64] “The Jews hated the telonai, not because they were Romans [which they were not], but simply for the office that they exerted, which is despised and abhorred by all humanity,” Johannes Struckmann, De Portoribus seu Publicanis in Novum Testamentum obviis (Lemgo: Meyer, 1750), 52-53. ↩
• ^[65] John Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, Hebrew and Talmudical exercitations. Vol. II: Gospel of St. Matthew; Gospel of St. Mark. A new Edition by the Revd. Robert Gandell (Oxford: University Press, 1859), 134. ↩
• ^[66] Lightfoot also cites Maimonides (1138-1204) and other medieval sources. However, these hardly reflect Jewish views of the New Testament era, while some passages of Mishna and Talmud (200-650 C.E.), though from a much later period, might contain or reflect older traditions from the Second Temple period. ↩
• ^[67] A parallel is found in m. Rosh Hash. 1:8. ↩
• ^[68] Lightfoot, Horae, 135. ↩
• ^[69] Jeremy Collier, The Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogical and Poetical Dictionary (Vol 2) (London: Rhodes, 1701), entry on “Publicans” (volume contains no page numbers). ↩
• ^[70] Ephraim Chambers, Cyclopædia: or, An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. Vol 2 (London: Knapton, 1728), 907. ↩
• ^[71] Adam Erdmann Mirus, Biblisches Antiquitaeten Lexicon (Leipzig: Braun, 1714), 1289: „doch waren sie bey den Juden sehr heftig verhasst.“ ↩
• ^[72] John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament. Reprint in Three Volumes. Vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Woodward, 1911), 53 (on Matt. 5:46). ↩
• ^[73] Johann Jacob Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus et commentario (Amsterdam: Dommer, 1751). The Greco-Roman sources cited further below are now conveniently made available in the updated successor of the Wettstein New Testasmnent: Udo Schnelle, Neuer Wettstein - Texte zum Markusevangelium: Texte zum Neuen Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus (Berlin, New York 2008), 535-542 (although only in German translation). ↩
• ^[74] Close parallels exist in the Tosefta (t. Demai 3:4) and the Jerusalem Talmud (y. Dem. 2:3, 23a). ↩
• ^[75] A Parallel exists in Sifra, Kedoshim 4:13 (on Lev. 20:5). ↩
• ^[76] Cf. e.g. Paul Billerbeck and Hermann Leberecht Strack, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch - Unveränderter Nachdruck der 1. Auflage 1926, 5. Auflage. (München: C. H.Beck, 1969), 1:379. ↩
• ^[77] Note that the wording of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia cited at the beginning of this article makes it sound as if a legal obligation existed to extend hatred to whole families. ↩
• ^[78] Parallels exist in t. Baba Metzia 8:26 and t. Baba Kamma 10:14. The latter, however, does not mention tax or toll collectors but simply refers to “those who rob the public.” ↩
• ^[79] Billerbeck and Strack, Kommentar IV.2, 422-23, add further passages where tax and toll collectors are halakhically compared to robbers and money changers (m. Baba Kamma 1:2; DEZ 2) as well as a number of additional passages that allow “white lies” in order to avoid unjust taxation, following Emil Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1890), 399-400. Michel, “Τελώνης,” adds a parallel from t. Baba Metzia 8:25. Jeremias, “Zöllner und Sünder,” cites two more “lists of dubious trades” which are suspected of fraud (m. Kid. 4:14 and b. Kid. 82b), even though these do not include tax and toll collectors. ↩
• ^[80] The issue of purity was brought into the discussion by Norman Perrin and Otto Michel, cf. above n. 18. ↩
• ^[81] A parallel in the Mishna (m. Toh. 7:6) probably reflects a less nuanced version of the dictum. ↩
• ^[82] Plutarch, Lucullus 7:6-7 (trans. Perrin, 1914). ↩
• ^[83] Justin, Epitome 18:7 (trans. Watson, 1886). ↩
• ^[84] Cicero, Letter to his brother Quintus 1:11 (trans. Shuckburgh, 1899). ↩
• ^[85] Tacitus, Ann. 13:51 (trans. Church/Brodribb, 1942). ↩
• ^[86] Artemidoros, Oneirocritica 4:42. ↩
• ^[87] Artemidoros, Oneirocritica 1:23. ↩
• ^[88] Artemidoros, Oneirocritica 4:57. ↩
• ^[89] Lucian, Necyomantia 11. ↩
• ^[90] Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 4:98 (trans. Cohoon, 1932). ↩
• ^[91] Pollux, Onomasticon 6:128. ↩
• ^[92] Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 14:14 (trans. Cohoon, 1939). ↩
• ^[93] Wilhelm Abraham Teller, Wörterbuch des Neuen Testaments zur Erklärung der christlichen Lehre: 1.1772-6.1805, Bibliothek der Neologie 9, ed. Lukas Wünsch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022), 431: „die ganze Zunft aber war bey den Juden sehr verhaßt, nicht nur weil der größere Teil derselben aus Römern bestand, sondern die ganze Einrichtung des Zollwesens von den Römern als den damaligen Oberherrn der Juden herrührte.“ ↩
• ^[94] Johann Georg Friedrich Leun, Biblische Encyklopädie oder exegetisches Realwörterbuch über die sämmtlichen Hülfswissenschaften des Auslegers. Vol 4 (Gotha: Ettinger, 1798), 691: „sie waren den Juden verhaßt, weil sie sich als Juden von Götzendienern gebrauchen ließen, um ihrer eigenen Nation wehe zu tun.“ ↩
• ^[95] Georg Benedict Winer, Biblisches Realwörterbuch zum Handgebrauch. Vol 2., 1st ed. (Lepizig: Reclam, 1820), 762: „Sie waren nämlich als niedrige, habsüchtige, hartherzige Menschen überall, insbesondere auch bei den Juden, welche die römische Oberherrschaft nur ungern duldeten, äußerst verhasst.“ ↩
• ^[96] In the second, expanded edition of Winer’s Realwörterbuch, the entry is revised and expanded: „…wurden von ihren Glaubensgenossen […] als ausgeschieden aus der Kirchengemeinschaft betrachtet. Dieser tiefe Hass rührt ….“, cf. Georg Benedict Winer, Biblisches Realwörterbuch zum Handgebrauch. Vol 2., 2nd ed. (Lepizig: Reclam, 1838), 855. ↩
• ^[97] Johann Jakob Herzog, “Zöllner,” Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 18:653.: „Die Juden, mehr noch als ein anderes Volk das römische Joch mit Widerwillen tragend, und jede Berührung mit anderen Völkern verabscheuend, erklärten jeden Israeliten, der sich für eine solche Einnahmequelle hergebe, […] für excommunicirt.“ ↩
• ^[98] Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (New York: Pott, 1881), 51 and 57. ↩
• ^[99] Schürer, Geschichte, 399. The English edition, Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: (175 B.C. - A.D. 135) / Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 376, translated: “…caused them, as a class, to be loathed by the people.” ↩
• ^[100] Ibid. The English edition translates: “In the New Testament, ‘publicans and sinners’ appear almost as synonyms, and similar opinions are expressed in non-Jewish literature. Rabbinical writings, too, display a marked aversion for customs officials.” ↩
• ^[101] Billerbeck and Strack, Kommentar IV.2, 377-380. ↩
• ^[102] Michel, “Τελώνης,” 101-103. ↩
• ^[103] For the source texts, cf. above section five “Back to the sources.” ↩
• ^[104] For the source texts, cf. above section five “Back to the sources.” ↩
• ^[105] Luke 3:12 and Luke 19:10. ↩
• ^[106] Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 206-209. ↩
• ^[107] For the source text, see above section five “Back to the sources.” ↩
• ^[108] Cf. Josephus, Ant. 18:159; 19:276; 20:100; J.W. 5:205. ↩
• ^[109] On his son’s lack of piety, see the following note. ↩
• ^[110] Ibid. Alexander’s older son, also called Tiberius Iulius Alexander, made a career in the Roman army and was later appointed Procurator of Judea 46-48 C.E. and Prefect of Egypt in 66 C.E. In the eyes of Josephus, though he lacked the piety of his father and “did not continue in the religion of his forefathers” (Ant. 20:100), as a Procurator of Judea, he nevertheless “kept the nation in tranquility, making no alterations to the ancient laws” (J.W. 2:220). As a Prefect of Egypt, however, he violently quenched the Jewish upheaval in Alexandria 66 C.E. resulting in the death of more than 50,000 of his fellow Jews. During the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. he came second in command to Titus and participated in the council summoned by Titus to decide on the fate of the Temple, where he voted against its destruction (J.W. 6:236-237). ↩
• ^[111] A parallel is found in y. Sanh. 6:9. ↩
• ^[112] The Talmud states that he never performed any good deeds in his life, apart from one. According to some, he once invited the town councillors for a breakfast and, when they did not appear to eat it, he ordered that the food should be given to the poor. Others said that on one occasion, he accidentally dropped a loaf of bread on the marketplace, and when a poor person picked it up, he did not prevent him from doing so. ↩
• ^[113] The Greek terms τελώνης (telōnēs), used 21xx in the NT (Synoptic Gospels only), as well as the term ἀρχιτελώνης (architelōnēs, Luke 19:2 only), etymologically refers to toll collectors (telos = border). However, the NT usage of the terms is much more unspecific and can refer to different kinds of customs and tax officials. For the purpose of this article, there is no need to detail the different taxation systems (Roman publicani vs. local tax farmers), the complex variety of levies and taxes (tributum soli, tributum capitis, stipendium, vectigal, decuma, portorium etc.) or the variety of offices involved (Lat. publicanus, portitor, etc., Gk. telones, praktor, etc.). Sources about the taxation system in the land of Israel are sparse altogether. Most probably, the New Testament telonai were not Roman publicani (or their subordinates, the portitori), but wealthy local Jewish tax farmers, or their subordinate agents. In any case, taxes and tolls in the Galilee were not collected for “the Romans,” but for the Jewish ruler Herod Antipas. Zacchaeus, in contrast, might have been part of the publicani hierarchy, since Jericho belonged to Roman-governed Judea. For details, see now Aliya El-Mansy, Τελῶναι im Neuen Testament, NTOA 129 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2024), with a comprehensive survey of other relevant literature. ↩
• ^[114] https://thechosen.tv/. According to Wikipedia, a survey commissioned by the producers claimed that that as of November 2022, around 108 million viewers worldwide had watched at least part of one episode, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chosen_(TV_series). ↩