TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS

A N ATTEMPT AT TOENTIFICATION

The portrayal of Jesus' ministry in the Synoptic Gospels touches often

upon his fellowship with the lowly of the earth and the outcasts of his society.
The world of the ordinary people of first-century Palestine is the backdrop
to his activity. Noteworthy among the people with whom he comes in contact
are the telônai kai hamartôloi, and his fellowship with such groups evokes
much opposition in the course of his ministry. Critical opinion has been
divided in recent years over the identification of these "sinners" of the NT.
Israel Abrahams notes "sinners were not those who neglected the rules of
ritual piety, but were persons of proven dishonesty and followers of sus-
pected or degrading occupations."1 C. G. Montefiore finds that they are
those "who knowingly violated or were believed to have violated some
precept of law, whether ceremonial or moral." 2 G. Rengstorf finds a double
connotation of the word, sinner, in the NT. The Pharisaic view is that those
outside the law, those for whose life the Torah has no existential significance,
are sinners, while the view of the ordinary people is that those who live an
immoral life are sinners.8
In his recent work, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, Norman Perrin,
in the course of his discussion of the forgiveness of sins in the Synoptic
Gospels, reviews the picture of sinners and forgiveness in the Jewish milieu
of the NT. He finds two general classes of sinners : ( 1 ) Jewish sinners, those
who fell short and were welcomed back to the Father upon their repentance ;
and (2) Gentile sinners, the "sinners and godless," for whom, in the apoca-
lyptic literature, there is no hope of repentance.4 Perrin then discusses the
familiar "tax collectors and sinners" in light of this division, finding, from
an analysis of the Gospel material and Jewish literature, that three groups
of sinners underlie the NT usage, ( 1 ) Jewish sinners who could return to
their heavenly Father, (2) Gentile sinners for whom the hope of forgiveness
was doubtful and (3) Jews who had made themselves as Gentiles. This last
category is best understood under the modern image of "quisling," that is,
people who enter the service of a foreign oppressor and thus add treason to

1
Israel Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels: First Series (Cambridge :
University Press, 1917) 55.
2 C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1927) I, 54.
8
G. Rengstorf, "H amar tolos," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G.
Kittel, ed., trans. G. Bromley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) I, 321-322.
* Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper and
Row, 1967) 93-102.
39
40 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

the bitterness of foreign domination. The "tax collectors" are sinners in this
third category. The animosity toward them in the Gospels, mirrored in the
various collocations of tax collector and robber (Lk 18:11), tax collector
and harlot (Mt 21:32) and tax collector and Gentile (Mt 18:17), arises from
a hatred for those who have betrayed their people by becoming as Gentiles.5
Perrin advances the interesting suggestion that in this fellowship with tax
collectors and sinners we find a clue for the reason why Jesus was handed
over to the Roman authorities for crucifixion. He writes :
There must have been a factor in the situation which both drove the authorities
themselves to desperate measures, and also gave them a defence against popular
accusation. We suggest that a regular table-fellowship in the name of the King-
dom of God, between Jesus and his followers, when those followers included
"Jews who made themselves as Gentiles" would have been just such a factor.6
In this way Perrin has found consistency with the portrayal of the ministry
of Jesus in the Gospels and the termination of this ministry in the cross.
Perrin's view counters the authority of his former Doktorvater, Joachim
Jeremías, who himself has written most extensively on the subject. In corre-
spondence with Perrin, Jeremías objects to Perrin's categorization of tax
collectors as " J e w s who made themselves as Gentiles." Jeremías feels that
Perrin has interpreted the evidence in such a way as to draw the lines too
sharply in his classifications.7 In light of this difference of opinion, it will be
helpful to review Jeremías' writings on the subject.
In his Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus Jeremías has a lengthy treatment
of those occupations which were considered disreputable in the eyes of the
Jews. He notes that we are dealing with the fact that there was "a whole
series of trades which were despised and that those who practiced them were
to a greater or less degree exposed to social degradation."8 Drawing on his
vast knowledge of rabbinical literature, Jeremías finds four lists of such
occupations.9 The first enumeration from the Mishnah, Kiddushin 4:14, lists
donkey drivers, camel drivers, shippers, wagoneers, shepherds, shopkeepers,

β Ibid., 93.
« Ibid., 103.
7
Letter of Prof. J. Jeremías to Prof. Norman Perrin, Gottingen, Germany, Sep-
tember 11, 1967. I am very grateful to Prof. Perrin for letting me study this corre-
spondence and for his encouragement to challenge the conclusions of his book.
8
Joachim Jeremías, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave
(London: S.C.M. Press, 1969) 303.
9
Ibid., 304ff. References to the Mishnah and the names of the books are taken from
The Mishnah, trans. H. Danby (Oxford: University Press, 1938). The symbol "b"
indicates a tractate from the Babylonian Talmud. Since the present treatment is
directed to a dispute on the interpretation of the rabbinical material, the complex
question of dating will not be discussed here.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 41

physicians and butchers. These occupations were despised because they put
the practitioner of them in danger of being dishonest. The second list, from
Ketuboth 8:10, is made up of dung collectors, copper smelters and tanners,
all of whom were looked down on because of the unaesthetic nature of their
work. The third list, from b. Kiddushin 82a, includes goldsmiths, flax
combers, mill stone cutters, peddlers, tailors, barbers, bath attendants, blood
letters, tanners and laundrymen. Those in this list came into frequent contact
with women, and therefore, these occupations were shunned by pious Jews.
In the fourth list, b. Sanhédrin 25b, we find dice players, usurers, managers
of pigeon races, dealers in sabbath year produce, shepherds, tax collectors
and toll collectors. Those who followed these occupations were not only
suspected of dishonesty, but in the majority of the cases dishonesty was the
rule. They were characterized by the most severe of liabilities, the depriva-
tion of certain civil rights. They could not be considered as witnesses in
legal trials. They could not be admitted into a Pharisaic Ifburäh and also
for them repentance was almost impossible since restitution of their ill-gotten
gain would be demanded as well as giving up their form of work.10
In his article, "Zöllner und Sünder," Jeremías again addresses himself to
the problem of the identity of the toll collectors and why fellowship with
them would cause scandal.11 The formality under which he approaches the
problem is slightly different than in his Jerusalem, since in the article he is
discussing the identity of the sinners. He notes that exegesis wavers between
two views ; in the first sinners means sinners in the eyes of the Pharisees,
those guilty of ritual failing and especially of contamination through contact
with the pagans. The second view, that of the people, sees sin as immorality
and does not view ritual sin as the main sin. Jeremías rejects the notion that
the sinners of the Gospels are ritual sinners. He notes that, at the time of
Jesus' ministry when the Pharisees numbered only about six thousand, it
would be unlikely that the concept of ritual sinner would be so widespread
as to be connoted by the Gospel tradition. Secondly, according to the Phar-
isees virtually all the 'am hä-äres would be sinners, and in a locale like
Capernaum, the whole population, mixed as it was with Gentiles, would be
so considered. He finds, therefore, that Jesus' association with sinners could
not be censured on the grounds of contact with those defiled from association
with pagans, since, in the eyes of the Pharisees, Jesus himself is a member
of the 'am hä-'äres, and could not be censured for contact with them. He
then opts for the second view of sinners and finds that these sinners are
immoral because they follow a dishonorable calling. Drawing on the same
io Ibid., 311.
il ZNW 30 (1931) 293-300. For a summary statement of his position, cf. "Zöllner
und Sunder," RGG* VI 1927-1928.
42 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

evidence as in his Jerusalem, he concludes that by sinners are meant "those

morally obnoxious people who by their immoral mode of life or their dis-
honorable calling were despised in public life," and that "it was a horror that
Jesus accepted a toll collector into the inner circle of his companions and
that he announced the message of salvation to those despised by the people."12
Thus we can see clearly the lines of disagreement between Perrin and
Jeremías. Perrin sees the tax collectors as ritual sinners with a plus. The
plus is the fact that not only did they have contact with the pagans, but they
represented hirelings in the service of the Gentile oppressors, and thus were
hated by the people and rejected by the Pharisees. Jeremías sees the tax
collectors as sinners because they followed an occupation which led to dis-
honesty. In his correspondence with Perrin, Jeremías has suggested a
method for re-examination of the problem. He says that the Jewish material
must be examined to see whether tax collectors are ritually defiled and con-
sidered as Gentiles. Secondly, he suggests that we must find out whether
Jews actually performed this task in Palestine at the time of Jesus' ministry,
and finally he notes that careful distinctions must be made between tax
collectors and toll collectors. This most crucial distinction, which will emerge
in the course of the present discussion, in its simplest form means that tax
collectors are those who collect the direct taxes, the poll or head tax and the
land tax for the current rulers, while toll collectors are those who collect the
myriad of minor taxes, sales taxes, customs taxes, taxes on transport.
The present re-examination of the problem involves three distinct areas
of concern. We will first review certain data about the historical situation
in order to clarify the picture of taxation at the time of Jesus' ministry.
Secondly, we will examine those sections of the rabbinical literature which
bear on an evaluation of tax and toll collectors. Thirdly, we will make
some observations about the "toll collectors and sinners" as they are found
in the Gospel tradition.

I. The Historical Situation

The general mode of tax collection in antiquity was the system of tax
farming.13 The rulers of a city or a country would lease to an individual or

12 ZNW 30 (1931) 295, 300.

13
The following works provide the basic data for this section. F. M. Heichelheim,
"Roman Syria," in Vol. IV of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (ed. Tenny
Frank; 5 vols.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1938) 121-257. Allan C. Johnson, Roman
Egypt, ibid., Vol. II. Sigfried J. Laet, Portorium: Étude sur l'organisation douanière
ches les Romains, surtout à l'époque du haut-empire. (Brugge: Tempelhof, 1949). Otto
Michel, "Telones," TIVNT, V i l i 89-106. M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic
History of the Hellenistic World (3 vols.; Oxford: Qarendon Press, 1941). M.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 43

group the right to collect the various taxes or tolls. The lessee would pay
the state in advance the sum to be collected so that the state would have
workable capital for the coming year. The cost of the enterprise and the
profit for the collectors would then be the responsibility of the lessee. As one
can readily see, the taxpayer was the loser in this process. The only check
on exorbitant exactions by the tax collectors was appeal to the state. In the
Greek city-states the abuses of this system could be kept in check because
of the proximity of the central government. However, in the Roman prov-
inces where the societas publicanorum, composed mostly of wealthy Romans
of the equestrian class, was in charge of collection and where they were
supported by the military, the taxpayer had little recourse.
This rather free-floating system of tax collection with much power in the
hands of the tax collector did not exist long in its pure form in the ancient
world. In the latter days of the Roman Republic and in the early days of
the Principate, the centralized Roman government was locked in a lethal
struggle with the societates publicanorum. Roman writers testify to the fact
that the publicans were ruining the provinces and one of the first acts of
Julius Caesar was to break their power.14 Also in countries with a strong
centralized rule the system of independent tax farmers never gained a strong
foothold, and tax farmers were civil servants rather than independent entre-
preneurs. Such a situation prevailed in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires.
These two facts regarding the tax farming system are important as a back-
ground for our discussion because, as Rostovtzeff remarks, the system in
Palestine in the first two centuries before Christ was modeled on the Egyp-
tian system, and the rule of Rome in Palestine coincides with the reform of
the Roman system.15

Palestine: 63 B.C. to 4 B.C.

The coming of Rome and the demise of the Hasmoneans brought the
necessity to pay tribute to Rome. 16 The responsibility for collecting the
tribute imposed by Pompey was in the hands of the leading citizens, the high

Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1926). M. Rostovtzeff, "Geschichte der Staatspacht in der römischen
Kaiserzeit," Philologus IX (1904) 392-512. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and
Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Garendon Press, 1963).
14 On the publicans, cf. Cicero, ad. Quint, frat. I, 1,11, Michel, "Telones," 93-94.
On the reforms of Caesar, cf. Appian, Bellum Civile V, 4,19, Caesar, Bellum Civile
III, 3,31,103, G. H. Stevenson, Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge: University
Press, 1934) X 191ff.
iß Rostovtzeff, "Staatspacht," 475.
ιβ Josephus, Jewish War 1, 170, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray ("Loeb Classical
Library," 9 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956).
44 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

priests and the local synedria.17 In 57 B.C. Gabinus, Pompey's successor,

divided Palestine into five toparchies for taxation purposes each with its
own sanhédrin responsible for the collection of Roman taxes. Michel has
suggested that the Roman societates publicanorum were also active in
Palestine at this time.18 In 56 the Roman publicans acted as middlemen
between the local councils and the Roman government. Though the situation
in the next few years is unclear, Rostovtzeff offers perhaps the best recon-
struction. With the coming to power of Julius Caesar and the restoration
of the high priest as ethnarch a fundamental change in the taxation system
took place. In 47 B.C. Caesar made important modifications in the taxation
of the Jews. While following Pompey's system for collection, he reduced
the taxes on the Jews and made the sabbath year free of taxes. In his first
decree of 47 the publican system was thus retained. In a further decree of
44 B.C., the publican system was totally abrogated so that the collection of
taxes was now totally in the hands of the ethnarch, Hyrcanus, though Anti-
pater in his role of epitropos would have had a large hand in the adminis-
tration.19 Thus with the abrogation of the tax farming system, the system in
Palestine would again resemble the Egyptian system ; the collection of direct
taxes firmly under control of the central government and the leasing out,
by means of small contracts, of indirect taxes.20 After 44 B.C. the classical
system of publicans ceases to exist in Palestine.
During the rule of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) the system of collection
of direct taxes by royal officiais is in force. Josephus mentions that collection
was in the hands of "slaves" who appear to be royal officials attached to
the court.21 Though the evidence is unclear, it is quite possible that under
Herod the Great the indirect taxes and tolls were farmed out. Whatever
the system of taxation was, we know that the burdens imposed on the people
were oppressive. Josephus records that after the death of Herod the people
"demanded the removal of the taxes that had been levied on public pur-
chases and sales which had been ruthlessly exacted."22

Palestine after Herod

In discussing the period closer to our concern, it is important to keep in
mind what sections of Palestine were under Roman control and what under

IT J. Spencer Kennard, "The Jewish Provincial Assembly," ZNW 53 (1962) 28.

i« "Telones," 96.
19 "Staatspacht," 476-477. Josephus, Antiquities 14,200-203, trans. R. Marcus, LCL,
Vol. VII.
20
Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 49.
21 Antiquities 17,307.
22 Antiquities 17,204; Jeremías, Jerusalem, 124-126.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 45

quasi-independent rule. Judea, comprising Samaria, Jerusalem and its

environs, and Idumea were under Roman prefects and procurators from
A.D. 6 to 41, and, after a brief interlude under Herod Agrippa I from 41-44,
again under procurators from 44 until the revolt. Galilee and Perea were
under Herod Antipas from A.D. 4 to 39, under Agrippa I from 39 to 44
and after 44 under Roman procurators. The territory of Iturea and Tracho-
nitis was least directly under Roman control, being successively the bailiwick
of Philip, Agrippa I and Agrippa II. 23 Therefore during the period of
Jesus' ministry Judea was under Roman control ; Galilee under the quasi-
independent rule of Antipas. During the period of the crystallization of the
Gospel tradition, all of Palestine, except the northern trans-Jordanian Iturea
and Trachonitis, was under direct Roman control.
One of the chief functions of the prefect of Judea was his role of financial
overseer. During the rule of the prefects and procurators the direct taxes,
the poll tax and the land tax were not farmed out. The officials in charge
of collecting these were in direct employ of the Romans.24 Though Roman
citizenship was not required for the office of tax collector, it was often
granted and many of the tax collectors de facto were Jews. The tolls and
numerous other tariffs were probably at this time auctioned off to the highest
bidder, so that ho telones is properly a toll collector and not a tax collector.
In Galilee at the time of Jesus' ministry the collection of taxes and tolls
would have been under the supervision of Antipas.25 The collection of
customs at travel points such as Capernaum would have been the responsibil-
ity of the telönai. In Galilee payment of taxes and tolls could not be con-
strued as direct support of the Gentile in the same way as taxes paid to the
Roman officials in Judea would have been. Therefore it seems questionable
whether the toll collectors, the telönai of the Gospels, would have been hated
as agents of a foreign power. We feel this observation is valid despite the
fact that the Romanized Herodian family could be seen in the eyes of the
people as a "foreign power." Antipas, and Agrippa after him, existed, it is
true, by the grace of Rome as client rulers, but one important aspect of
their fragile independence was that they were in control of the financial

23 Emil Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, trans.
John Macpherson (5 vols.; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke, 1890), Vol. II. J. Fitzmyer,
"From Pompey to Bar Cochba," JBC 2, 692-700.
24
Schürer, History II 69. According to Fitzmyer "'Prefect' seems to have been
the governor's title until the time of Claudius when it was changed to 'procurator,' "
JBC 2, 697, cf. also A. M. Jones, "Procurators and Prefects in the Early Principate,"
Studies in Roman Government and Law (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1960), 115-125. The
Gospels shed little light on this problem since the only title given to Pilate is hëgemôn.
25 Schürer, History II, 70.
46 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

administration of their own territory. 26 Also it was a characteristic trait of

the Herods to be careful to avoid offense to Jewish sensibilities and at times
they were very zealous for the rights of the Jews. 27
It must also be noted that the attitude among the Jews of first-century
Palestine toward foreign influence and even control was far from unified.
The presence of the "Herodians" in the Gospels is a primary indication for
this. 28 Also, as G. Allon has pointed out, even the first-century Pharisees
did not present a united front against the Romans. During the period from
Agrippa to the destruction of the temple, three clear divisions emerge among
the Pharisees : (a) those who favored the rising Zealot movement and who
taught the absolute prohibition against any détente with Roman rule, (b)
the peace seekers who preferred public security to the chaos caused by
revolutionary movements, and (c) those who held the classic and traditional
Pharisaic position—a constant desire for maximum possible independence
and at the same time a readiness to engage in war. 29 Though these divisions
were sharpened after 44 they were forming throughout the first century.
Discontent with Roman rule was simmering throughout this period, and
was heightened when the whole country was under Roman rule.
In his work, Jesus and the Zealots, S. G. F. Brandon outlines the various
stages in the rise of the Zealots which enabled them to become such a potent
force at the time of the Jewish revolt.30 After outlining the initial murmur-
ings and discontent against the census of A.D. 6 and the conflicts during
the prefecture of Pilate, Brandon finds that the years A.D. 39-40 represent
a crucial time in the hardening of attitudes in Palestine. In these years the
emperor Gaius (Caligula) decided to have the Jews publicly acknowledge
his divinity. To enforce the mad emperor's will Petronius arrived in Ptole-
mais with two legions. Though the timely death of the emperor prevented
the full realization of his plans, the Jews saw with full horror what Roman
rule could involve. Brandon finds that the rule of Agrippa I was nothing
more than a pause in the mounting crisis and that "after the death of
Agrippa I [A.D. 44], Jewish history seems to take on the guise of a Greek
tragedy as it moves inexorably to what appears to be the predestined catas-
trophe of A.D. 70." 31 Brandon finds that the activity of the Zealots was
spread throughout Palestine, but that many of them are from Galilee. Despite
this Galilee itself was not a center of ferment until after 44, since, as he notes :

26 ibid.
27
Steward Perowne, The Later Herods (London : Hodder and Stoughton, 1958) 68.
28 H. H. Rowley, "The Herodians of the Gospels," JTS 41 (1940), 14-27.
29 G. Allon, "The Attitude of the Pharisees Toward Roman Rule and the Herodian
Dynasty," Zion III (1935) 300-322.
30
Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: University Press, 1967).
si Ibid., 99.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 47

The long reign of Herod Antipas had afforded the Jews of Galilee immunity
from direct subjection to Rome which was the fate of their compatriots in Judea.
Whether they appreciated this aspect of Herod's rule is doubtful, but they would
have been fully aware of what Roman rule meant from events in Judea in which
they apparently became sometimes personally involved.32
Therefore in evaluating any segment of Jewish society vis-à-vis the
Romans, certain distinctions must be kept in mind. The first distinction is
geographical : Galilee, Judea, and all of Palestine must be considered in its
own peculiarity. Related to this geographical distinction is a temporal one.
Events must be considered as to whether their setting is Judea, A.D. 6-44,
Galilee under the rule of Herod Antipas and Agrippa I during the same
period, or all of Palestine under Roman rule after A.D. 44. A third distinc-
tion involves the group which a certain attitude characterizes. We must ask
whether an attitude represents the Pharisees and which of the three groups
as outlined by Allon, or whether it represents a Zealot view, or a view of one
of the less radical parties, the Herodians or the Sadducees. Only when these
three sets of distinctions are kept in mind can an adequate answer be given
to the question as to whether the toll collectors of Antipas' Galilee during
the period of Jesus' ministry could be rejected as quislings.
Before concluding this survey of the historical data, we must mention
some indications of the roles played by Jews in the collection of taxes and
tolls. In general, the pursuit of economic positions which involved contact
with the Romans was not of itself scorned by the Jews. Krauss notes that
the office of agoranomos (market inspector), which appears in the rabbinical
literature as rab suq or ba'al has-sûq, was coveted by Jews and usually held
by respected members of the community.83 Such a position which involved
commercial transactions would demand frequent contact with the Romans.
Historical sources indicate that at different times and in different locales
Jews held the office of tax and toll collector. Under Ptolemaic rule in
Palestine the local synedria were responsible for the collection and payment
of the prescribed tribute, and the narration of Josephus about the Tobiad
Joseph indicates that indirect taxes were farmed out to Jewish tax farmers
in the early period.34 There is good evidence that in Egypt Jews were tax
collectors. Schwahn mentions ostraca with indications of Jews who served
in this capacity, and Tcherikover concludes from his study of the material :
Among the petty customs collectors were also a considerable number of Jews as
we learn from the ostraca of Upper Egypt . . . . Tax collectors were hated by
the Egyptian population as they were hated by the population everywhere else.35

32 Ibid., 83-84.
33
Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie (Hildersheim : Georg Olms, 21966) II, 372.
84 Antiquities 12,159-222; Michel, "Telones," 94.
35
V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews, trans. S. Appelbaum
48 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

In the N T period it seems that Jews worked both as tax collectors and
toll collectors. Regarding the direct taxes, Billerbeck writes :
The collection of the poll tax and the land tax was accomplished in imperial
times by civil officials under the responsibility of the procurators. Jewish officials
were used in the collection of taxes.36
Asher Gulack concludes from a study of the Talmudic material :
From the very fact that Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi passed this regulation concerning
the collection of taxes, we can deduce that taxes were collected in accordance
with the regulation of Jewish law. Either the tax collectors themselves were
Jews who observed the laws of Israel, or else the taxes were paid on behalf of
the whole community by the municipal administration of the wealthy people of
the place who in turn collected them from local citizens in accordance with the
laws of Israel.37
Thus it seems clear that Jews were engaged in the collection of direct taxes.
There is also strong evidence that Jews engaged in the system of tax farming
which prevailed for the indirect taxes. A primary source of this affirmation is,
of course, the Gospel tradition, where Matthew appears as a telones (Mt
10:3) and Zaccheus as an architelônês (Lk 19:2)—technical terms for func-
tionaries in the toll farming system. Josephus narrates that a certain John of
Caesarea, a telones, went with the chief civic officials to plead the Jewish
cause at the time of the trouble over the synagogue in Caesarea.38 Billerbeck
characterizes these telönai as "lesser officials who were usually from the
native population."39
We may now attempt a brief summary of the historical data. By the N T
period the classical publican system no longer existed in Palestine, so that
the telönai of the Gospels are not publicans. The direct taxes, at this time,
were under the supervision of the central authority, the prefect or the
tetrarch. In those sections under direct Roman control the tax collectors
would have been Roman officials or Jews in direct employ of the Romans.
In Galilee under Antipas the direct taxes were collected by Antipas' officials,
and the local synedria played a role in the collection. In both Judea and
Galilee the indirect taxes, the tolls and other imposts, were farmed out to

(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1959) 341. On the evidence from the
ostraca, cf. W. Schwahn, "Telönai" Paulys ReaUEncyclopaedie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, V a (1934) 422.
36
H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud
und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1922-1956) I, 377.
37
"The Method of Collecting Roman Taxes in Palestine," Magnes Anniversary
Volume (Jerusalem, 1938) 97-104. Translation is from the English summary, p. xxii.
33
Jewish War 2,287.
3
» Kommentar, I, 377.
1971] T A X COLLECTORS A N D SINNERS 49

individual lessees. This farming of taxes brought with it all the evils of
dishonesty and exorbitant tariffs inherent in such a system. Jews took an
active part in the whole taxation system. However, the stamp put on their
activity must be evaluated in light of where (Judea or Galilee) and when
(before or after A.D. 44) they were active.

II. Tax Collectors in the Rabbinical Literature

An attempt to evaluate the position and moral standing of the tax and
toll collectors in Jewish society must proceed from a study of the pertinent
sections of the rabbinical literature. The main areas of disagreement between
Perrin and Jeremías center on interpretation of the rabbinical material. In
our presentation we will concentrate on those sections mentioned by Perrin
in his Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. The point at issue is whether
the toll collectors had so alienated themselves from Jewish society that they
could be considered as " J e w s who had made themselves as Gentiles" and
quislings. The main texts to be discussed are Mishnah, Sanhédrin 3:3, Baba
Kamma 10:2, Tohoroth 7:6 and the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhédrin 25b.
Observations from other texts will be added where they enlighten the
problem.
We must mention initially a significant terminological distinction found
in the Jewish material. The difference of function between tax and toll
collectors is expressed by the use of different Hebrew words. Toll collector
is expressed by the word, môkês (pi. mokesln). This noun is not found in
the Bible, but its radicals appear in the word for religious tax or toll, mekes
(Num 31:28,37-41). In the bilingual tariff inscription from Palmyra, the
Aramaic mäkesär) (pi. mäkesayyä') corresponds to the Greek telones, in a
series of texts where the regulation of toll contracts is under discussion.40
We thus arrive at the equation toll collector—môkës—ho telones. In the
rabbinical literature môkës is used not only of the main contractor in the
toll farming system, but is extended to all who work for or with him. For
those who collect the direct taxes, the term gabbay (or gabba(t)y) is used.
Goldschmid has noted that the earliest usage of this term is for those who
administered the charitable dole, the gabba'ê fdäqäh, and was later applied
to those who collected taxes for the government.41 The significance of these
terms will emerge in the course of the discussion, where it will be shown that

40 Palmyrene tariff inscription, i,6,7; iia,46; iib,30; iib,48; iic,27. Cf. G. A. Cooke,
A Text Book of North Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903) 313-333.
In one instance mäkesöi') is translated as dëmosiônës, iiia, 9.
41
Leopold Goldschmid, "Les impôts et droits de douane en Judée sous les Romains/'
Revue des études juives, 34 (1897) 214.
50 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

the moral evaluation of the tax collectors is different from that of the toll
collectors, and that the telönai of the Gospels are toll collectors.
The first text to be discussed is from the Tohoroth, where, in the context
of a discussion of the various ways uncleanness can arise, we find the fol-
lowing statement :
If tax gatherers (gabbâ'îm) entered a house [all that is within it] becomes un-
clean; even if a Gentile was with them they may be believed if they say ("We
did not enter," but they may not be believed if they say) "We entered but we
touched naught." If thieves entered a house, only that part is unclean that was
trodden by the feet of the thieves.42
This text is important to Perrin's position, for he sees in the juxtaposition
of the defilement caused by the tax collector and the Gentile an indication
that the tax collector was considered a Jew who made himself a Gentile.43
First of all, it must be noted that since the text deals with "tax collectors"
and not toll collectors it is prima facie not clear evidence for an evaluation
of the telönai of the Gospels. Only the tax collectors had occasion to enter a
house in the performance of their duties. The toll collectors would have been
met at stationary locations.
Another reference to the uncleanness caused by tax collectors is in
Hagigah 3 :6 where the discussion centers on the uncleanness of things con-
nected with various offerings :
If tax collectors entered a house (so too, if thieves restored stolen vessels), they
may be deemed trustworthy if they say, "We have not touched."44
The Gemara on this section adds
Now we shall point to a contradiction : If tax collectors entered a house the whole
house is rendered unclean. There is no contradiction. In the one case a Gentile
was with them ; in the latter case no Gentile was with them.45
Thus it seems there was a discussion about how the entry of a tax collector
could cause uncleanness. The difficulty is resolved by the statement that it
was the presence of the Gentile with the tax collector which caused defile-
ment. Therefore it is not self evident that the mere entry of the tax collector
caused uncleanness.
Another text pertinent to the discussion of uncleanness associated with
tax collectors reads as follows :
All hangers are susceptible to uncleanness, excepting that of a householder's

42 Tohoroth 7:6.
43
Rediscovering, 94.
44 Danby, 215.
4δ References to the Talmud are from The Babylonian Talmud, I. Epstein, ed. (35
vols.; London: Soncino Press, 1935-1952). Hagigah, trans. I. Abrahams, 164.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 51

sifter or riddle. So R. Meir. But the Sages say : They are none of them suscep-
tible excepting the hanger of the sifter belonging to flour dealers, and the riddle
that belongs to threshing floors, and the hanger of a hand sickle and the hanger
of the exciseman's (hab-ballâsîn) staff, since they aid the implement at the time
of its use.46
Jeremías has noted that this is the only text where the toll collector is asso-
ciated directly with uncleanness, and he does this by poking around with his
stick in the packs of the travelers. 47 However, it is significant that the usual
term for toll collector (môkës) is not used here. The word translated as
"exciseman" (ballâsîn) comes from the root bis which means to inquire or
investigate and is a broad term used for police, commissioner, investigators
and toll collectors.48 Also the uncleanness is considered to attach itself to
the instrument the ballâsîn use in their work and not to the men themselves.
One of the more important texts for an evaluation of Jewish views on tax
and toll collectors comes from the tractate Sanhédrin. The Mishnah alludes
to those occupations which render a person unqualified to be a witness to
which the Gemara adds herdsmen, tax collectors (hag-gabbà'îm) and toll
collectors (ham-môkesîn) . 49 A later statement in the same section notes :
Tax collectors and toll collectors, "at first they thought that they collected no
more than the legally imposed taxes. But when it was seen that they over-
charged, they were disqualified."
A further opinion is added to the discussion where Rab Judah says :
A herdsman is in general ineligible (to be a witness), while a tax collector is in
general eligible.
This section of the Talmud then concludes with the story of the father of
Rabbi Zera who was a tax collector and who helped the people avoid the
heavy taxes when the district supervisor came to collect. The evaluation of
the various occupations thus proceeds in stages. At first, herdsmen, tax
collectors and toll collectors are lumped together. The reason seems to be
that they were all thought to be dishonest. The second stage seems to
exonerate the tax collector, and the final statement even admits that they
can be of some help to people. It is important here that the tax collector
(gabbäy) is exonerated, not the toll collector. Also, it is seen that being in
the employ of foreign rulers did not of itself disqualify a man.
46
Kelim, 15.4.
47
Jeremías, Correspondence cited, supra, n. 7.
48
The word is late and not found in biblical Hebrew, cf. J. Levy, Wörterbuch über
die Τalmuden und Midraschin (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21963)
I, 237.
49
Sanhédrin 3:3, b. Sanhédrin 25b, trans. Jacob Schachter (Soncino Edition)
148-149.
52 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

The next sections pertinent to the discussion are from Baba Kamma :
If one robbed aught and fed his children, or if he left it for them, they are
exempt from repayment. But if it were real estate, they must make restitution.
They must not change money from the public treasury [lit. from the treasury
of the publicans, mitt ébat ham-môkesîn\ nor from the exciseman's wallet (mikkts
sel hag-gàbbâ'îm) and they may not take alms from them, but one may take alms
from his (the tax gatherer's or exciseman's) house or in the market place.
If toll collectors (môkesm) took away his ass and gave him another ass, or if
robbers robbed him of his garments and gave him another garment, then this
belongs to him because the owners have despaired of regaining it.50
The general context of the discussion behind these texts is the restitution of
goods which are tainted because dishonesty was associated with their original
acquisition. The prohibition in the first text against changing money from
the wallets of tax and toll collectors indicates that this was considered to be
"dirty money" and the parallelism of toll collectors and robbers in the second
text confirms this view. Therefore this text is good evidence for the asso-
ciation of toll collectors and robbers, as Perrin has emphasized.51 Also, as
Windfuhr remarks, the injustice in this case clings to the money, not to the
person of the official.52
Thus far we have seen that the conjunction of both tax and toll collectors
with robbers is a frequent one. On the other hand, there is no conclusive
evidence that either group was regarded as Gentiles. In order to obtain a
more complete and ordered view of the evaluation of tax and toll collectors
we may summarize some of the conclusions of Leopold Goldschmid. In a
long article Goldschmid first summarizes the various taxes the Jews were
subject to during Roman rule. In the second part of the article he discusses
the persons engaged in the work of collecting the various direct and indirect
taxes. 53 The passage most important for a reconstruction of the evaluation
of tax and toll collectors, Goldschmid finds in the Talmud, tractate b. Beko-
roth, 31a:
Our Rabbis taught : At first the sages said : "If a haber became a tax collector
(gabbäOy), he is expelled from the order. If he withdrew, he is not received as a

δο Baba Kamma 10:1. The translation here is taken from Blackmann who is more
accurate than Danby here. Philip Blackmann, Mishnayoth (7 vols.; London: Mishnah
Press, 1951) IV, 76.
51
Rediscovering, 92.
52
Die Mischna: Text, Ueberseteung und ausführliche Erklärung, ed. G. Beer,
O. Holtzmann, and I. Rabin (Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1912 —). Baba Qamma, trans. W.
Windfuhr (1913) 79.
ß3 L. Goldschmid, "Impôts," 214-217.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 53

haber." They subsequently declared: "If he withdrew, he is regarded like any

other person."54
Goldschmid claims that this statement mirrors three distinct periods in the
composition of the Mishnah. The first (exclusion from the order) dates
from the early redaction of the Mishnah and comes from a period when
certain eminent men entered the service of the Romans. The hostile judg-
ments against them, and the equating of them with robbers dates from
this period. Later the idea is expressed that tax collectors work for the
good of the people. The statements discussed above from b. Sanhédrin 25b
date from this period. The third stage is the period when the principal abuses
of the tax system were removed and the gabbâ'îm were declared morally
irreproachable.
Goldschmid also notes that at no period was animosity against the
gabbâ'îm as great as against the môkesîn. The reason for this animosity is
the arbitrary quality of their imposts and the dishonesty which characterizes
their activity. Thus Goldschmid's researches support the conclusion that the
telönai, toll collectors, of the Gospels were not hated simply because they
were in the service of Rome. When service to Rome is under discussion
gabbâ'îm is used to characterize the officials. Unfortunately Goldschmid does
not specify the exact historical period to which his threefold periodization
corresponds, so it is difficult to correlate his periods with events in the NT
period. His work is important in showing that among the rabbis, the heirs
to the Pharisaic traditions, it was not mere association with a foreign oppres-
sor which made a work rejected, but rather the dishonesty which charac-
terized some of the Roman civil servants. It is safe to assume, then, that at
all periods there was a fluctuation of opinion on those who worked in consort
with the Romans, and it is the quality of this cooperation which tips the
balance, not the mere fact.
For the sake of clarity we may now attempt to summarize the evaluation
of tax and toll collectors as found in the rabbinical literature. There is a
series of statements where judgment on both the gabbâ'îm and the mokesin
is harsh. In these texts they are put on the same level as robbers. The judg-
ment on toll collectors, môkesîn, the telönai of the Gospels, remains harsh
throughout the Talmud. The evaluation of the gabbâ'îm is mitigated at many
points, and the harsh judgments against them, when found, vary between
criticism of their cooperation with Roman officials and their suspected dis-
honesty. When Roman rule was fair and the taxation system was controlled,
the judgment was not as harsh.
64
b. Bekoroth, trans. I. Miller and M. Simon (Soncino, 1948) 196.
54 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

III. The Gospel Tradition

The ultimate thrust of our discussion should be a complete study of the
Gospel tradition on toll collectors and sinners and of those sections which
give a view of the economic and social situation of Palestine at the time of
Jesus' ministry. The work of Perrin has shown that complex traditions
and theological motivations lie behind the Gospel picture of Jesus' association
with toll collectors. H. E. Tödt sees in the table-fellowship with toll collectors
an entrée to Jesus' authoritative preaching of the Kingdom of God.55 Such a
complete discussion is beyond the scope of the present study which is con-
ceived as a pre-condition to future work, so that we will limit our comments
to observations about the telönai from a philological, source critical and
form critical point of view.
The telönai of the Gospels are wrongly interpreted when the word is
translated either as "publican" or "tax collector." The literal Greek transla-
tion of the Latin publicanus is dëmosiônës, a word which does not appear in
the Gospels.56 Also, as has been noted, the classical publican system was abro-
gated in Palestine by the N T period. The translation "tax collector" is also in-
accurate, unless it is taken in the most general sense as referring to anyone
who had any role in the collection of taxes. If the distinction between direct
and indirect taxes is maintained, the term "tax collector" should be reserved
to those who collect the direct taxes imposed either by the Roman prefect
in Judea or the tetrarch in Galilee. The accurate translation of telones is toll
collector. It is significant in this regard that in the Gospels they appear only
at those commercial centers (Capernaum and Jericho) where the collection
of tolls would be expected. The word has a wide connotation. It can desig-
nate functionaries or employees at the toll center (telönion) as well as the
rich man who buys the right to collect the tolls. In New Testament times
the tolls were farmed out, but the mode was according to the Kleinpacht,
that is, individual contracts for a specific toll station or type of toll.57
The phrase, telönai kai hamartöloi, is found in three places in the Synoptic
Gospels : Mk 2:15 (par. Mt 9:10ff. ; Lk 5 :29ff.), a Marcan source ; Mt 11:19 ;
Lk 7:34, from Q ; and Lk 15 :2 as part of a Lucan introduction. Telones kai
ethnikos is found in close conjunction in Mt 5:46-47 (Q) and Mt 18:17
( M t ) . Matthew has a parallelism of telönai and pornai in the parable of the
two sons (Mt 21:28fi\), where the telönai and pornai are said to enter the
kingdom of heaven before the chief priests and elders (Mt 21:31). Luke
65
The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, trans. D. Barton (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1965) 306-312.
56
H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1925-1940) s.v., cf. Strabo, Geography 12,3,40; Pap. Oxyn. 44,8.
57 Rostovtzeff, "Staatspacht," 480.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 55

has a similar conjunction in the prayer of the Pharisee who says, "God, I
thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or
even like this toll collector" (Lk 18:11). 58 The word telones is never used
independently in Mk, and in Mt only to designate Matthew in the disciple
list (10:3). Luke uses the word absolutely, that is, not in conjunction with
another term, in those references to the telönai who came to be baptized by
John (3:12; 7:29), in the parable of the Pharisee and the toll collector
(18:10ff.), and in reference to Zaccheus, the architelônës (19:2). The word
is never found outside the Synoptic Gospels and, in them, only in the pre-
Jerusalem setting of Jesus' ministry, usually in the framework of controversy
stories. Thus from a source critical viewpoint, "toll collectors and sinners,"
is found as a set phrase in Mark and Q. The statement in Luke 15 :l-2,
Now the toll collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him ; and the
Pharisees and scribes murmured saying, "This man receives sinners and eats
with them/'
has all the earmarks of a summary since the Marcan and Q elements of
Jesus receiving toll collectors and eating with them and the objection of the
Pharisees are present in Luke. Thus we can say that the usage of telönai
kai hamartöloi as a set phrase characterizes Mark and Q. Elsewhere it
breaks down and the telönai are joined to other groups.
Since the area of concern in the present study is Jesus' fellowship with
toll collectors and sinners, and since the specific problem of the paper deals
with the question of whether the toll collectors are "as Gentile sinners" we
will limit our extended comments to the Marcan and Q sections where this
fellowship is portrayed, and to that section of Matthew where the telönai
and ethnikoi are in close connection. The aim of our treatment will be to
delimit the Sitz im Leben of the texts as a necessary condition to the con-
clusions we will make about the Gospel usage of telönai.
Mk 2:14-17
And as he passed on, he saw Levi, the son of Alpheus sitting at the toll station
(telönion), and he said to him, "Follow me," and he rose and followed him.
15
And as he sat at table in his house, many toll collectors (telönai) and sinners
were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed
him. ie And the scribes of the Pharisees when they saw that he was eating with
sinners and toll collectors said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with toll
collectors and sinners ?" 17And when Jesus heard it he said to them, "Those who
are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick ; I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners."
68
Translations are from the RSV which always translates telones as tax collector.
As the article shows, the proper translation is toll collector, which I have substituted
for the sake of clarity and emphasis.
56 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

This pericope is set geographically "beside the sea," most likely in the
region around Capernaum (2:1). The Gospel setting is within a series of
controversies where some action of Jesus occasions an objection. In 2:7 the
scribes object to his forgiving of sins; in 2:15 the scribes of the Pharisees,
to his acceptance of toll collectors. In 2:18 they object that he does not fast ;
in 2:24 the Pharisees object to the plucking of the grain; and in 3:6 the
opposition culminates in the statement that the Pharisees took counsel with
the Herodians on how to destroy Jesus. The exact location of 2:15 is ambigu-
ous. Mk reads en tç oikiq autou; Mt, simply en t§ oikiq (9:10) ; and Lk
(S :29) resolves the ambiguity by specifying that the feast was in the house
of Levi. The location of the incident is not unimportant for an understanding
of the pericope. Abrahams notes that the Pharisees would not take scandal
at eating with "sinners" if this could be done in one's own house where
the ritual prescriptions could be observed. Scandal would arise from eating
at the house of sinners.59 The ambiguity of location in Matthew especially
may indicate his concern to portray Jesus as sensitive to the demands of
the law.
Mk 2:14-17 does not really form a unity. The thrust of verses 13-14 is
one of calling and discipleship, as the command, akolouthei moi, followed
by the immediate response, kai anastas ëkolouthësen autç, indicates. Bult-
mann notes à propos of 2:14 that "the verse condenses into one symbolic
moment what was actually a process."60 Dibelius views the pericope as a
paradigm of the less pure type and notes two distinct emphases in it, the
calling and the feast.61 He views 2:15, 16a as an added background and
says that "Mark supposes a meal and weaves it into a paradigmatic remark
which the followers of Jesus would have accepted."62 Bultmann characterizes
the whole incident as an apophthegm in which 15 and 16 is a story designed
from the unattached saying of 17.63 The joining of 15-16 comes about from
the fact that the kalein of 17 can be seen as an invitation to table-fellowship
which was greatly prized in the early community.64 The pericope is thus
very complex, involving elements of a controversy story and integrating a
call to discipleship within the context of table-fellowship as a manifestation
of Jesus' call to sinners. Thus we can affirm that the fellowship with telönai

ß» Studies, I, 56.
6° History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (New York: Harper and
Row, 1963) 57.
ei From Tradition to Gospel, trans. B. Wolf (New York : Charles Scribners, n.d.)
47-48.
es Ibid., 64 η. 1.
63 History of the Synoptic Tradition, 18.
«4 Ibid., 163.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 57

kai hamartöloi belongs to an early stage of the tradition, and also from the
the Marcan context we can see that it is intimately connected with the
Marcan presentation of the ministry of Jesus.
Mt 11:19
The Q usage of telönai kai hamartöloi is found in Mt 11:19 (Lk 7:34)
where Jesus is pictured as quoting an objection to his activity in contrast
with the work of John. The section reads :
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "He has a demon";
19
the Son of Man came eating and drinking and they say, "Behold a glutton and
a drunkard, a friend of toll collectors and sinners."
Again as in Mk, the phrase is used in the framework of a controversy.
Although there is no explicit reference to "eating" with toll collectors and
sinners in the pericope, this is the substance of the charge against Jesus.65
Perrin argues for the authenticity of this passage stating that the "designa-
tion of Jesus as a 'glutton and drunkard' belongs to the polemics of the
controversies surrounding Jesus' earthly ministry," and that the precise
gravity of the charge is that Jesus ate with those Jews who had made them-
selves as Gentiles.66 As we have noted, in Galilee the basis of the controversy
would not be Jesus' table-followship with toll collectors construed as fellow-
ship with those who had made themselves as Gentiles, since in Galilee the
toll collectors were not in the employ of the Gentiles. However, if the contro-
versy mirrored a setting in Judea prior to A.D. 44 or a church concern
after 44, Jesus' fellowship with toll collectors could be interpreted as fellow-
ship with virtual traitors. The conjunction of Mk and Q on the controversies
evoked by Jesus' table-fellowship with toll collectors and sinners argues for
a very early tradition, but this tradition could have been modified in terms
of the situation the church found itself in first century Palestine.67

Mt 18:17
The significant piassage for the conjunction of toll collector and Gentile
comes from Mt's Gemeindeordnung of chapter 18.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church ; and if he refuses to listen
even to the church, let him be to you as a gentile and a toll collector (Mt 18:17).
Both Stendahl and Michel remark that the negative opinion of toll collectors
found here and in Mt 5:46-47 is striking in the context of Mt's Gospel. 68

6δ perrin, Rediscovering, 105-106.

66 Ibid., 120.
67 E. Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 21968) 110.
68 K. Stendahl, "Matthew," Peake's Commentary on the Bible (London: Thomas
Nelson and Sons, 1962) 789; Michel, "Telones? 104.
58 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

Bultmann views Mt 18:15-17 as a saying created independently by the

Church. In such a dominical saying "the Risen Lord speaks, the exalted
Lord addresses his Church." 69 Stendahl observes that this statement is
similar to the Qumrân Manual of Discipline (5:25-6:ll) and argues for an
early setting for the statement.70 Michel states that the saying "betrays an
expressed Jewish Christian view and is certainly of Palestinian origin." 71
With these opinions in mind, we may try to assign a historical setting to
the statement. As was seen, the equation of the telönai with Gentiles does
not fit in with a Galilean setting. It is more suited to a period or a place
where cooperation with the Romans in any form could be conceived as
cooperation with the Gentile oppressor. The exclusion of Mt 18:17 would
fit into any Palestinian setting after A.D. 44 or in a Jerusalem setting prior
to this date.

Lk 3:12-13
In contrast to the late setting suggested by Mt 18:17 the logion of Lk
3:12-13 suggests an early setting. At the same time it is good evidence
that the telönai were suspect of dishonesty. Within the composite pericope
containing the preaching of John (Lk 3:7-17) we find a catechetical section
where various groups question John with the familiar Lukan phrase, ti poiës-
ömen.72 In answer to the question of the telönai (3:12) John urges them,
"Collect no more than is appointed (diatetagmenon) you." The answers of
John in this section are adapted to the particular moral failing tempting the
questioner; in vs. 11 to the selfishness of the crowds, and in vs. 14 to the
misuse of power by the soldiers. In the answer to the toll collectors (3:13)
we see that the moral weakness they were prone to was dishonesty, or to the
collection of tolls beyond the declared amount. Not only does this text sup-
port the charge of dishonesty against the toll collectors, but it suggests that
the telönai are here minor functionaries in the toll farming system, rather
than prime contractors. The word diatassö (3:13) is used often in the Lucan
writings for orders a subordinate follows in performing some assigned duty
and conveys the subordinate quality of the telönai of this pericope.73 The

69 History of the Synoptic Tradition, 147.

70 "Matthew," 789.
71 "Telones," 104, η. 147.
72 Verses 7-9, 16b-17 are from Q; 15-16a are from Mark; 10-14 may be tradition or
Lucan composition. Bultmann calls 10-14 catechetical and says it is a Christian con­
struction, HST 145-147. The Lucan ti oun poiësômen is found in a conversion pattern
here and in 16:4 (sg.) ; 18:18 (part), Acts 2:37; 16:30 (inf.) 22:10, cf. H. Conzel-
mann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. G. Buswell (New York: Harper and Row,
1960) 102.
73 Cf. Lk 3:13; 8:55; 17:9,10; Acts 18:2; 23:31.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 59

saying of John in 3:13 fits in with a Galilean setting to the ministry of Jesus,
and supports the notion that the telönai met by Jesus in the course of his
ministry were suspect of dishonesty.

IV· Conclusion

At this point it may be helpful to pull together some of the data from the
first two parts of our presentation in order to see what light they throw on
the Gospel material. As was noted, the precise point of dispute between
Perrin and Jeremías is whether the telönai are sinners because they are
"Jews who made themselves as Gentiles" or because they are engaged in a
dishonest occupation, and whether Jesus' association with them would be
tantamount to treason. Our investigation of the historical data has shown
that the taxation system was different in different places at diverse periods.
Judea from A.D. 6 until the rebellion of 66-70 was under direct Roman rule ;
except for a brief interlude from A.D. 41-44, Galilee was relatively immune
from the oppression of Roman rule, being under the Herodian family until
44. Also it should be noted that the classical "publican" system was not
operative in any part of Palestine during the NT period. In Judea the collec-
tion of direct taxes was under the control of the prefect. The indirect taxes
and tolls were also under his control, but were farmed out to toll collectors
who could be Jewish citizens. In Galilee the collection of direct taxes was
under Antipas or Agrippa, and the local synedria had a hand in the collec-
tion. The indirect taxes were farmed out. The telönai of the Gospels are
either toll farmers or men who work in the employ of the toll farmers. Since
Galilee was independent of direct Roman control until 44, the taxes or tolls
could not be construed as direct support of the Romans.
Our examination of the evaluation of toll collectors and tax collectors in
the Talmud has shown that the toll collectors were not considered to be
ritually defiled because of their contact with Gentiles, but were scorned
because of their dishonesty, and that the judgment on them remains harsh
throughout the Talmud. The judgments on the tax collectors are also harsh,
but they fluctuate throughout the Talmud. At times the severity of the
judgment is based on their real or supposed dishonesty, and at times on
their cooperation with the Romans. However, in those periods and places
where a modus vivendi was reached with the Romans this latter reason was
not in force. Since the telönai of the Gospels are the toll collectors of the
Jewish material, and since these are always scorned because of their dis-
honesty, Jesus' association with them would be seen as association with
dishonest people.
Analysis of the Gospel material indicates that fellowship with toll col-
60 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY [Vol. 33

lectors and sinners belongs to the earliest strata of the Gospel tradition.
Though we may be dealing with historical reminiscences of the ministry of
Jesus, it is not certain that we are dealing with historical representations.
Analysis of Mk 2:15ff. suggests that the narrative was formed in the setting
of the Palestinian church, and the work done on Mt 18:17 indicates that in
certain circles the telönai were considered as Gentiles. Though during the
historical ministry of Jesus his association with the toll collectors would not
be seen as association with those who made themselves as Gentiles, there
are periods in the formation of the Gospel tradition when not only tax
collectors, but the toll collectors as well, would have been associated with
Roman oppression. Not only are the temporal periods significant, but as
Allon has pointed out, the quality and quantity of opposition would be
different according to which Pharisaic school is represented in the contro-
versy dialogue.74
Therefore, the view of Jeremías that the toll collectors of the Gospels
cannot be seen as "Jews who made themselves as Gentiles" is valid when
applied to the historical ministry of Jesus in Galilee where the principal
reason for the scandal of Jesus would be his association with dishonest
people. However, the ambiguity of the Jewish material regarding the
evaluation of the tax collectors (gabbâ'îm) indicates that at times those in
the service of Rome were repudiated by their people. During the formative
period of the Gospel tradition and amid the chaos of first century Palestine,
distinctions which were valid when applied to a short space of time in Galilee
could well be lost sight of. It is quite possible that in Jerusalem which was
not only the center of Roman opposition, but also longest under Roman rule,
and in those circles which leaned toward a Zealot position, among whom
were certain Pharisees, fellowship with toll collectors would be construed
as a charge tantamount to treason. Therefore, Perrin's suggestion that
Jesus' fellowship with toll collectors is a motive behind the mortal opposition
to Jesus could be true of a period or place where the distinctions valid in
Galilee were not in force. The period could be from A.D. 6 to 44 and the
place would be Jerusalem where the distinction between tax and toll col-
lectors would not have the same force as in Galilee since all income went
into the Roman coffers. Circles in Jerusalem would interpret Jesus' fellow-
ship with toll collectors in terms of what this would mean in their own
experience, so that in such a setting fellowship with those scorned in Galilee
because of their real or suspected dishonesty could be construed as fellowship
with those in the service of Rome. Perrin's suggestion would also explain

74 Supra n. 29.
1971] TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS 61

certain tendencies at work in the formation of the Gospel tradition especially

in the period after A.D. 44 when the church would have to defend its own
table-fellowship with toll collectors against the charge of association with
representatives of the growing Roman oppression.
JOHN R. DONAHUE, S.J.
Divinity School, University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.