Jesus vs Roman Empire taxes.

[Sampiro]

The Roman method of collecting taxes was called “tax farming” and was practiced in other empires (including the British to some extent) as well. link
I’ve read estimates that for every four pieces of silver/gold collected, one made it to the empire. Matthew was a very low level provincial tax farmer (tax sharecropper? He’d have reported to somebody higher up in perhaps Jerusalem, who’d have reported to a capo in Alexandria, etc.- in some ways it was like the first multinational big money corporation.
It’s actually an ingenious system: it guaranteed the Romans that they would have X amount of money next year, which allowed them to plan their wars and buildings. It also wasn’t total avarice that caused the tax farmers to overcollect- in order to get the contract (which allowed them to use the seal and if necessary the troops of the emperor) they had to GUARANTEE that they would raise X is from their province; if they didn’t succeed, for whatever reason (including natural disaster or full scale rebellion) their neck was on the line and that’s not figuratively, so overcollecting would help insure that they could guarantee that if a drought happened next year they could still make their mark with what they’d stole… “over” taxed- the year before.

What was NOT necessary was to report to the home of your distant ancestors to pay your taxes. I never understood where that Bethlehem bit came from.

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by Sampiro *
**The Roman method of collecting taxes was called “tax farming” and was practiced in other empires (including the British to some extent) as well. **

Actually, as you can see from the link, Augustus ended tax farming

Augustus was the one who ended tax farming when the Empire started due to complaints from the provinces. Their protests mainly had to do with excessive assessments by tax farmers. It also had to do with the indebtedness of the province. As a result of such abuses, tax farming was replaced by direct taxation early in the Empire.

[GIGObuster]

Svt4Him, you are missing the point, there is indeed no tax benefit on this, the objective was to prevent the wealth from Palestine to be used by the Empire.

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**I’ve always liked that one. If you give everything you have to the poor, then they’re not the poor anymore - you are. Who should do what then? **

http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/dennis.html

Originally as seen on TV
***Chorus (sings):
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore,
galloping through the sward,
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore,
and his horse Concorde.
He steals from the rich,
he gives to the poor,
Mr Moore, Mr Moore, Mr Moore.

(Later, after the rich become poor: )
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor.
And gives to the rich
Stupid bitch.

(Dennis Moore stops horse and looks over to camera.)

Dennis Moore:
What did you sing?

Singers:
(speaking)
We sang… he steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

Dennis Moore:
Wait a tic… blimey! This redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.*
**

-Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

Originally posted by Guinastasia
**
So, does this make Jesus a liberal or a conservative?

**

My dear Kat, as others pointed out, Jesus was a commie…

Back on subject:

I had totally ignored Luke:

Luke 5:27 After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, “Follow me.”
Luke 5:29 Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house; and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them.

Wait a tic… He follows Jesus (before, every follower left everything behind) but later he is giving a big banquet in HIS house? (Yep, his house still)

Could it be that Levi, as a tax collector, could “cook” the books for the movement’s finances?

However, this would put Levi in danger, as tax collecting was still on a farm basis(?), this was a very dangerous move, or there was something else going on:.

Originally written by Asimov
**The Jews (and all the peoples of the east) knew only too well of corrupt governments and gouging tax collectors. The only way in which individuals could save themselves from utter ruin when the tax collector came around was by a combination of cheating and bribery. A census that would expose their actual belongings and place the collector under an obligation to collect a known amount would deprive them of their chance of wiggling their way out of some of the tax. **

-Asimov’s guide to the bible – Luke – p926)

Now I picture that banquet as a move like the modern lobbies in Washington do by offering banquets to politicians, it is to get their ears and gain influence. Of course, there was a religious aspect to it.

Originally posted by Sampiro
**
What was NOT necessary was to report to the home of your distant ancestors to pay your taxes. I never understood where that Bethlehem bit came from. . **

Poetic license?
I do wonder now if this preoccupation with taxes was the reason (Taxation was essentially the reason for the census then) the writers then decided to use the census to get Jesus’s parents to Bethlehem. I do think a theme of finding a way out of paying to Rome was a big part of the plot, but by the time the tale of Jesus was written down, the theme of the Son of God took center stage.
Of course nothing is so simple, Asimov reports no records of any Roman census carried through around 4 B.C. if any, it could have been made by Herod, but in 6 B.C.!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Luke says it was the census of Quirinius in 7 CE, but that would be 11 years after the death of Herod. There is also no record of any census by Herod in 6 BCE (or in any other time).

As a matter of fact, Judea was not a Roman province at all prior to 7 CE but was a client kingdom, and as such was not even subject to a census or a tax during the reign of Herod.

The Jews hated censuses. The one in 7 CE caused massive riots im Palestine. There is no record of Herod trying to impose one himself and it would have been noted…not to mention a Herod imposed census would not involve Quirinius or a decree from Augustus as claimed by Luke.

I think you’re correct, GIGO, Luke was using the census as a device to get Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.

[GIGObuster]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Luke says it was the census of Quirinius in 7 CE, but that would be 11 years after the death of Herod. There is also no record of any census by Herod in 6 BCE (or in any other time).
**

No record? But Asimov does mention that there were some scholars (?) that proposed an earlier census in 6 B.C. or thereabouts, I take it that the ones who proposed that (circa 1960) are taken less seriously today?

That would not surprise me though.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by GIGObuster *
**No record? But Asimov does mention that there were some scholars (?) that proposed an earlier census in 6 B.C. or thereabouts, I take it that the ones who proposed that (circa 1960) are taken less seriously today?

That would not surprise me though. **

There are some Christians who try to reconcile the contradiction by proposing that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria twice and that he may have conducted another census during the reign of Herod. The main impetus for this theory is an incomplete inscription which refers to an unnamed person who was “governor again” in Syria. The identity of this governor is broken off of the inscription and it does not name the time that this person was "governor again’ (it was exceedingly rare for anyone to be governor of the same Roman province more than onece but it was not unheard of for the same person to be governor of more than one province succesively. The inscription, then, could refer to someone who was governor somewhere else and then “governor again” in Syria).

The theory is further undercut by the fact that we happen to know that the governor of Syria from 6-4 BCE (the last two years of Herod’s reign)was Quintilus Varus, not Quirinius.

Furthermore, as I mentioned before, Judea under Herod was not a province but a sovereign protectorate, a client kingdom, and client kingdoms were not subject to census.