Money and Images

[Ulan]

I know we already had some long topics about the meaning of the "Render unto Caesar..." episode and whether we had denarii at that time or not. We also had a few elaborations (by Kunigunde and others) about the point that money was seen as something bad in the NT stories (Cleansing of the Temple, silver coins as payment for Judas), and these three money stories are directly connected to the temple.

Now, we have several instances of revolts that originated from imagery in the temple, be it statues (of Jupiter or an Emperor), legion standards (eagles or other animals), or the eagle above the grand entrance to the Herodian temple. The Romans usually relented and removed those images, and also the Herodian eagle got pulled down. And yet, directly within the temple, there was this big vault full of coins that bore the image of a pagan deity on one side (Melqart/Baal) and the graven image of an eagle on the other side, plus the inscription "of Tyre the holy and city of refuge".

This was okay, because it was ruled that the proper weight and silver content of the temple tax trumped the prohibition of images, but I wonder whether this was not a the center of some of the disagreements in the NT texts. Also, the "Render unto Caesar..." story would get another twist if it had been originally about the temple tax. Just imagine it read "Render unto Melqart..." In Greek, this would be "Render unto Herakles...", because that's the equivalent Greek deity. However, I'm not sure whether that would be an obvious connection to every reader, which may be a reason to change the story. Of course, this specific wording may have been introduced after the change.

I'm sure that I cannot be the first one to think about this, and I may have overlooked similar arguments in some of the threads on this board. Does anyone know any literature regarding this?

[outhouse]

I think you need to separate the two studies.

One you can address Melqart and why.

Then you can address the later textual tradition regarding render.



As far as Melqart, this was Romes money, and for silver purity reasons as you know remained the required temple currency. We should assume pious Jews would have a problem with this pagan god image in what was considered gods own house. This has possibility of what was behind the temple cleansing according to many scholars.


Render has deeper Implications. You had authors separating themselves from rebellious Jews, not wanting to be identified as trouble makers. These authors wanted Rome to leave them alone. So I see them as hiding and downplaying the original historicity of the original movement being behind zealot based tax hating oppressed Jews overthrowing the temple.

[Ulan]

I think you need to separate the two studies. One you can address Melqart and why. Then you can address the later textual tradition regarding render.

Well, I know that this is usually done, and I have taken part in these discussions, and I'm quite aware of the different explanations for these aspects. However, the tale with the Roman tax has a few difficulties, which is why there are so many different explanations offered.

As far as Melqart, this was Romes money, and for silver purity reasons as you know remained the required temple currency. We should assume pious Jews would have a problem with this pagan god image in what was considered gods own house. This has possibility of what was behind the temple cleansing according to many scholars.

Well, yes in part. The actual minting of those coins in Tyre had stopped already sometime around 19 BC, so it was the specific wish of the Jewish priesthood that this coin was still minted, for temple purposes only. Rome's money in one way, but money only for the temple, on order by the temple. Was this actually one of the reasons why the legitimacy of the temple was questioned? I usually hear different explanations.

Render has deeper Implications. You had authors separating themselves from rebellious Jews, not wanting to be identified as trouble makers. These authors wanted Rome to leave them alone. So I see them as hiding and downplaying the original historicity of the original movement being behind zealot based tax hating oppressed Jews overthrowing the temple.

Yes, even if I prefer the "Jesus avoided answering the question" solution. However, as this story plays inside of the temple, and a coin is shown in the temple, where only shekels were allowed, I wonder whether this was part of the whole "the temple is illegitimate" plot. And this part would also work with the head of Melqart on the coin. It would work better with the head of Melqart. Therefore this thread.

[outhouse]

Was this actually one of the reasons why the legitimacy of the temple was questioned?

I view the temple as the extreme end of the separation between, Hellenist such as Herods and Hellenistic Proselytes perverting Judaism, verse the oppressed Jewish residents of Israel.


The temple was the treasury, and it was Romes cash cow and they had a sword overs its head ready to fall at any moments notice, like the cash flow slowing down.


Pilates and Caiaphas life was on he line to keep peace and keep the money flowing.

Knowing Pilate raped the treasury, is one thing, but turning temple Judaism into an exclusive rich only center of worship, which for the most part meant only Hellenist for the most part were all that could afford to enter.


Combine that with the general taxes collected there on everything besides the tithes, and then the yearly taxes being collected there, I don't see how any pious Israelite Jew could smile in the direction of the temple.


Even if some peasants could afford it, it was not cheap to get in there.

[outhouse]

This is also the origin of the Woes of he Pharisees by my best accounts.

[Ulan]

Even if some peasants could afford it, it was not cheap to get in there.

Yup. What struck me as particularly weird is that the money changing fee was even applied if two persons paid with a whole shekel. When the temple tax was finally converted to the Fiscus Judaicus, things got even more expensive, as now women and slaves also had to pay up, and there was no voluntary element to it anymore. Sticking to the Jewish faith became expensive now, probably prohibitively expensive for people who were not well off. This money issue furthered the separation between Christianity and Judaism, after Christians didn't have to pay the tax anymore after 96 AD. I guess this also favored Jewish conversion to Christianity. By the way, if you consider Christianity mostly of Hellenist origin, this may even push texts back into a more Jewish direction, if people just converted to avoid the tax but tried to stick more closely to their former beliefs.

Anyway, going back to the "Render..." passage, the anachronistic denarius may well have been a sign that the story was converted similarly to the temple tax being converted to the Fiscus Judaicus.

This is also the origin of the Woes of he Pharisees by my best accounts.

I'm not sure what exactly you refer to here. While many people like to think of Sadducees running the temple, they could not really work without approval from Pharisees, given the size of the fraction. Was there some outspoken criticism of the practice to use Tyrian shekels?

[Secret Alias]

I think the issue of imagery on coins cones up in numismatic studies early in the reign(s) of Agrippa(s). The early coins bearing the name have anchors and prutah and then they get more ornate under Claudius, Nero. Tyche appears and other gods too. Imagery in the palace of Agrippa becomes an issue in Vita

[Ulan]

I guess you mean coins in general? The imagery on the Tyrian shekel was unchanged from 126 BC till 56 AD (apart minor changes due to stamp replacements) and only replaced during the Jewish Revolt in 66 AD (by utilizing Tyrian shekels from the temple treasure).

The Hasmoneans never seemed to have issued any silver coinage, only the bronze prutahs you mentioned (plus some large bronze coins in a very short time period).

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Does anyone know any literature regarding this?

Maybe
Richardson, Peter. Why turn the tables? Jesus' protest in the Temple precincts.
Wiliam R. Domeris . The 'enigma of Jesus'' temple intervention: Four essential keys

Peter Richardson and the imagery of the Tyrian Shekel
Richardson’s original contribution, like that of Evans, was in the form of a paper presented at the North American Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) congress (Richardson 1992). The paper was subsequently republished as a chapter in an edited collection of his work (Richardson 2004). Richardson begins with an incident in the temple, which happened in 4 CE, where the students of two Pharisaic teachers attempted to remove the Roman eagle at the entrance to the Temple (2004:241–242). With reference to the Tyrian shekel, he describes its idolatrous imagery and takes note of its high silver content and compares the coin with the coins minted during the Jewish Revolt (66–70 CE), with their more orthodox images (2004:247).

[Ulan]

Thank you very much, Kunigunde. Those links were spot-on! They even shed light on the "woes" that outhouse mentioned.

The thesis I brought up here seems to have first been presented in 2004 (that's quite late) and found only few supporters. Most NT scholars seem to object to it due to the point that Mark never mentions idolatry during the "cleansing" episode. Then again, if we consider the use of subtext in all of gMark, the "den of robbers" quote (Jeremiah 7:11) has a clear connection to Baal worship:

8 “Behold, you are trusting in deceptive words to no avail. 9 Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal and walk after other gods that you have not known, 10 then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, ‘We are delivered!’—that you may do all these abominations? 11 Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,” declares the Lord.

Domeris even makes the connection to the "Render..." scene:

I suggest that there are good reasons to connect Jesus’ overturning of the tables and the imagery on the coins with the general plot of Mark’s Gospel. Following closely on Jesus’ intervention in the temple, comes a debate about coins (Mk 12:13–17). With regard to the Roman denarii, Jesus asked ‘Whose image is this?’ and received the expected answer, ‘Caesar’s’. Jesus may well have done the same with the Tyrian shekel, with embarrassing results for the high-priestly aristocracy as hypothetically they answered ‘Baal’. By locating the debate around Caesar’s image close to the temple cleansing, Mark has maintained a sense of the irony in Jesus’ question – ‘Whose image is this?’ (Mk 12:16.)

He goes one step further, by also connecting the transfiguration scene to this.

All in all, I can conclude that the suggestion in the OP has been mostly rejected by scholars because there is no explicit mention of Baal or idolatry, and that most scholars don't like the "subtext" idea with regard to gMark, which seems to be a rather obvious to me and others on this board (like you or Joe). It's also interesting that the article claims that most objections to the coin issue have no source for their point of view.