"Tribute Penny" Scholarship?

[Gavin Richardson]

I have enjoyed reading various theories on the so-called Tribute Penny of Mark 12:15--opinions ranging from “It’s a denarius of Tiberius” to “a denarius of Augustus” to “an eastern drachm/tetradrachm,” along with opinions that the gospel writers are projecting coinage references at the time of their writing, and that depicted events are to be taken simply as didactic lessons, so looking for a specific coin is a fool’s errand. I can see value in many of these positions.

I would like to read more scholarship on the Tribute Penny. I have David Hendin‘s book, which briefly discusses it, as well as a Celator article by Walter Holt and Rev Peter Dunstan, as well as Holt’s takedown of Peter Lewis’s suggestions: http://the-ans.com/Tribute%20Penny%20Lewis%20Deconstruction%201601.pdf

I've seen references to this coin throughout this forum, but surprisingly not a dedicated thread, unless I'm missing something.

I would be grateful for any other bibliographical references dedicated to scholarship surrounding the Tribute Penny.

[Jay GT4]

Here's one with references:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Tribute penny

[expat]

https://web.archive.org/web/20111012091846/http://coin-newbies.com/articles/caesars.html

https://books.google.es/books?id=Qa3Rj6rnjOIC&pg=PA19&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Ursus]

There is a (very short) monograph/booklet by Robert M. Row: The Tribute Penny. A Guide to the Pontif Maxim Aureus-Denarius Issue of Tiberius, AD 14-37. Austin, TX: Acres Press 2013. I had a look at it some years ago and thought of it as sound back then, but I currently don't have access to the book.

The collection of some 150 tribute pennies that Row's study relied on was given to Stanford University and digitized by their library team. It can be explored here: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/10415356.

 

[Broucheion]

Hi All,

Harvey Shore in the Jan 1996 issue of The Celator makes the argument that this type is the real Tribute Penny of the King James' Bible. I'm not sure if the PDF is still available online at Forvm on on the Archive.org.

Shore concludes:
"This is convincing, but not conclusive [ie, his arguments]. One swallow doesn't make a summer. Yet I found no contrary evidence, and so (on the balance of probabilities) it seems highly likely to me that the title of the Tribute Penny should these days be reassigned to the denarius of Augustus bearing the two Caesars on its reverse (Cohen 43, RIC 350, 8MC 519)." (Image below from the article).

I don't collect Roman coins so I can offer no opinion of my own. I'm just noting something interesting.

- Broucheion

Edited July 5, 2023 by Broucheion

[DLTcoins]

8 hours ago, Broucheion said:

Hi All,

Harvey Shore in the Jan 1996 issue of The Celator makes the argument that this type is the real Tribute Penny of the King James' Bible. I'm not sure if the PDF is still available online at Forvm on on the Archive.org.

Shore concludes:
"This is convincing, but not conclusive [ie, his arguments]. One swallow doesn't make a summer. Yet I found no contrary evidence, and so (on the balance of probabilities) it seems highly likely to me that the title of the Tribute Penny should these days be reassigned to the denarius of Augustus bearing the two Caesars on its reverse (Cohen 43, RIC 350, 8MC 519)." (Image below from the article).

I don't collect Roman coins so I can offer no opinion of my own. I'm just noting something interesting.

- Broucheion

The problem with the "Caesar" of the gospel account being Augustus, of course, is that Augustus was dead and no longer collecting "tribute" (κῆνσον, [poll] tax). The question asked of Jesus is "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?" (Mark 12:14-15, KJV). The "Caesar" inferred in context is the reigning Caesar, Tiberius. That said, I suspect the evangelist's wording belies a greater literary purpose, extending the question to the Caesar of his community's own day (Nero or Vespasian, most likely).

Edited July 6, 2023 by DLTcoins

[Gavin Richardson]

Thanks everybody for these posts. They are helpful in developing my thinking and my bibliography.

[John Conduitt]

It sounds odd to me that they called the emperor "Caesar". It would be like saying, "Who's that on the 50p? That's Windsor". Wouldn't they say, "Imperator Tiberius"? Caesar was just a family name at the time. Matthew apparently wrote the gospel in about 85, when Caesar was a title. So it seems the whole thing is written out of context with references that weren't contemporary. Any reference to a coin is therefore likely to be the same.

[Steppenfool]

36 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

It sounds odd to me that they called the emperor "Caesar". It would be like saying, "Who's that on the 50p? That's Windsor". Wouldn't they say, "Imperator Tiberius"? Caesar was just a family name at the time. Matthew apparently wrote the gospel in about 85, when Caesar was a title. So it seems the whole thing is written out of context with references that weren't contemporary. Any reference to a coin is therefore likely to be the same.

 

I'll try my best to give this one a bash.

The Tribute Penny story originates in Mark, written a bit earlier (around 70 A.D).

Caesar, was a family name yes, but a family name that belonged to all of the Julio Claudian dynasty, and people adopted by them and designated their Imperial successors. At the discontinuation of this dynasty. Galba adopted Caesar as a title, as did the Flavians who succeeded him. These facts essentially made "Caesar" synonymous with Emperor of Rome. 

Imperator was much more of a title, as people could receive more than one Imperial Acclamation, and this had its origin before the establishment of the Roman Empire, and non-emperors could also be hailed as Imperator. Another alternative, Augustus, is an adjective meaning venerable, hence in Greek was translated as Σεβαστός, their word for "venerable", meaning that this didn't have an exclusive connection with Imperial Power either.

It makes sense that they wouldn't name Tiberius directly in the gospel. As @DLTcoins pointed out, one of Mark's (we think) aims with this gospel is to domesticate Christianity to make it acceptable to Roman audiences, including Roman authority. Hence this anecdote about Jesus aims show that Jesus was amenable to the Roman Imperial state, rather than one particular Emperor. This was also to separate the Christian attitude from the attitude of certain influential Jewish groups. The latter's anti-Roman sentiment having caused the Jewish War and had brought about some persecution of Jews around the time Mark was writing his gospel.

All this considered, I think the use of the word Caesar, without specificity, seems appropriate.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Steppenfool

[John Conduitt]

6 minutes ago, Steppenfool said:

 

I'll try my best to give this one a bash.

The Tribute Penny story originates in Mark, written a bit earlier (around 70 A.D).

Caesar, was a family name yes, but a family name that belonged to all of the Julio Claudian dynasty, and people adopted by them and designated their Imperial successors. At the discontinuation of this dynasty. Galba adopted Caesar as a title, as did the Flavians who succeeded him. These facts essentially made "Caesar" synonymous with Emperor of Rome. 

Imperator was much more of a title, as people could receive more than one Imperial Acclamation, and this had its origin outside of the context of the Roman Empire, and non-emperors could also be hailed as Imperator. Another alternative, Augustus, is an adjective meaning venerable, hence in Greek was translated as Σεβαστός, their word for "venerable", meaning that this didn't have an exclusive connection with Imperial Power either.

It makes sense that they wouldn't name Tiberius directly in the gospel. As @DLTcoins pointed out, one of Mark's (we think) aims with this gospel is to domesticate Christianity to make it acceptable to Roman audiences, including Roman authority. Hence this anecdote about Jesus aims show that Jesus was amenable to the Roman Imperial state, rather than one particular Emperor. This was also to separate the Christian attitude from the attitude of certain influential Jewish groups. The latter's anti-Roman sentiment having caused the Jewish War and had brought about some persecution of Jews around the time Mark was writing his gospel.

All this considered, I think the use of the word Caesar, without specificity, seems appropriate.

Thank you. Yes it might be appropriate if your aim is to speak to a contemporary audience and tread a very thin line, but if the whole thing is written on that basis, it's not much of a historical record from which you could discern anything about the coins.

[Steppenfool]

19 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

Thank you. Yes it might be appropriate if your aim is to speak to a contemporary audience and tread a very thin line, but if the whole thing is written on that basis, it's not much of a historical record from which you could discern anything about the coins.

I absolutely agree. My opinion on the matter is that the event didn't happen. I believe that the historical Jesus was an eschatological Messianic figure whose teachings and actions would render him in opposition to the authority of the Roman state, hence his crucifixion. Whether he was directly anti-Roman, or ambivalent about them but waded into conflict with them due to Messianic activities, I am unsure.  Regardless, I consider it extremely unlikely that he opined a defence of militaristic pagan state that ruled Israel.

Since I think the event is fictitious, the task is instead to find what coin Mark envisaged, rather than the coin Jesus handled during his speech.

Mark conceptually envisages a silver denarius that had the image of the ruling Caesar on it, which at the time of Jesus would be Tiberius. So I do consider the Tiberius denarius to be the "real" tribute coin, but that's from transposing Mark's conceptual schema onto Jesus' own time, rather than considering which coin Jesus was most likely to have handled.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Steppenfool

[Heliodromus]

In the later empire it was certainly common to refer to the ruling emperor as "caesar", perhaps equivalent to us today referring to "the president" or "POTUS" in situations where it's the office that is more important rather than who happens to currently be occupying it.

Surely this is also the sense of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". It's referring to the jurisidiction of caesar rather than anyone in particular.

 

[John Conduitt]

6 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

In the later empire it was certainly common to refer to the ruling emperor as "caesar", perhaps equivalent to us today referring to "the president" or "POTUS" in situations where it's the office that is more important rather than who happens to currently be occupying it.

Surely this is also the sense of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". It's referring to the jurisidiction of caesar rather than anyone in particular.

 

Yes I think my point was that Caesar didn't mean that at the time of Jesus i.e. in the early empire. But I would go along with Steppenfool in that what we're trying to identify is the coin of Mark's imagination, not any coin Jesus would've seen. It's a parable rather than a historical record. Jesus could refer to Mr President and use a Morgan dollar, because it didn't happen.

[Heliodromus]

56 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

It's a parable rather than a historical record. Jesus could refer to Mr President and use a Morgan dollar, because it didn't happen.

I suppose that's likely - more the kind of issue that would be relevant at the time/stage the gospels were written.

 

 

[CPK]

7 hours ago, Steppenfool said:

I absolutely agree. My opinion on the matter is that the event didn't happen. I believe that the historical Jesus was an eschatological Messianic figure whose teachings and actions would render him in opposition to the authority of the Roman state, hence his crucifixion. Whether he was directly anti-Roman, or ambivalent about them but waded into conflict with them due to Messianic activities, I am unsure.  Regardless, I consider it extremely unlikely that he opined a defence of militaristic pagan state that ruled Israel.

Since I think the event is fictitious, the task is instead to find what coin Mark envisaged, rather than the coin Jesus handled during his speech.

Mark conceptually envisages a silver denarius that had the image of the ruling Caesar on it, which at the time of Jesus would be Tiberius. So I do consider the Tiberius denarius to be the "real" tribute coin, but that's from transposing Mark's conceptual schema onto Jesus' own time, rather than considering which coin Jesus was most likely to have handled.

Why couldn't it have happened as recorded in the gospels? It seems like a pretty straightforward historical account. And Jesus's response can hardly be construed as a defense of militaristic paganism! It was neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of the ruling state. As for whether or not he was anti-Roman, it's important to point out that the conflicts were between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, not the Romans - and in fact, he was publicly exonerated from the charge of sedition and treason by the Roman procurator himself, M. Pontius Pilatus.

I think it's possible that the "Tribute Penny" might have been a denarius of Augustus, but given the reading and the context, it seems more likely to me that the reference was to the current, then-reigning emperor.

I think we too easily underestimate the degree to which Roman coins, denarii in particular, circulated within the Empire. Judaea was a wealthy and important province, home not only to thousands of Roman soldiers but also, no doubt, to many other Roman government officials and citizens. The denarius was the official silver coin of reckoning at the time; and while the local coinage was of coursed used, it cannot be denied that denarii must have also circulated in large numbers. I would recommend Prof. Kenneth Harl's excellent book Coinage in the Roman Economy for those interested. It's a scholarly work but well-written and easy to read.

Edit to add: of course I must add my own "tribute penny" 🙂 

Edited July 6, 2023 by CPK

[Steppenfool]

11 hours ago, CPK said:

Why couldn't it have happened as recorded in the gospels? It seems like a pretty straightforward historical account. And Jesus's response can hardly be construed as a defense of militaristic paganism! It was neither an endorsement nor a condemnation of the ruling state. As for whether or not he was anti-Roman, it's important to point out that the conflicts were between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, not the Romans - and in fact, he was publicly exonerated from the charge of sedition and treason by the Roman procurator himself, M. Pontius Pilatus.

 

I am going to preface this reply with a disclaimer,  written after my reply was. It seems that yourself and I have a totally different method of interpreting the Gospel texts. Neither method is more correct or more noble than the other. It appears to me we disagree on fundamental issues surrounding the text (its purpose, reliability, integrity) that is inevitably going to lead us to contrasting views. I would wager that these fundamental issues are the source of all of our disagreements, so ironing out finer points would probably be to the benefit of no-one. I am not sure if you are a Christian. I am not, therefore I treat these documents like any other historical one, and that ultimately means I find reasons for being doubtful of what the Gospel authors say, as I would Suetonius or anyone else. I don't mean any disrespect with my critical interpretation of these texts.

With that said, here's my reply:

It would be unreasonable to say it is impossible that it happened. I was deliberately careful with my words to try and convey that I can't rule anything out completely.

I am not saying Jesus' words were a defence of militaristic paganism, but a defence of a state that is militaristic and pagan. The difference is subtle, but important. I think it's necessary to remember the context of pre-revolt Judaea, which Josephus tells us was brimming with anti-Roman and Messianic sentiment. This includes an episode were crowd gathers outside of Pilate's house for 5 days when he brought Imperial standards which had Tiberius' image on them, into Judaea. The crowd apparently were so enraged about this issue that they serious ignored threats of death.  Of course, the Jewish people were not monolithic, but the endorsing of paying Roman taxes (and apparently being unperturbed by the image of Tiberius, who is delcared Son of God on the coinage) was a legitimisation of this state and it's control over Israel. The gospels are littered with references to how hated and sinful taxes collectors are, probably for this very reason.

If the conflict was between Jesus and the Jewish leaders exclusively, why did the Roman's even bother getting involved? The gospel of John (18:14) contains a reference to what I believe to be the truth of the matter, hence why I stated above that I think it's possible Jesus accidentally waded into trouble with the Roman authorities. However, this is inevitable when the Messiah's role in Judaism was to liberate and rule over Israel and then the world.

John (18:14) Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people.

The Jewish High Priest appears to understand the turbulent situation in Judaea, and how Jesus' pronouncements were agitating the Romans, therefore he thinks it best to put Jesus out of the way rather than risking a violent clampdown. I struggle to reconcile Jesus' Messianic mission, as being conducive with Roman authority, hence they mocked him as "King of the Jews" on the cross. In my view, (Jesus, like the rest of us) doesn't exist outside of his context, which was an agitated province reluctantly under Roman control, which was prone to periods of acute instability with the raising of Messianic figures in opposition to the Roman state.

Ultimately, I don't believe the story of Pilate being unsure about executing Jesus. I don't see why he would care, especially if both the mob and the chief priests were urging his crucifixion. Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen, or of any station that had special privileges, and had just charged into Jersusalem and caused a ruckus at the head of a sizeable contingent of people. In my view, Pilate's only concern would be the execution causing even more trouble. Of course, our earliest Gospel Mark, has Pilate vacillating the least about executing Jesus, only asking what he has done. Again, I think this is Mark domesticate Jesus for a Roman audience, and to promote the separation of Judaism and Christianity and make them adversarial to each other. (often conflated by Romans). As I stated above, an especially important task in the lead up to the Jewish War and its aftermath. We can see how much Judaism and Christianity were still intertwined intertwined after the death of Jesus with Paul's conflict with Peter, which makes this stark demarcation by the author of Mark even more suspicious.

 

P.S - Your Tribute Penny example is very pleasing to the eye.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Steppenfool

[CPK]

On 7/7/2023 at 5:51 AM, Steppenfool said:

I am going to preface this reply with a disclaimer,  written after my reply was. It seems that yourself and I have a totally different method of interpreting the Gospel texts. Neither method is more correct or more noble than the other. It appears to me we disagree on fundamental issues surrounding the text (its purpose, reliability, integrity) that is inevitably going to lead us to contrasting views. I would wager that these fundamental issues are the source of all of our disagreements, so ironing out finer points would probably be to the benefit of no-one. I am not sure if you are a Christian. I am not, therefore I treat these documents like any other historical one, and that ultimately means I find reasons for being doubtful of what the Gospel authors say, as I would Suetonius or anyone else. I don't mean any disrespect with my critical interpretation of these texts.

With that said, here's my reply:

It would be unreasonable to say it is impossible that it happened. I was deliberately careful with my words to try and convey that I can't rule anything out completely.

I am not saying Jesus' words were a defence of militaristic paganism, but a defence of a state that is militaristic and pagan. The difference is subtle, but important. I think it's necessary to remember the context of pre-revolt Judaea, which Josephus tells us was brimming with anti-Roman and Messianic sentiment. This includes an episode were crowd gathers outside of Pilate's house for 5 days when he brought Imperial standards which had Tiberius' image on them, into Judaea. The crowd apparently were so enraged about this issue that they serious ignored threats of death.  Of course, the Jewish people were not monolithic, but the endorsing of paying Roman taxes (and apparently being unperturbed by the image of Tiberius, who is delcared Son of God on the coinage) was a legitimisation of this state and it's control over Israel. The gospels are littered with references to how hated and sinful taxes collectors are, probably for this very reason.

If the conflict was between Jesus and the Jewish leaders exclusively, why did the Roman's even bother getting involved? The gospel of John (18:14) contains a reference to what I believe to be the truth of the matter, hence why I stated above that I think it's possible Jesus accidentally waded into trouble with the Roman authorities. However, this is inevitable when the Messiah's role in Judaism was to liberate and rule over Israel and then the world.

John (18:14) Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people.

The Jewish High Priest appears to understand the turbulent situation in Judaea, and how Jesus' pronouncements were agitating the Romans, therefore he thinks it best to put Jesus out of the way rather than risking a violent clampdown. I struggle to reconcile Jesus' Messianic mission, as being conducive with Roman authority, hence they mocked him as "King of the Jews" on the cross. In my view, (Jesus, like the rest of us) doesn't exist outside of his context, which was an agitated province reluctantly under Roman control, which was prone to periods of acute instability with the raising of Messianic figures in opposition to the Roman state.

Ultimately, I don't believe the story of Pilate being unsure about executing Jesus. I don't see why he would care, especially if both the mob and the chief priests were urging his crucifixion. Jesus wasn't a Roman citizen, or of any station that had special privileges, and had just charged into Jersusalem and caused a ruckus at the head of a sizeable contingent of people. In my view, Pilate's only concern would be the execution causing even more trouble. Of course, our earliest Gospel Mark, has Pilate vacillating the least about executing Jesus, only asking what he has done. Again, I think this is Mark domesticate Jesus for a Roman audience, and to promote the separation of Judaism and Christianity and make them adversarial to each other. (often conflated by Romans). As I stated above, an especially important task in the lead up to the Jewish War and its aftermath. We can see how much Judaism and Christianity were still intertwined intertwined after the death of Jesus with Paul's conflict with Peter, which makes this stark demarcation by the author of Mark even more suspicious.

 

P.S - Your Tribute Penny example is very pleasing to the eye.

Thanks!

I do see what you are saying, but it's important to note that the gospel writers do not portray Jesus as a Messianic figure who would liberate Judaea from the Romans - rather, they are at pains to stress that this was a fundamental misunderstanding that the Jews in general had about the Messiah. It's why there was so much conflict between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders - they did not accept his claims because he didn't fit their preconceived Messianic ideal. Again, you may or may not believe what the gospel writers say - but it's clear that this was their message.

With this in mind, I think the "Render unto Caesar" account makes sense contextually because according to the gospel writers themselves Jesus's mission was to liberate the people from their sins, not from Roman rule. His reply - non-partisan, almost indifferent - surely is appropriate given the context, and at least internally consistent.

Another interesting point you raise is that of Caesar's image and inscription on the coin. In response, I would point to the fact that although the Jews indeed were known for iconoclasm and their biblical injunction against images, they were (at least by the 1st century AD) curiously ambivalent about it. The Tyrian shekel was full of rank pagan imagery, yet it was the only acceptable coin for paying the Temple tax (due to its high purity). Furthermore, it's probably safe to say that many of the coins used and handled by the Jews in daily transactions featured some degree of pagan imagery. So I see no reason why Jesus or the Jewish leaders would have been particularly scandalized by the image and inscription of Caesar on the "penny".

As for the Romans getting involved, they didn't until the Jewish leaders created enough civil disturbance to make intervention necessary. Nowhere in the gospels, or elsewhere that I'm aware, is there any reference to Jesus agitating the Romans specifically, or the Romans responding until Pilate's trial. And to me Pilate's actions given in the gospel accounts fit with what little we know of him and his character - imperious and authoritarian, ignorant, indifferent, and insensitive to Jewish customs, and prone to somewhat rash decisions. Pilate's position as procurator required him to pay at least lip-service to the cause of justice; his pushback against the mob could easily have been his contrarian reaction to being pressured by them. Ultimately though he needed to avoid serious civil disturbance and, finding himself losing control of the situation, relented and let the mob have its way.

It's an interesting subject even if we don't see eye-to-eye on everything. I am a Christian, and so for me it's important to raise questions about biblical authenticity and engage in serious discussion and debate, though perhaps not on this Forum. 🙂 

And anyway I think we both agree that the Tiberius/Seated figure denarius is the most likely candidate for the real or imagined "Tribute Penny". 😉 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by CPK