Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§9.8 The Historical Context
ing projects. 262 The third was the Roman tribute, reckoned at twelve and a half
percent per year. 263 There is a dispute as to how heavy the tax burden was at the
time of Jesus and whether it was increasing through the early decades of the
first century. 264 Suffice it to say here that the total tax burden must have
amounted in most years and in most cases to about one-third (or more) of all
produce and income. 265 At such levels of taxation, subsistence farmers were always
in danger of running into debt; smallholders would often have to sell out
and become tenant farmers and day-labourers, or worse. 266 The pictures which
the Gospels paint substantiate such probabilities, 267 but also indicate that the incidence
of crushing poverty was not substantial. 268 Here again is valuable background
for much of Jesus' teaching, to which we will return at various points.
In the light of all the data reviewed in this chapter we are now in a position
to situate Jesus the Jew more clearly within his religious and local context.
262. The tolls collected at Capernaum (Mark 2.14 pars.), close to the frontier between
Galilee and Herod Philip's territory across the Jordan, would have gone to Herod Antipas. According
to Josephus the revenue from Galilee and Perea yielded an annual tribute of 200 talents
(Ant. 17.318). See also Freyne, Galilee 191-92.
263. Sanders disputes that this was a separate tax: 'the produce tax was tribute' (Judaism
166). Perhaps more to the point, however, is the fact that some taxation (kensos — 'tax, polltax'
/phoros — 'tribute') was perceived as paid to Caesar (Mark 12.14-17 pars.; Luke 23.2) and
was probably thought of as distinct from tolls levied by Antipas for his own administration.
264. See particularly Sanders' debate in Judaism 157-69 with inter alios Horsley.
265. Sanders argues for under 28 percent in most years (Judaism 167); but does he give
enough weight to the cost of Herod's building programmes (164-65) and to the fact that peasant
productivity was the most sure and consistent basis for taxation? Much is guesswork, but a figure
somewhere in the range from one-third to fifty percent is also canvassed (Hanson and
Oakman, Palestine 113-16; Reed, Archaeology 86-87).
266. See also M. Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt
against Rome, AD 66-70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1987) ch. 3, particularly 55-68; and
for the broader picture, Hanson and Oakman, Palestine 86-91 (on 'social banditry' during the period),
101-25, and for debate, G. Theissen, 'Jesus und die symbolpolitischen Konflikte seiner
Zeit: Sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte der Jesusforschung', EvT 51 (1997) 378-400.
267. Particularly Matt. 20.1-7; but also Matt. 5.25-26/Luke 12.58-59; Matt. 5.42/Luke
6.30; Matt. 6.25-34/Luke 12.22-32; Matt. 6.12; 18.23-35; Luke 16.1-9. On the parable of the
talents/pounds (Matt. 25.14-30/Luke 19.11-27) Kaylor remarks: 'The fate of the one-talent
man mirrors the harshness of the system to those who do not fully participate in it according to
the rules' (Jesus 162).
268. Mark 2.15-16 pars.; 12.39 pars.; Matt. 6.19-21; Luke 11.38; 12.16-21, 42; 14.12.
Jesus was known for his good living (Matt. 11.19/Luke 7.34) and used the imagery of the banquet
or feast quite often (Mark 2.19 pars.; Matt. 22.1-10/Luke 14.16-24; Matt. 25.1-12; Luke
12.36; 14.8).
311